CRA No. 98 of 2008. Case: Jamaluddin Vs State of Chhattisgarh. Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Number:CRA No. 98 of 2008
Party Name:Jamaluddin Vs State of Chhattisgarh
Counsel:For Appellant: Jitendra Gupta, Advocate and For Respondents: Ravindra Agrawal, Panel Lawyer
Judges:Pritinker Diwaker, Actg. C.J. and Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
Issue:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 313; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 201, 302
Judgement Date:February 28, 2017
Court:Chhattisgarh High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

Pritinker Diwaker, Actg. C.J.

  1. By this criminal appeal, the accused/appellant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.1.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Durg in ST. No. 215/06 by which he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo additional RI for 3 months.

  2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the accused/appellant with the help of deceased had pledged his television set with one Munnibai for Rs. 2,000/- and out of this amount, the deceased kept Rs. 500/- with him. It is case of the prosecution that when the appellant demanded back the said money from the deceased, he shown his inability to return it. It is further case of the prosecution that on the fateful day the accused/appellant stayed in the house of deceased and when the deceased fell asleep, he committed his murder by causing injuries on his head & face by the grinding stone lying in the house of the deceased. Raju Gautam (P.W.-1), Radheshyam (P.W.-4) & Firoz Ahmed (P.W.-15) are said to have seen the accused/appellant coming out from the house of deceased and that the accused/appellant also made extra judicial confession before Shanti Devi (P.W.-2), Smt. Sunita (P.W.-3) & Smt. Meena (P.W.-5). Merg Intimation (Ex. P-9) was recorded on 12.5.2006 at 10 p.m. at the instance of Parmatma (P.W.-8). Inquest (Ex. P-10) was prepared on 15.5.2006 on the body of deceased. Body was sent for post-mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. M.C. Mehnot (P.W.-14) on 15.5.2006 and he noticed following injuries:-

    • Lacerated wound on the forehead of 2" x 1/4" x 1/4"

    • Abrasion of 2 1/2 x 2"on the right side of skull.

    • Abrasion on the right eyebrow of 2" x 1". One Contusion near this injury of 1"x 3/4" in size.

    • Lacerated over right eyebrow of 1/4" x 1/6" x 1/6" in size.

    • Abrasion on nose of 1/2" x 1/2" in size

    • Lacerated wound over right eyebrow of 1/4" x 1/6" x 1/6" in size.

    • Lacerated wound over left temporal region of 1/4" x 1/6" x 1/6" in size.

    • Lacerated wound on mucosle aspect of 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" in size.

    • Lacerated wound on the inner side of lower lip of 1/4" x 1/6" x 1/6" in size.

    • Lacerated wound on the chin of 1/4" x 1/6" x 1/6" size.

    • Abrasion of 1/4" x 1/6" size over right forearm.

    • Abrasion over calf region of 1/4" x 1/6" size.

    • Fracture in right temporal bone and right orbit.

    The cause of death assigned by the doctor was shock & haemorrhage as a result of head injury. On 16.5.2006 a report was lodged by Shanti Devi (P.W.-2), mother of deceased, stating therein that on 16.5.2006 at about 5.00 p.m. in the evening the accused/appellant and his wife Saeeda had quarrelled with her and in that process, the accused/appellant said that he has committed murder of one person and now he would commit the murder of Rajkumar also i.e. another son of P.W.-2. On the basis of merg enquiry and report lodged by P.W.-2, FIR (Ex. P-24) was registered on 17.5.2005. In the course of investigation, the accused/appellant was interrogated and based on his disclosure statement (Ex. P-1), one grinding stone was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P-11. Hairs and nails of both the hands of accused/appellant were seized vide Ex. P-12. Bloodstained clothing of the accused were recovered vide seizure memo of Ex. P-18. Hairs lying on the spot were seized vide Ex. P-6. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory and as per report of FSL (Ex. P-27), Articles-E & F i.e. shirt & pant of accused, have been found to be stained with human blood, which has been subsequently affirmed by the Serologist vide report Ex. P-32. Hairs seized from the spot and hairs of the accused/appellant were sent for examination and as per report (Ex. P-31), both the hairs are of human and similar in morphology & microscopic character, but no definite opinion could be given about their origin from one and the same person.

  3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201 IPC was filed against the accused/appellant. However, the trial Court has framed the charge under Section 302 IPC only against the accused/appellant. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution has examined 24 witnesses in all. Statement of accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence & false implication. He examined one defence witness in support of his case.

  4. The trial Court after hearing the parties in the matter and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted & sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described above.

  5. Counsel for accused/appellant submits that;

    • it is not a case of direct evidence but the conviction of the appellant is entirely founded on circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is not such which leads to the hypotheses of guilt of the appellant only and therefore he is entitled to be acquitted.

    • Had the appellant made any extra-judicial confession before P.W.2, P.W.-3 & P.W.-5, or had P.W.-2 seen the appellant and the deceased together on the date of incident, name of appellant would have certainly been mentioned by her in the FIR, but nothing like this is there and therefore possibility of false implication of accused/appellant by them cannot be ruled out.

    • extra-judicial confession made by...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL