(A.K. Sikri and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
Rikhiram __________________________________________ Appellant
v.
State of Chhattisgarh ________________________________ Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2403 of 2014, decided on November 17, 2016
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The instant case is filed against the order of the Chhattisgarh High Court maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 342 and 454 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. The facts in brief involved in the instant appeal are that on 14.09.2006, at the instance of Ved Prakash (PW-1), son of Ghasnin Bai, Dehati Nalisi (Exhibit No. 1) was recorded at Police Station Pandri, District Raipur, alleging that on the date of incident when his father had gone to attend his duties in Electricity Department, his tenant Virendra Kumar Devagan (one of the accused), who was residing in another sided house of Ghasnin Bai (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), came and told his mother (the deceased) that some prospective tenants had come to contact her in respect of her different sided house and the deceased went along with him. It is alleged that 15 minutes thereafter, Virendra again came to him (PW-1) and demanded Rs. 50/- on credit and asked him to arrange money from his mother and took him to the nearby room wherein the said accused Virendra was then residing on rent. On reaching the said room, he saw his mother lying on a cot drenched with blood and there was an injury on her head. It is alleged that certain ornaments worn by his mother were missing and that along with said Virendra, one Dipak, accused Rikhiram and one other boy were also there who tied him (PW-1) with a Bench and after bolting the door from outside they left the spot. After some time, he somehow managed to set himself free and raised cries from the window. Thereafter, one boy Kaushal (PW-3) came there and took him out and when he went to his room, all the four persons had fled away from the spot. He found the almirah of his room open and Rs. 45,000/- were missing from it. It is thus alleged that accused persons have committed loot of the cash amount as well as the ornaments. He then called his neighbour Gangadhar (PW-6). Post mortem examination on the body of the deceased was conducted on 15.09.2006 by Dr. Shiv Narayan Manjhi (PW-12) who gave his report (Ex. P-6) opining the cause of death as shock due to hemorrhage as a result of head injury and that the death was homicidal in nature. Based on this Dehati Nalisi, offences under Sections 307 and 394 IPC were registered against accused Virendra Devagan, Dipak Devagan, Rikhiram Devagan and others. After death of the deceased, FIR (Ex. P-33) was registered against them. Memoranda of accused were recorded vide Ex.P-21 to P-23. Seizure from all the three accused was made vide Ex.P-25, P-26 and P-27 by which cash of Rs. 2000/- and silver anklets were seized. These articles were, however, not identified by anyone. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 23.11.2006 against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 307, 394, 302 and 396 IPC. Court below, however, framed the charges against them under Sections 147, 148, 395, 396, 450, 302, 342/149 IPC.
3. In support of its case, prosecution had examined 20 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charge levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case.
4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court held the appellant herein, co-accused Virendra and Sanjay guilty under Sections 302, 342, 354 IPC whereas acquitted accused Dipak, Shivcharan, Ramesh, Liladhar and Surendra of all the charges levelled against them.
5. Other convicted persons have accepted their conviction as they are not in appeal. However, convict Rikhiram, who is the appellant in this appeal, has questioned the validity and correctness of the judgment of the High Court on the ground that insofar as he is concerned, his case is at par with the cases of Sanjay (Accused No. 3) and Dipak Kumar (Accused No. 4) who have been acquitted by the Court below. It is also argued that in the absence of any charge under Section 148 and 149 IPC established against the appellant, the provisions of Section 302 IPC cannot be invoked in the absence of any role which is attributed to the appellant. To put it otherwise, his submission is that insofar as the appellant is concerned, even as per the prosecution, he had simply bolted the door of the room in which the body of the deceased was lying in an injured condition at that time and on the basis of this alone, it cannot be said that he has committed the murder of Ghasnin Bai and particularly when there is no eye-witness to the commission of crime.
6. The aforesaid argument may appear to be attractive, however, when this is examined along with the testimony of PW-1 the son of the deceased which is supported by PW-3 Kaushal Kumar, PW-4 Sunil and PW-6 Gangadhar, we find that the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below that the appellant Rikhiram along with Virendra had committed the murder of Ghasnin Bai is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
7. Without adverting to the said evidence in detail, it would be sufficient to reproduce the following discussion from the judgment of the High Court:
“10. Minute examination of the evidence makes it clear that on the date of incident accused Virendra entered the house of the deceased, took her to a nearby house on the pretext of showing it to the tenant and then committed her murder with the help of his associates. Evidence further makes it clear that after committing the murder of the deceased he returned to her house and this time took Ved Prakash to his room where the deceased was lying and after tying him up and bolting the door from outside he and his associates again came to the house where the deceased was residing and then looted the cash an ornaments. Ved Prakash (PW-1) has duly supported the case of the prosecution and deposed in a descriptive manner how the incident had taken place. From the evidence of Ved Prakash (PW-1) it is further clear that the accused Rikhiram was also there along with accused Virendra in committing the murder of Ghasnin Bai. He (PW-1) has categorically named accused Virendra, Dipak and Rikhiram at the time of recording prompt Dehati Nalisi Ex. P-1. Further, he has duly identified accused Virendra and Rikhiram in the Court. Thus beyond any shadow of doubt it can be said that accused Virendra and Rikhiram have committed the murder of Ghasnin Bai. Though in the Court Ved Prakash (PW-1) has also identified accused Sanjay as one of the assailants yet his name has not been mentioned in the Dehati Nalisi Ex. P-1 and therefore his involvement in the crime in question becomes doubtful. Statement of Ved Prakash (PW-1) has been duly supported by Kaushal Kumar (PW-3), Sunil (PW-4) and Gangadhar (PW-6) and there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the same.”
8. It would also be pertinent to point out that the conduct of the appellant in locking the door from outside and leaving the place clearly reflects upon his culpability. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that he along with Sanjay had come to the scene of occurrence afterwards and tied up PW-1 with a Bench after locking the door from outside and left the place. On this basis, it is argued that at the most the appellant can be convicted for wrongful confinement of PW-1. However, it is difficult to accept this argument. If the appellant was innocent, after seeing that Ghasnin Bai is wounded and fully drenched with blood lying on the cot, he would not have confined her son (PW-1) also in the same room and bolted the door from outside. This contemporaneous conduct of the appellant clearly reflects that he is also party to the crime of committing the murder of the deceased.
9. We, thus, do not find any merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.
Criminal Appeal No. 2403/2014
Rikhiram __________________________________________ Appellant
v.
State of Chhattisgarh _______________________________ Respondent
Date: 17/11/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
(Before A.K. Sikri and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
For Appellant(s)
Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Baijnath Patel, Adv.
Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Atul Jha, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv.
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Adv.
Order
10. Exemption from filing official translation is granted.
11. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
———
