RAJESH KHURANA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.9.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh in ST No.39/2011, convicting each of the appellants under Sections 302/149, 201/149 & 120B of IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment, pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-; RI for three years, pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and RI for three years, pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulations respectively.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, in between 30.8.2011 and 31.8.2011 the appellants who are real brothers, committed murder of Ramkumar. Motive for commission of murder is said to be business rivalry as the deceased was a village doctor and was running a chemist shop and the appellants were also having chemist shop but the business of the deceased was flourishing as compared to that of the appellants. It came to the fore during investigation that on 30.8.2011 after having his dinner the deceased left his house saying that he is going to the house of his in-laws for watching some TV programme. After watching said programme he left his in-laws' house saying that he is going back to his house but when he did not return till late night, he was searched by his brothers at all possible places and on the next day also extensive search of the deceased was made. However, on receiving information from one Laxmi Malhotra that one dead body is lying beside the road, when PW-1 Shyam Kumar went there he identified the dead body to be of his brother Ramkumar. It was noticed that neck of the deceased was brutally cut by a sharp edged weapon and that private part of the deceased was also removed. At the instance of PW-1 Shyam Kumar, merg intimation Ex.P/1 was recorded on 31.8.2011 at 130 noon. Soon thereafter at 140 noon on the basis of merg, FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered under Section 302 of IPC against the unknown person. Inquest on the dead body was conducted on 31.8.2011 vide Ex.P/6 and thereafter, the dead body was sent for postmortem which was conducted on 1.9.2011 vide Ex.P/26 by PW-17 Dr. MK Manhar. The autopsy surgeon noticed multiple incised wounds on the neck including cutting of trachea, incised wound in abdomen in hypochondrium region and amputation of the penis from root level. In his opinion, the cause of death was shock due to excessive blood loss from the body and the nature of death was homicidal. Diary statements of two witnesses PW-2 Ramo and PW-4 Bharat Tandan were recorded on 20.9.2011 vide Ex.D/1 & D/3, and before that their affidavits were obtained on 15.9.2011 vide Ex.D/3 and D/3A. Statements u/s 164 of CrPC were also recorded of these witnesses on 23.9.2011 vide Ex.P/3 & P/5 respectively. PW-2 and PW-4 in their diary statements have stated that they saw the accused persons carrying one person, however, while deposing in the Court they have stated that the accused persons were carrying dead body of the deceased. Memorandum of accused/appellant Rajesh Khurana was recorded on 3.9.2011 vide Ex.P/8 and pursuant thereto, one bloodstained gupti was seized vide Ex.P/9. At the instance of appellant Ramnivas Khurana one half burnt T-shirt having stains like blood was seized vide Ex.P/10. At the instance of appellant Ramsingh Khurana one full sleeve shirt which was also half burnt and had stains like blood was seized vide Ex.P/11. Likewise, on being produced by appellant Rajesh Khurana, one full sleeve shirt which was half burnt and had blood like stains was seized vide Ex.P/1 From the place of incident, slippers of the deceased, plain & bloodstained soil were seized vide Ex.P/16. However, nothing could be recovered pursuant to memorandum of appellant Rakesh Khurana vide Ex.P/20. Further, there is no FSL report on record. While framing charge, the trial Judge charged the appellants under Sections 302/149, alternatively 304, 201/149 & 120B of IPC.

(3.) So as to hold the accused persons guilty, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.