SHATRUGHAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29. 11. 2002 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), raipur in Sessions Trial No. 21/2001, whereby, the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that on 7. 8. 2000 at about 6. 00 p. m. , Shankar (a boy aged about 13 years, since deceased)was present in his shop along with his brother Meghnath (PW4 ). At that time, the appellants came there and they asked meghnath to accompany them to take some refreshment. Meghnath denied, on this, they said Shankar to accompany them, who agreed and went along with the appellants. When Shankar did not return back in night, his father Bisau (PW1) and brother sewaram (PW2) started search, they inquired from the appellants, who told them that after taking Shankar with them, they had left his company on the road near Lobhi hotel and they had gone to see cinema. Thereafter, Sewaram (PW2) lodged a report of absconsion in the police station on 8. 8. 2000. During the course of investigation, shirt of the deceased was found near middle school of the village. There was a letter in the pocket of shirt, in which a ransom of rs. 70,000 was demanded. On this, Dehati nalishi Ex. P 22 was recorded, based on which, a First Information Report Ex. P22a was registered under Section 364/34 I. P. C. In further investigation, on 11. 8. 2000, the accused/appellants were taken into custody and their memorandums under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were recorded, in which they made statements regarding discovery of the dead body and other belongings of the deceased. They disclosed that the dead body of the deceased was kept by them in a gutter of Filter Plant. Apart from that appellant Satrughan stated that one kada and chain of the deceased has been thrown into budha tank, appellant Garibdas stated that pant of the deceased has been kept in his house and all these articles can be recovered from the places indicated by them. The memorandum of appellant Satrughan is Ex. P4 and memorandum of appellant Garibdas is Ex. P5. In pursuance of the said information, the police party went to the filter Plant and dead body was taken out from the gutter and Panchnama to this effect was prepared vide Ex. P6. Another Panchnama regarding taking out of the body from the gutter was prepared vide Ex. P7. The third panchnama regarding recovery of the dead body was prepared vide Ex. P8. In pursuance of the said memorandum a full pant was seized from the possession of appellant garibdas. One pair of plastic Chhappel was seized from the possession of appellant satrughan under Ex. P1. 1. One pair of plastic chhappel was seized from the possession of appellant Garibdas under Ex. P12. Some cloths were seized from the possession of Satrughan under Ex. P13. Some cloths were also seized from the possession of appellant Garibdas under Ex. P14. In further investigation, on 12. 8. 2000 specimen handwriting of Garibdas was taken under ex. P15 and a note-book of subject geography allegedly belonging to Garibdas was seized under Ex. P16. Sealed packet of some articles, which were brought from the hospital, were seized under Ex. P20a.

(3.) THE dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination to Mekahara, raipur, where Doctor Ullas Gonnade (PW10) conducted the post-mortem and prepared his report under Ex. P21. According to the post-mortem report, the body was in advanced stage of putrefaction, maggots were present around left shoulder, arm, neck and upper portion of chest in size of 11 mm, tongue was slightly protruded out from mouth, upper portion of the body was more decomposed in comparison of lower portion. On the internal examination, it was found that the brain material was liquified. The tissues of the neck of the deceased were highly decomposed. Thyroid bones etc. were intact but the other internal organs were decomposed. According to him, no definite, opinion could be given regarding cause and manner of death because the body was in advanced stage of putrefaction. Hence visera was preserved.