SUKHDEV Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
LAWS(CHH)-2003-8-14
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Decided on August 18,2003

SUKHDEV Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

L.C.BHADOO, J. - (1.)ACCUSED /appellant Sukhdev has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.PC through the Superintendent of Jail, Raipur, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29th June, 1992, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 1992, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appellant guilty of commission of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.
(2.)THE case of the prosecution is that the houses of the accused and the deceased are adjacent to each other and there is a common courtyard. Few days prior to the incident, two sons of the accused/appellant died on account of some disease. However, he was suspecting that deceased Mukta Bai was responsible for the death of his two sons as she was practicing witchcraft. On the fateful day when he returned from the field, Mukta Bai was all -alone at her residence and as per the report given by the accused (Ex. P -19), Mukta Bai said, "I have already eaten your two children and now you are two persons and you people will not be able to harm me". This enraged the accused and after catching hold of the deceased by hairs, he inflicted injuries with Tangia on her neck. When she fell down, he again assaulted her with the same Tangia and separated the head from the body by cutting the neck. On the fateful day, the husband of the deceased namely, Cheeta had gone out of the house for doing the job of labourer.
(3.)AFTER inflicting the injury on the neck of Mukta Bai with the Tangia, and separating the head from the body, the accused/appellant took that head and Tangia to the Police Station, Chakradhar Nagar, gave the report (Ex. P -19), and produced the head of the deceased and the Tangia which were seized by Rajesh Khare (P.W. 17), the In -charge Police Station. He seized the head of the deceased under Ex. P -6 and the Tangia under Ex. P -7. One blue coloured Dhoti of the accused drenched with blood was also seized under seizure memorandum (Ex. P -8). The sari of the deceased and lungi were seized under seizure memorandum (Ex. P -9). Based on the report (Ex. P -19), merg intimation (Ex. P -20) was recorded and thereafter, Rajesh Kumar (P.W. 17) reached the scene of occurrence and prepared the Panchanama of the dead body of Mukta Bai vide Ex. P -3. He seized the plain soil and blood -stained soil under Ex. P -4 and sent the dead body of deceased Mukta Bai for postmortem examination. Dr. S.K. Mishra (P.W. 9) conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Mukta Bai. His postmortem report is Ex. P -12. After giving the notice (Ex. P -21), the Panchanama of the head of the deceased (Ex. P -22) was prepared by Rajesh Khare (P.W. 17). The clothes and the Tangia were sent for chemical examination from where the report (Ex. P -25) was received. The accused was arrested under memorandum (Ex. P -27). The Patwari prepared the site plan (Ex. P -16) of the scene of occurrence. The opinion of the doctor was sought about the fact whether the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased could be inflicted by the Tangia. The doctor gave his report (Ex. P -13 -A), that the injury found on the dead body of the deceased could be caused by the Tangia.
After completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge -sheet against the accused/appellant in the Court of the Judicial Mag - istrate, First Class, Raigarh, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Raigarh. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments of the Public Prosecutor and the Counsel for the accused and perusing the record reached the conclusion that there was material on record for framing charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC against the accused. Accordingly, he framed the charge against the accused, read over and explained the same to the accused. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.



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