Citation : 2007 Local Law (CG) 281
In a decisive judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld life imprisonment for a group of accused in a murder case that shook the Bastar region. The appeal stemmed from a trial conducted by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge at Jagdalpur, where five accused were convicted under Sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and additional charges under Sections 147 and 148 in differing combinations.
The facts, as found by the trial court and affirmed on appeal, showed that on 6 November 2000, around midday, a man named Kalicharan, accompanied by his servant Gopalu, was travelling by bullock-cart to a field to collect paddy. On the way, in a place described as the “desert land of Vilsan” near Vilsan Ka Marhan, the accused persons, wielding lathis and a tangia (a type of axe), emerged from the bushes and attacked. Kalicharan sustained severe stab injuries to his neck and left shoulder, as well as abrasions on his limbs. The post-mortem physician found cutting of the spinal cord in the C2-C3 vertebra region and hemorrhage, concluding that the cause of death was neurogenic shock due to spinal cord laceration.
The investigation was thorough. The police recorded an inquest, prepared a site plan, seized the tangia and danda weapons from various accused on their individual memoranda, collected plain and blood-stained soil from the spot, and obtained a forensic report confirming blood stains on the clothes of the deceased and on the seized tangia. The accused made statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denying the charges and raised a plea of alibi in their defence.
At trial, three eyewitnesses Gopalu, Mahesh and Yogendra testified that they witnessed the assault. Their versions were found to corroborate each other on the key fact of the assault by all accused, with Shailesh using the tangia while his cohorts used the danda. The defence challenged the credibility of those witnesses, citing small inconsistencies (for instance, differing disclosures of whom the story was told to after the incident). The High Court held that these were minor contradictions that did not go to the root of the matter; what mattered was that the three witnesses were consistent on the core facts and inspire confidence.
The defence argued that the accused had the right of private defence of property: the land that the deceased claimed to harvest was under cultivation by the mother of the accused and the apprehension was that the complainant party was taking the crop. The Court addressed the law of private defence of property: while an accused may raise that plea even if it was not explicitly taken at trial, it must satisfy the conditions laid down in Sections 96–106 of the IPC and be supported by the facts. Here the High Court found that the location of the incident was 1½-2 km away from the field where harvesting was alleged to take place, that the deceased was not engaged in an ongoing trespass or forced taking of property at the moment of attack, and that the ambush nature of the attack did not fall within the lawful bounds of private defence of property. The plea therefore failed.
As for alibi, the accused relied on defence witnesses who said they were elsewhere (forest, fields, or in Jagdalpur city) at the relevant time. The High Court examined those evidences and found them weak or inconsistent. In one instance, a defence witness said two of the accused returned from the forest at around noon, which undercut the claim they were not present. Others lacked corroboration. Because the prosecution’s eyewitness evidence was found reliable and the defence case was shaky, the alibi plea also failed.
In the result, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the trial court’s judgment: the conviction and sentence stand, as they rest on what the Court described as “cogent, reliable and clinching evidence.”
This judgment reinforces key principles: credible eyewitness testimony can anchor a murder conviction under 302/149 IPC; private defence of property has strict factual and legal limits; and simply raising a defence of alibi does not suffice unless the evidence is strong and consistent. The Court’s detailed reasoning highlights how fact-sensitive such appeals are, especially in violent crimes involving multiple accused and weapons.
Case Details : Criminal Appeal No. 367 of 2002, Akhilesh Kumar and Ors. vs. State of C.G. (24.09.2007)
Hon’ble Judges/Coram:
L.C. Bhadoo and Sunil Kumar Sinha, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Prafull Bharat, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Akhil Mishra, Panel Lawyer
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 145; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 105; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 100; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 101, Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 102, Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 103, Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 104, Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 105, Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 106, Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 147; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 148; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 149; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 302; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 96; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 97, Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 98, Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 99
Cases Referred:
Kashi Ram and Ors. v. State of M.P. AIR 2001 SC 2902; Bishna alias Bhiswadeb Mahato and Ors. v. State of W.B. (2005) 12 SCC 657; Salim Zia v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1979 SC 391
======
आपराधिक मामला – दोषसिद्धि
भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 की धारा 147, 148, 149 एवं 302
छत्तीसगढ़ उच्च न्यायालय ने एक आपराधिक अपील में यह निर्णय दिया कि अभियुक्तों द्वारा की गई हत्या के मामले में दोषसिद्धि उचित है, क्योंकि अलिबाई (अनुपस्थिति का) बचाव सिद्ध नहीं हो सका और न ही संपत्ति की रक्षा के अधिकार (Right of Private Defence of Property) का कोई औचित्य इस मामले में बनता है।
मामले के अनुसार, घटना 6 नवम्बर 2000 को दोपहर लगभग 12 बजे हुई, जब मृतक कालीचरण अपने सेवक गोपालू के साथ बैलगाड़ी से खेत जा रहा था। रास्ते में अभियुक्तगणों ने उसे रोककर लाठियों और टंगिया (कुल्हाड़ी) से हमला किया, जिससे उसकी तत्काल मृत्यु हो गई। पोस्टमार्टम रिपोर्ट में गर्दन और कंधे पर गहरे कटने के घाव पाए गए और मृत्यु का कारण स्पाइनल कॉर्ड के कटने से हुआ न्यूरोजेनिक शॉक बताया गया।
रक्षा पक्ष ने तर्क दिया कि अभियुक्त अपने खेत की रक्षा कर रहे थे, जहाँ उनकी माँ की फसल खड़ी थी, और शिकायतकर्ता पक्ष अवैध रूप से फसल काट रहा था। किन्तु न्यायालय ने पाया कि वास्तविक घटना खेत में नहीं बल्कि उससे लगभग डेढ़ से दो किलोमीटर दूर रेतीले मैदान में हुई थी। इस कारण, संपत्ति की रक्षा का अधिकार उस स्थिति में लागू नहीं होता जहाँ हमला संपत्ति की जगह से दूर हुआ हो।
अभियुक्तों ने अलिबाई का भी बचाव लिया और गवाही दी कि वे घटना के समय अन्य स्थानों (जंगल, मजदूरी, या वकील से मिलने) पर थे। लेकिन रक्षा गवाहों की गवाही विरोधाभासी और अविश्वसनीय पाई गई। एक गवाह ने स्वयं कहा कि दो अभियुक्त दोपहर तक गाँव लौट आए थे, जो अभियोजन पक्ष की बात की पुष्टि करता था।
न्यायालय ने कहा कि अभियोजन के तीन प्रत्यक्षदर्शी गवाहों — गोपालू, महेश और योगेन्द्र — की गवाही सुसंगत और विश्वसनीय है, और उनके बयान हत्या में अभियुक्तों की संलिप्तता को स्पष्ट रूप से सिद्ध करते हैं।
अतः उच्च न्यायालय ने पाया कि न तो संपत्ति की रक्षा का अधिकार इस मामले में उपलब्ध था और न ही अभियुक्तों की अलिबाई की दलील सिद्ध हो सकी। इसलिए, सत्र न्यायालय द्वारा दी गई आजीवन कारावास की सजा और दोषसिद्धि को सही ठहराते हुए अपील खारिज कर दी गई।
