Prakash @ Chhotu v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur

Judgment

1. Heard Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent/State. 2

2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.04.2025, passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 19 of 2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Sentence Section 302 of the Indian Rigorous imprisonment (for short, Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) ‘R.I.’) for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, 06 months R.I. more. Section 201 of the IPC R.I. for 04 years and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months R.I. more. Section 506 Part-2 of the R.I. for 06 months and fine of IPC Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 month R.I. more. All the sentences run concurrently.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.04.2020, between 2:30 to 3:00 p.m., the deceased, Sarita Yadav was murdered. Regarding the incident, her son, the complainant, Bisambhar Yadav (PW-1), reported that due to the COVID-19 lockdown, the shop where he worked as a clerk had been closed for many days. On 21.04.2020 at about 9:00 a.m., he had gone to the shop for cleaning, and after 3 finishing the cleaning, he returned home around 3:00 p.m. At that time, the appellant, Prakash @ Chhotu, who was living in the same house as a tenant, opened the door and went inside his room. When the complainant was heading towards the bathroom to wash his hands and face, his younger sister Ku. Karishma (PW-6) came out of the room crying and told him that when she had forbidden the tenant Prakash @ Chhotu from talking to her, he became enraged and, in front of her, strangulated their mother Savita Yadav to death with a rope. Thereafter, he lifted the deceased and laid her down in the verandah, covered her with a bed-sheet, and placed a heavy stone (lodha) near her head. In the verandah itself, the appellant also kicked and hit the deceased’s face. When Ku. Karishma (PW-6) tried to scream, the appellant threatened to kill her as well, due to which she could not raise an alarm. The appellant wiped off the blood in the room with a cloth and concealed the rope used for strangulation.

4. After receiving the above information from Ku. Karishma (PW-6), the complainant, Bishambhar Yadav (PW-1) removed the bed-sheet covering the deceased and saw that her tongue was protruding, blood was oozing from her nose and mouth, and there was a black mark on her neck along with scratches below it. The complainant then called Saraswati Sen (DW-1) to his house and showed her the body and the incident. Thereafter, from Saraswati Sen’s mobile phone, he informed his father about the occurrence. When his father arrived, the incident was explained to him. Local residents also gathered, and after some time, the Police reached the spot. Based on the report lodged by the 4

complainant, Bishambhar Yadav (PW-1) at his house, Dehati First Information Report (FIR) No. 0/2020 (Ex.P/2) was registered under Sections 302, 201 and 506 Part-II of the IPC. On his report, a Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex.P/1) was also registered vide Merg No. 0/20. The Investigating Officer, Mohsin Khan (PW-12), registered Merg No. 21/20 (Ex.P/27) and FIR No. 150/2020 (Ex.P/26) at Police Station Telibandha in connection with the said incident.

5. After registration of merg, notices (Ex.P/4) were issued to witnesses for conducting inquest proceedings, and the inquest panchnama (Ex.P/5) was prepared. Based on the opinion of panch witnesses, the statements of complainant and other witnesses, and circumstantial evidence, the Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector Divya Sharma (PW-11) submitted an application (Ex.P/15) for postmortem of the deceased. After postmortem, the postmortem report (Ex.P/29) was obtained. Constable No. 1145 Ashish Nag produced the preserved sealed articles given by the Doctor, which were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/17). At the spot, in the presence of witnesses Bishambhar Yadav (PW-1) and Hingraj Yadav (PW-2), a heavy stone with bloodstains, blood collected from the floor with cotton, plain cotton, broken pieces of glass bangles, bloodstains from the cemented floor of the bedroom, bloodstains on the gas cylinder and gas pipe, and the bloodstained bed-sheet were seized, sealed, and taken into custody vide seizure memos (Exs.P/6 & P/7). During investigation, after issuing notices (Ex.P/2) to witnesses, the memorandum statement (Ex.P/11) of appellant, Prakash @ Chhotu was recorded in the presence of Hingraj 5 Yadav (PW-2) and Ismail Khan (PW-4). On the basis of his memorandum, the clothes worn by him at the time of the incident, articles used in the crime, and bloodstains on his hands were seized vide seizure memos (Exs.P/12, P/13 & P/14). Photographs of the body, bed, bed-sheet, gas cylinder, etc. (Articles A-1, A-2 & A-3) were taken. For preparation of site map, a requisition (Ex.P/18) was sent to the Tehsildar, and the site map (Ex.P/8) prepared by the Patwari was obtained. The eyewitness Ku. Karishma alias Durga Yadav (PW-6) was produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class for recording her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. through an application (Ex.P/18A). Her statement was recorded (Ex.P/16). She was later issued notice for clarification (Ex.P/17A). Regarding the injuries to the deceased and the seized property, a requisition (Ex.P/28) was sent to the Department of Forensic Medicine, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Raipur, from which the query report (Ex.P/30) and photographs of sealed packets (Ex.P/31) were received. After obtaining the query report, Constable No. 1239 Manoj Verma seized the sealed packets of property from the hospital vide seizure memo (Ex.P/19).

6. The seized property was forwarded through the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur, to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for chemical examination vide application (Ex.P/20). Its receipt (Ex.P/21) was obtained, and after examination, the FSL Report (Ex.P/22) along with return receipt (Ex.P/23) was received.

7. The dead body of the deceased was forwarded for postmortem 6 examination to Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). The autopsy was conducted by Dr. Snigdha Jain Bansal (PW-13), who prepared the postmortem report, marked as Ex.P/29. Upon examination, Dr. Bansal opined that all the injuries and findings noted on the body of the deceased were ante-mortem in nature. According to her opinion, the cause of death was strangulation (compression of the neck) in conjunction with smothering (closure of the mouth and nose), along with the injury sustained on the head. She further opined that the death had occurred within 24 hours prior to the postmortem examination. The postmortem report prepared by Dr. Bansal is marked as Ex.P/29 and bears her signatures.

8. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the competent jurisdictional criminal Court. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and was subsequently transferred to the Court of the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipr (C.G.), for trial, hearing, and disposal in accordance with law.

9. The learned trial Court framed a charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 506 (Part-II) of the IPC. The trial thereafter commenced. The appellant pleaded not guilty, asserting false implication, and denied any involvement in the commission of the alleged offence.

10. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and 7 produced 31 documents, which were duly exhibited. The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence, nor did he produce any documentary evidence.

11. Upon conclusion of the trial and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned trial Court, by its impugned judgment dated 26.04.2025, convicted and sentenced the appellant as detailed in paragraph 02 of this judgment. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal, challenging the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned judgment.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant, with considerable emphasis, submitted that the conviction rests predominantly upon the testimony of Ku. Durga @ Karishma Yadav (PW-6), who is the daughter of the deceased and has been projected by the prosecution as an eyewitness to the incident. It was contended that being an interested witness, her evidence is fraught with inherent improbabilities, marred by material inconsistencies, and does not inspire the degree of confidence required of a witness whose sole testimony forms the foundation of conviction. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the conviction based solely or substantially upon such testimony is legally unsustainable, suffers from serious infirmities, and stands vitiated. It was further urged that the prosecution’s case, when examined in its entirety, is riddled with suspicion and falls short of the strict standard of proof indispensable for sustaining a conviction under the grave charge 8 of murder. On these premises, it was submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserve to be set aside, and the appellant is entitled to acquittal of all charges.

13. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. It was submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt by adducing cogent, credible, and convincing evidence. Learned State counsel contended that the material brought on record unmistakably connects the appellant with the commission of the offence, and that the testimony of Ku. Durga @ Karishma Yadav (PW-6) finds substantial corroboration from both medical and circumstantial evidence. It was urged that the learned trial Court, upon a due and proper appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence, has recorded well-reasoned findings culminating in the conviction and sentence of the appellant. In these circumstances, no interference is warranted with the judgment under challenge, and the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, carefully considered their rival submissions, and also perused the original record of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection.

15. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides, it is necessary to examine the evidence led by the prosecution in support of its case.

16. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the 9 learned trial Court was justified in holding that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature ?

17. The learned trial Court, while recording its findings, placed reliance on the testimony of Dr. Snigdha Jain Bansal (PW-13), who had conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased and prepared the report, marked as Ex.P/29. Dr. Bansal unequivocally opined that the cause of death was strangulation (compression of the neck) in conjunction with smothering (closure of the mouth and nose), coupled with the injury sustained on the head, and that the nature of death was homicidal. The finding of the learned trial Court in this regard stands firmly supported by the medical evidence on record and is neither perverse nor contrary to the material available. It is also significant to note that this finding has not been seriously assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the said conclusion and accordingly affirm it.

18. The next question that falls for consideration is whether the learned trial Court was justified in concluding that the appellant was the author of the crime, in light of the following circumstances: (i) The prosecution has successfully proved that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, as borne out from the postmortem report (Ex.P/29) prepared by Dr. Snigdha Jain Bansal (PW-13), who conducted the autopsy. (ii) According to the prosecution, the fact of the deceased’s death was within the knowledge of the appellant. However, in his examination under Section 10 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant failed to furnish any explanation with regard to this incriminating circumstance. In such a situation, the burden of offering a plausible explanation, which rested upon the appellant, has remained undischarged.

19. In the present case, the fact that the deceased met a homicidal death, caused by strangulation (compression of the neck) in conjunction with smothering (closure of the mouth and nose), coupled with the injury sustained on the head, has not been substantially disputed by the appellant. On the contrary, the homicidal nature of death stands conclusively established not only from the ocular testimony of Ku. Durga @ Karishma Yadav (PW-6), the daughter of the deceased and an eyewitness to the incident, but also from the medical evidence of Dr. Snigdha Jain Bansal (PW-13) and the postmortem report (Ex.P/29).

20. As regards the complicity of the appellant in the commission of the crime, his conviction rests substantially on the ocular testimony of Ku. Durga @ Karishma Yadav (PW-6), an eyewitness to the incident, whose evidence finds material corroboration in the medical testimony of Dr. Snigdha Jain Bansal (PW-13). Her deposition has remained consistent and free from material contradictions, and is found to be trustworthy. The same stands duly supported by the medical evidence and other circumstantial material brought on record.

21. Ku. Durga @ Karishma Yadav (PW-6), daughter of the deceased and an eyewitness, deposed that on 21.04.2020 at about 3:00 p.m., while she was lying on the sofa in her room, the appellant attempted to 11 talk to her. At that time, her mother (the deceased) forbade the appellant from conversing with her, whereupon the appellant Prakash, enraged, strangulated her mother with a rope, dragged her body to the verandah, covered it with a bed-sheet, and placed a heavy stone (lodha) near her head. She further stated that when she cried in an attempt to save her mother, the appellant pushed her down, threatened to kill her, and at the entrance of the house pressed her mother’s face with his feet. She noticed blood oozing from her mother’s mouth and her tongue protruding. At the time of the incident, only she, her mother, and the appellant were present in the house. Shortly thereafter, her elder brother Bisambhar (PW-1) returned home, and on his knocking, the appellant opened the door and went into his own room. She narrated the incident to her brother when he proceeded towards the bathroom. She also stated that the appellant wiped the blood near the sofa with a cloth and threw the rope used for strangulation towards the drain at the back. When her brother saw the deceased, he noticed black marks and scratches on her neck. Her brother then called neighbour Saraswati Sen (DW-1) to their house and informed their father Ganesh Yadav through Saraswati’s mobile phone. The witness also deposed that her mother had asked the appellant to vacate the rented premises and that although the appellant’s behaviour had initially been normal, he had later begun staring at her frequently. In cross-examination, she -6 denied the defence suggestions that her brother had returned home earlier in the day, that there had been a quarrel between her and her mother, or that she and her brother together killed the deceased and 12 falsely implicated the appellant. She further denied that they had destroyed evidence or concocted a false story with neighbour Saraswati.

22. Bisambhar Yadav (PW-1), who is son of the deceased deposed that, upon receiving information about the incident from his sister i.e. Ku. Durga @ Karishma Yadav (PW-6), he removed the sheet from the face of the deceased and noticed that the tongue of the deceased was protruding, blood was oozing from her nose, there were dark ligature marks on her neck and scratch marks as well. Thereafter, he went outside, made a call to his father from a neighbour’s mobile phone and informed him about the occurrence. Upon his father’s arrival at home, he apprised the neighbours of the incident and called the police. He further stated that he lodged the Dehati Marg Intimation (Ex.P/1). In cross-examination, the he stated that he had not witnessed the occurrence himself, nor had the deceased or any member of the family ever informed him that the appellant and Durga used to converse with each other. He admitted that whatever he had stated regarding the incident was on the basis of what his sister Durga had told him. He denied the suggestion that his sister did not have any injury marks. He also admitted that in the Dehati Marg Intimation (Ex.P/1), there is no mention that his sister had informed him about the incident. He further admitted that after he came out of the bathroom, his sister came to him and they conversed. He also admitted that when he returned home, the appellant had not absconded and was still present in the room of the house. 13

23. Ganesh Yadav (PW-5), on being suggested by the prosecution, admitted that the appellant used to converse with his daughter, Durga @ Karishma, and that his wife (the deceased) did not like the appellant conversing with Karishma. The deceased had asked the appellant to vacate the house on account of his habit of consuming intoxicating tablets and his conversations with Karishma. He further stated that upon reaching home, he inquired from Bisambhar and Karishma about the incident. He, however, expressed his inability to state whether, at the time when Bisambhar came home, his daughter Karishma had informed him about the incident or not.

24. Dr. Snigdha Jain Bansal (PW-13), who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased and submitted the report marked as Ex. P/29, opined that the cause of death was strangulation (compression of the neck) in conjunction with smothering (closure of the mouth and nose), along with the injury sustained on the head.

25. The Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector Divya Sharma (PW-11) deposed that during the course of investigation, she seized from the verandah of the deceased’s house a grinding stone stained with blood, as well as blood which had fallen on the floor, the same having been collected with the aid of cotton and duly sealed. She further stated that, in the presence of witnesses Bisambhar Yadav (PW-1) and Hingraj (PW-2), she seized broken pieces of bangles lying near the body of the deceased along with plain cotton, and prepared a seizure memo (Ex.P/6). She further deposed that from the bedroom of the deceased 14 she collected blood which had fallen on the floor with the aid of cotton, sealed it in a plastic container, and also wiped and sealed bloodstains found on the gas cylinder and on the pipe of the gas stove with cotton. She also seized the bloodstained bed-sheet along with plain cotton, and prepared a seizure memo (Ex.P/7). The witness further stated that, in the presence of witnesses Hingraj Yadav (PW-2) and Ismail Khan (PW- 4), she interrogated the appellant in relation to the incident and recorded his memorandum statement (Ex.P/11). On the basis of the said memorandum statement, and at the instance of the appellant, a jute rope with which the appellant had strangulated the deceased, and a white cotton cloth with which the appellant had wiped the blood of the deceased from the floor, both of which had been thrown by the appellant into a drain, were recovered with the aid of a bamboo stick, and the same were seized in the presence of the witnesses, for which a seizure memo (Ex.P/12) was prepared. She further stated that the shirt worn by the appellant at the time of the incident, which bore bloodstains on its right side, as well as the half-pant, which also bore bloodstains on its right side, were seized in the presence of witnesses, and a seizure memo (Ex.P/13) was prepared. She also deposed that in the presence of witnesses she wiped the bloodstains from the palms of the appellant with cotton, sealed the same, and prepared a seizure memo (Ex.P/14).

26. It is further relevant to note that the appellant’s T-shirt and half- pant were seized under seizure memo (Ex.P/13). The seizure witnesses, namely Hingraj Yadav (PW-2) and Ismail Khan (PW-4), supported the seizure proceedings and affirmed that the property was 15 seized in accordance with the seizure memo (Ex.P/13). The Investigating Officer thereafter forwarded the aforesaid T-shirt and half- pant of the appellant for forensic examination. As per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.P/22), blood was detected on the T- shirt (Article C) as well as on the half-pant (Article D). The appellant has failed to furnish any explanation as to how or in what manner the said blood came to be present on his clothes.

27. Upon careful consideration of the prosecution evidence, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, the absence of any explanation from the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and in particular the consistent and trustworthy testimony of Ku. Durga @ Karishma Yadav (PW-6), who unequivocally deposed that the appellant strangulated and smothered the deceased, this Court is satisfied that the appellant acted with the clear intention to cause death. The act of strangulating the deceased with a rope, pressing her face with his feet, coupled with the head injury sustained, unmistakably evinces a deliberate and conscious design to kill. In the absence of any credible defence, the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC, as recorded by the learned trial Court, warrants no interference and is accordingly affirmed.

28. Further, the testimony of PW-6 discloses that the appellant wiped the bloodstains from the floor with a cloth and threw the rope used for strangulation into the drain situated behind the house. These acts 16 clearly demonstrate his intention to cause the disappearance of evidence of the offence with a view to screening himself from legal punishment, thereby establishing the charge under Section 201 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, PW-6 has consistently deposed that when she cried in an attempt to save her mother, the appellant pushed her down and threatened to kill her. The threat, coupled with the immediate killing of her mother in her very presence, was of such gravity as to cause alarm and create a genuine apprehension of instant death. Such conduct squarely attracts the offence of criminal intimidation within the meaning of Section 506 Part II of the IPC, for which the conviction of the appellant is also justified.

29. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 201, and 506 Part II of the IPC stands affirmed.

30. For these reasons, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

31. The appellant, presently in judicial custody, shall continue to serve the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court.

32. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his sentence. The Superintendent shall serve the same upon the appellant and inform them that he is at liberty to challenge this judgment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, with the assistance of the High 17 Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, if so advised.

33. Let a certified copy of this judgment, along with the original record, be transmitted to the learned trial Court forthwith for information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan