SURESH YADAV @ GUDDU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the matter is posted for directions but, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the issues involved, we have heard learned amicus curiae and learned counsel for the State finally at this stage itself. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that the appellant herein had been convicted of offences under Sec. 302 IPC and Ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, after having been tried in Sessions Case No. 05 of 2004 by the Court of Ninth Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Durg. The accusations against the appellant had been that he was having a love affair with the deceased but, got enraged when he saw the deceased talking to another boy; and caused multiple injuries to the deceased by a pointed knife, leading to her death. As per the post-mortem report (Ex. P-21A), as many as 12 injuries were found over the body of the deceased, including penetrating wounds on lungs and liver. The prosecution also examined PW-1 as an eyewitness, who asserted having seen the appellant repeatedly causing injuries on the person of the deceased. The prosecution further asserted that the weapon of offence, the knife of about 21 cm long blade, was recovered on the disclosure made by the appellant.

(2.) Taking an overall view of the evidence, the Trial Court held that the prosecution had been able to substantiate the charges; and, after convicting the appellant as noticed above, awarded varying punishments, including that of life imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC. In appeal, the High Court again examined the relevant evidence and found no reason to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court and thus, affirmed the conviction of the appellant as also the punishments awarded to him.

(3.) The learned amicus curiae has submitted that there had been no evidence of matching of the blood allegedly found on the knife with that of the deceased; that PW-1 cannot said to be a reliable witness, particularly when the incident allegedly happened in front of his house, but he neither raised any alarm nor tried to save the deceased; and that excessive number of injuries on the person of the deceased would suggest involvement of more than one person. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State has duly supported the findings of the Trial Court and the High Court.