Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Details
1 CRA No. 1570 of 2019 2025:CGHC:12856-DB NAFR ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.03.19 11:46:11 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1570 of 2019 Judgment reserved on : 11.03.2025 Judgment delivered on :18.03.2025 [Arising out of judgment dated 31.08.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.38/2018 by the Sessions Judge, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh] Rupsai Yadav S/o Baishakhu Ram Yadav, aged about 27 years, Resident of Village Bhatgaon Badepara, Police Station - Farasgaon District – Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant (In Jail) versus State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station House Farasgaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. For Appellant ... Respondent :- Mr. Ashok Varma and Mr. Gajendra Sahu, Lawyer appointed by Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee. Advocates/Panel For State-Respondent :- Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal C A V Judgment 2 CRA No. 1570 of 2019 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. Assail in the present criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the sole appellant-accused, is to the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment dated 31.08.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 38/2018 by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of ₹ 25,000/-; in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months. Prosecution story:- 2. During the intervening period from 6:00 pm on 17.02.2018 till 05:00 pm on 18.02.2018, at the forest of Bhatgaon village, Police Station Farasgaon District – Kondagaon Chhattisgarh, the appellant assaulted his wife Dineshwari Yadav by axe, by which she suffered grievous injuries and died and thereby committed the aforesaid offence. 3 CRA No. 1570 of 2019 3. It is further case of the prosecution that Baldev Yadav (PW-2), father of the deceased, reported the matter against the appellant herein to the police that the marriage of the appellant and his daughter (deceased) was solemnized prior one year to the date of offence. Further, 15 days’ prior to the incident, her daughter Dineshwari came to his house from the house of her husband-appellant and on 17.02.2018 at about 6:00 pm the appellant came to his house (PW-2) and took her daughter-deceased with himself on motorcycle. On the next day i.e. 18.02.2018 at about 5:00 pm, on phone call, Bhatgaon village Sarpanch Lachchhan Markam (PW-4) informed him (PW-2) about the death of his daughter- deceased, thereafter, he (PW-2) along with the other villagers went on the spot and saw the dead body of his daughter
Legal Reasoning
pursuant to which merg intimation and FIR were registered vide Exs.P/1 & P/13, respectively. Wheels of investigation started running and the appellant was arrested. Crime details form and spot map were prepared vide Exs.P/3 & P/10, respectively. Inquest proceedings (Ex.P/9) were conducted and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. As per postmortem report (Ex.P/22) proved by Dr. Jyotirmay 4 CRA No. 1570 of 2019 Prabhawali (PW-16), cause of death was asphyxia and excessive traumatic haemorrhage due to stragulation and head injury. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/5), axe and his clothes were seized vide Exs.P/6 & P/7, respectively. Other articles were also seized. Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis to FSL. As per FSL report (Ex.P/21) on the axe (article C), clothes of the appellant (articles D & E) and on the clothe of the deceased (article G) as well, human blood was found. As per query report (Ex.P/23) proved by Shailendra Kumar Bhoyar (PW-17) the injuries found over the body of the deceased could be caused by the axe which was seized pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant. 4. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant / accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 5. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offences, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents, whereas, the appellant in defence 5 CRA No. 1570 of 2019 has not examined any witness but exhibited 1 document. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record, pleaded innocence and false implication. 6. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Submission of the Parties:-
Legal Reasoning
7. Mr. Ashok Varma and Mr. Gajendra Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the offence in question. They would also submit that the finding with regard to the theory of last seen together recorded by the trial Court on the basis of statements of Lakhmi (PW-1), mother of the deceased, Baldev Yadav (PW-2), father of the deceased, 6 CRA No. 1570 of 2019 Maheshwari Yadav (PW-3), sister of the deceased, and Dinesh Kumar Yadav (PW-6), brother of the deceased, is not established at all as there is considerable time gap between when the appellant was seen along with the deceased and when the dead body of the deceased was found and even otherwise, as per the prosecution, the other two persons namely Harish and Charkai who came with the appellant to the house of PW-2 and allegedly taken the deceased, were not examined by the prosecution by which adverse interference has to be drawn against the prosecution. They would further submit that there is a considerable time gap in recording statement under Section 161 of the CrPC PW-6. They would further submit that the memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/5) and seizure (Exs.P/6 & 7) were made prior to the arrest of the appellant and hence, these are not duly admissible in evidence. Even, in the chemical examination (Ex.P/21) origin of blood was not found and only human blood was found. They would further submit that the case of the prosecution is based on the surmises and conjectures and no direct evindence has been brought on record by the prosecution against the appellant and in absence of 7 CRA No. 1570 of 2019 corroborative piece of evidence only on the basis of theory of last seen together, the appellant could not be convicted and, therefore, he is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt and the instant appeal deserves to be allowed. In support of their submissions, they would rely upon the decisions of Supreme Court as well as decisions of the High Courts i.e. R. Sreenivasa v. State of Karnataka 1 ; Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal & Ors. 2 ; Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. State of Maharashtra 3 ; Rupesh v. The State of Maharashtra 4 ; Pooja Bansal v. State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station Bairagarh District Bhopal 5 & Ramdayal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 6 . 8. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that prosecution has been able to bring home the offences beyond reasonable doubt. He would also submit that in presence of Lakhmi (PW-1), mother of the deceased, Baldev Yadav (PW-2), father of the deceased, and Maheshwari Yadav (PW-3), sister