8183-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 1288 of 201 9 v. • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: District Magistrate Raipur; District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:8183-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 1288 of 201 9 (Arising out of judgment dated 22.05.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.91/2018 by learned Sessions Judge, Raipur, CG) • Virendra Yadaw S/o Meghnath Yadaw; aged about 28 years; R/o Village Behind Kali Temple, Dumartarai; Police Station – Mana Camp, Raipur; District (Revenue & Civil) – Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant Versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: District Magistrate Raipur; District (Revenue & Civil) Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
which in our considered opinion is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding. 9. Now, the next question is, whether the appellant herein is the author of the crime? 10.The instant case is based upon the direct evidence of eyewitness namely Chandu Lal Dhiwar (PW-1), and other witnesses namely Smt. Mohini Dhiwar (PW-2) and Lalita Dhiwar (PW-3). Chandu Lal Dhiwar (PW-1) stated that when he was sitting on a platform of his house, at that time, the wife of the appellant entered his house shouting for help who was followed by the 7 appellant and the appellant assaulted his wife on the back side of her neck with the help of an axe, due to which she suffered grievous injury. The statement of PW-1 has been corroborated by Mohini Diwar (PW-2), wife of PW-1 and Lalita Dhiwar (PW-3), sister of PW-1 who were also present in the house at the time of the incident, who heard the voice of the deceased for help and saw the appellant having an axe in his hand and the deceased fainted down after the assault committed by the appellant using an axe. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of these witnesses. Furthermore, pursuant to the memorandum statement (Ex.P-15) of the appellant the weapon of offence i.e. axe has been recovered vide Ex.P-8 which was sent for chemical examination to FSL and in the FSL report (Ex.P-36) human blood was found on the axe (Article- G). As such, the finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellant has caused injury upon his wife (deceased), due to which she died is based on the evidence available on record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the appellant-accused is the author of the crime in question. 8 11.In that view of the matter, the trial Court has rightly held that it is the appellant who is the author of the crime and murdered his wife Rinki Yadav. Hence, the trial Court is justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and we do not find any good ground to interfere with the same. 12.Thus, the present criminal appeal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any. 14. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge H.L. Sahu
Arguments
: Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate/Panel Lawyer appointed by Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Service Committee. For Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer. (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.02.24 10:59:01 +0530 2 (17.02.2025) Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal , J. 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 22.05.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 91/2018, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of ₹1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused- appellant Virendra Yadaw used to live with his wife Rinki Yadav (now deceased) and other family members behind the old Kali temple, village Dumratarai, police station Mana Camp, Raipur. He used to quarrel with his wife Rinki Yadav (deceased) doubting her character. On the date of offence i.e. 04.12.2018, at about 6:30 pm, when the accused was in his house, he again had a quarrel with his wife Rinki Yadav and the accused took out an axe from his house and ran to assault his wife, 3 Rinki Yadav, then Rinki Yadav ran out of the house shouting 'save me, save me' and ran towards the street, the accused started chasing her with the axe. After that Rinki Yadav entered the house of Chandu Lal Dhiwar (PW-1) in the same locality to save her life, the accused also followed her to Chandu Lal's house and in the verandah of Chandu Lal's house, he attacked his wife Rinki Yadav with the axe, due to which Rinki Yadav fell down and started struggling. Other people also came there to follow them, Rinki Yadav, wife of the appellant fainted and was taken to the hospital by calling 108 ambulance, where she died. Narendra Yadaw (PW-10), brother-in-law of the deceased informed about the above incident at the police station Mana Camp, Raipur, on which Dehati Nalsi was registered vide Ex.P- 9. On the basis of the above information, Dehati Merg Intimation and Merg Intimation were registered vide Ex.P-10 & Ex.P-31 respectively. FIR was registered vide Ex.P32. Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P- 13 and the dead body of deceased was subjected to postmortem. As per postmortem report (Ex.P-37), proved by Dr. O.P. Tandon (PW-18), cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of incised 4 wound of neck. Memorandum statement of the accused-appellant was recorded vide Ex.P-15 pursuant to which seizure of weapon of offence i.e. axe was made vide Ex.P-8. Clothes of the deceased was also seized vide Ex.P-5. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL. In FSL report (Ex.P-36) human blood was found on the axe (article-G). After completion of investigation, appellant herein was charge-sheeted. 3. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 37 documents. The statement of the appellant/accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 4. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant / accused for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant 5 questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. He further submits that the statement of the said eyewitnesses is not reliable and other evidence does not support the case of the prosecution, as such the case against the appellant is not established by the prosecution, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of the principles of benefit of doubt. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel, supports the impugned judgment and submits that prosecution has been able to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence and therefore, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. The first & foremost question for consideration is 6 whether the death of deceased Rinki Yadav was homicidal in nature, which has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the postmortem report (Ex.P-37) proved by Dr. O.P. Tandon (PW-18), who has stated that the cause of death of the deceased was due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of incised wound of neck and the nature of death was homicidal which had happened within 24 hours of the autopsy,