JETHU Vs. STATE OF M P
LAWS(CHH)-2010-10-11
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Decided on October 07,2010

JETHU Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DHANANJOY CHHATTERJEE V. STATE OF W.B. [REFERRED TO]
BODH RAJ VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. SATISH [REFERRED TO]
RAMREDDY RAJESHKHANNA REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GOA VS. PANDURANG MOHITE [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12-9-1991 passed in Sessions Trial No. 258/ 90 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, whereby, the Appellant has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
(2.)The facts, briefly stated, are as under:
Deceased -- Santosh was the brother-in-law (Jija) of the Appellant. On 27-7-1990 his dead body was found in a field in outer area of village Gogaon. A merg intimation (Ex. P/13) was lodged by village-Kotwar-Kanhaiyalal (P.W. 4). The Investigating Officer reached to the place of occurrence, gave notice (Ex. P/14) to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex. P/12) on the body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem to D. K. Hospital, Raipur. The post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. D. C. Jain (P.W. 15). The post-mortem report is Ex. P/10. He noticed following external injuries on the body of the deceased:

(i) Abrasion 8 inch x 4 inch on the clevicular region;

(ii) Abrasion 2 inch x 1 inch on the right hypochondria;

(iii) Lacerated wound 2 inch x 1 inch x bone deep on the right temporal region and

(iv) Contusion, 4 inch x 2 inch on the right side of the face.

On internal examination, he found that there was fracture in skull bone and huge amount of blood was present in brain. There was injury on the brain also. He opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem and were caused by hard and blunt object. The injury on the head was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The cause of death was coma due to injury to the brain and it was homicidal in nature.

Till the post-mortem examination, the dead body of the deceased was not identified. Later on, on the basis of wrist-watch, kurta and ring, it was identified that the body which was found on 27-7-90 was that of de- ceased-Santosh, who was missing since night of 25-7-1990.

The case of the prosecution is that the deceased had developed illicit relations with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi-Chandrika Bai) and the Appellant was unhappy with the said act of the deceased. The deceased and his wife Ramkunwar Bai (P.W. 11) had come to the house of the Appellant. On 25-7-1990, after taking the meals, the Appellant took the deceased with him for a visit. They went to village Gogaon to the house of Derharam (P.W. 2) who was friend of the Appellant They remained there for sometime and thereafter they returned for their village but the Appellant alone returned to his house. When his sister Ramkunwar Bai asked about her husband, he said that he has gone to Pandri. On the next day i.e. on 26-7-1990, the Appellant went to house of Derharam (P.W. 2) and made extra-judicial confession before him that he has committed murder of his brother-in-law Santosh by assaulting him by stone. In further investigation, the Appellant was taken into custody on 31-7-1990 and his memorandum statement (Ex. P/l) Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and stone was seized at the instance of the Appellant vide Ex. P/3. On another memorandum statement (Ex. P/2) recorded on 31-7-1990, a shirt of the Appellant was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P/4.

After completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur, who in turn committed the matter to the concerned Sessions Court, from where, it was received on transfer by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the Appellant as aforementioned.

(3.)Admittedly, there are no eye-witnesses to the incident and the conviction of the Appellant is based on circumstantial evidence. These circumstances are of last seen together and extra-judicial confession of the Appellant before Derharam (RW. 2).


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.