- (1.)This criminal appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 26.09.2007 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 2001 whereby the High Court sustained the conviction of the accused Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentence of life imprisonment as awarded by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant. The brief facts pertaining to this case are that the Appellant Tukaram, along with his wife Gaya Bai, was residing in the house of his father-in-law Roopram (since deceased), at Village Matekata, Police Station Dongargarh in the State of Chhattisgarh. It is alleged that on the night intervening between 26th and 27th November, 2000 when all the family members were sleeping, the Appellant-accused woke up them at about 12:30 am and made an extra judicial confession before P.W. 1 Chandra Kumar (brother-in-law of the accused), PW4 Durdeshi Ram (brother-in-law of the accused) and PW2 Dhruv Ram (cousin brother of the deceased), that he had committed the murder of his father-in-law Roopram. On hearing this, all the persons rushed to see whether Roopram was sleeping on the cot. They found that he was dead, there was cut injury on the neck, teeth were broken, injury on his head and blood was oozing out. When they asked as to why he killed the deceased, the accused allegedly told them that deceased Roopram had an illicit relationship with accused's wife Gaya Bai (who is daughter of the deceased) and therefore, he committed the murder of his father-in-law with a Spade. Nobody caught hold of the accused as he was holding blood-smeared Spade and he ran away towards the forest. A report was lodged at Police Station Dongargarh by Chandra Kumar (P.W. 1). After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dongargarh and the case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon.
(2.)In the post-mortem report it was found that there were 6 lacerated wounds on the neck and face and one linear bruise on lower part of the neck.
(3.)The evidence in the present case includes testimonies of the witnesses present in the house of the deceased at the time of occurrence (although none of them is an eye witness), post mortem report and recovery of 'Rapa' (a spade) which is the weapon used in the occurrence. Thus, it is clear that the case is completely based on circumstantial evidence. However, the prosecution witnesses have given consistent testimony that the accused woke them up at around 12.30 am and said he had killed the deceased and on being asked why he did so, he answered that the deceased had an illicit relationship with his wife. Further, the wife of the accused has deposed that he indeed had suspicion about the illicit relationship between herself and the deceased and for this reason accused killed the deceased. Moreover, the Rapa (spade) was recovered pursuant to the statement of the accused himself and the doctor has on seeing the spade testified that the injuries on the body of the deceased could be caused by that weapon.