ATAMI LAXMAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.2.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No. 128/2000 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) The allegations are that at about 9 p.m. on 1.2.2000, the appellant committed murder of deceased Atami Bachnu, a boy aged about 5 year. The deceased was son of Atami Sonaru P.W.1 and the accused/appellant is son of uncle of Atami Sonaru. Atami Sonaru (P.W.1) was having two sons. The deceased was his elder son. On the contrary, the accused was having no male issue as he was having four daughters. The case of the prosecution is that the accused appellant was having suspicion that his cousin brother i.e., Atami Sonaru (P.W.1), has done same witchcraft against him, due to which, he is not getting any male child. Just one day prior to the date of incident i.e., on 31.1.2000, the accused came to the house of the complainant Atami Sonaru (P.W.1) and on this pretext, he had a quarrel with him. It is alleged that he was making allegations against the complainant that the complainant is having two sons and the accused is getting only the daughters because of the witchcraft done by the complainant, and during the quarrel, the accused had said in anger that he will kill the son of the complainant. The further case of prosecution is that on the next day i.e., on 01.2.2000 at about 9.00 p.m., the complainant (P.W.1) and his wife Atami Dewali (P.W.2) were sleeping in the verandah of their house after taking their meals and their son Atami Bachnu, since deceased, was also sleeping with them. At that time, the appellant came over there along with a Tangia in his hands and assaulted the deceased on his chest from the back portion of Tangia. The deceased Atami Bachnu died on the spot. The appellant ran away towards his house along with Tangia. The incident was witnessed by three ocular witnesses namely Atami Sonaru (P.W.1), Atami Dewali (P.W.2) and Smt. Sukdi, mother of Atami Sonaru. P.W.1 and P.W. 2 had chased the appellant but they could not get him. This incident was narrated by P.W.1 to Sukul Ram (P.W.3), Tulsiram (P.W.4) and Kotwar, Patel and Sarpanch of the village. On the next morning, there was a village Panchayat and the accused was called in the said Panchayat, but since the accused had absconded from the village, he could not be brought to Panchayat and thereafter, on 2.2.2000 at about 2.10 p.m., Atami Sonaru {P.W.I} lodged report in police station vide Ex. P-1. A merg intimation was recorded vide Ex. P-5 and ultimately the investigation commenced. The concerned SHO namely Narayan Othi (P.W.5) left for the place of occurrence on 2.2.2000. He prepared inquest on the body of the deceased under Ex. P-6 and by requisition Ex. P-7, he sent the dead body for the post-mortem examination to Primary Health Centre, Geedam and site plan of place of occurrence was prepared under Ex. P-8. On the next day, i.e. 3.2.2000, the accused/appellant was taken into custody and his statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded vide Ex. P-9 on which, a Tangia was seized from the place indicated by him vide Ex. P-3. During the course of investigation, it also came to the notice of the Investigating Officer, that due to previous incident of Marpit between the accused/appellant and the complainant, the accused had received certain injuries, therefore, the accused was also sent for medical examination under requisition (Ex.P-10), on which, a report (Ex.P-13) was received. Dr. H.L. Thakur (P.W.6) had conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, who found that there was swelling in the stomach and there was a lacerated wound on the middle of the chest (sternum) admeasuring 1" x 1/4" x ". On the internal examination, he found that there was fracture of sternum and there were fractures of right 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs and there was rupture of heart also. According to the opinion of the Doctor, this injury was caused by hard and blunt object and it was caused within 20-24 hours from the time of examination. The autopsy surgeon opined that the death was due to excessive haemorrhage and shock and the nature of death was homicidal. He has proved his report as Ex. P-11.

(3.) After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantewada, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions where the trial commenced.