BUDHURAM Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Bench: P. SATHASIVAM,RANJAN GOGOI
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001323-001323 / 2008
Diary number: 1029 / 2007
Advocates: Vs
DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINHA
Page 1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1323 of 2008
BUDHURAM … Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH … Respondent
J U D G M E N T
RANJAN GOGOI, J
The appellant who has been convicted under Section
302 IPC and sentenced to undergo the imprisonment for life
by the learned trial court seeks to challenge the order of
affirmation passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh by
means of the present appeal.
Page 2
2. The relevant facts, in brief, may be noted at the outset:
According to the prosecution, on 1.8.1998 the accused-
appellant had attacked his wife Shantibai in his own house
with the backside of an axe resulting in her death. In the
next morning, PW 2 (Ramchandra) informed PW 5
(Bandhanram), who was the Sarpanch of the village, that
the wife of the accused was not to be found. Thereafter,
along with some other persons PW 2 and PW 5 had inquired
from the accused-appellant the whereabouts of his wife.
According to the prosecution, initially, the accused had
disclosed that his wife had gone to her sister’s place but
subsequently, on insistence, the accused disclosed that he
had committed the murder of his wife by attacking her with
an axe and that he had thrown the dead body in the
Dhawraghat Nala. It is the further case of the prosecution
that the accused took PW 2, PW 5 and the other persons to
the place where he had thrown the dead body and that the
same was recovered from the spot pointed out by the
accused. Thereafter, PW 2 lodged the report of the incident
2
Page 3
in the Police Station at Kamleshwarpur at 9.00 PM on
2.8.1998, on receipt of which a case was registered and
investigation was undertaken by PW 4 (Ranjit Ekka), Sub-
Inspector of Police. In the course of investigation, the police
visited the house of the accused and seized therefrom the
broken bangles of the deceased, plain soil and bloodstained
earth as well as some blood stained clothes of the deceased.
Furthermore, on the basis of the statement made by the
accused, the police recovered an axe from the house of the
accused and also a T-shirt belonging to the accused which
was also bloodstained. The dead body was sent for post-
mortem examination which confirmed injuries on the front
side of the head caused by a blunt weapon. The recovered
articles were also sent for chemical examination, the report
of which confirmed the presence of human blood.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid materials the accused was
tried for the offence of murder and was found guilty by the
learned trial court. The aforesaid conviction and sentence
3
Page 4
has been affirmed in appeal by the High Court. Aggrieved,
the appellant has instituted the present appeal.
4. We heard Sh. Naresh Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae
and Sh. Atul Jha, learned counsel for the State. We have
carefully considered the contentions advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties and the evidence and
materials on record.
5. PW 1, Dr. Vedprakash Patel had conducted the post-
mortem of the deceased, Shantibai, in the course of which
he found two lacerated wounds on the right side of the
head. There were some other injuries on the head of the
deceased. According to PW 1, all the injuries were caused
by a hard and blunt weapon and the same were sufficient
to cause death in the ordinary course. PW 2
(Ramchander Yadav) had deposed that he was informed
by one Baburam that the accused-appellant had killed his
wife Shantibai, whereafter, PW 2 went to the house of the
accused. On being asked about his wife the accused had
4
Page 5
informed PW 2 that he had killed her and thrown her dead
body in the Dhawraghat Nala. According to PW 2, the
accused had also informed him that he had killed his wife
in his house. PW 2 had further deposed that he found
blood scattered all over in a room of the house of the
accused. Thereafter, according to PW 2, he had informed
PW 5 (Bandhanram), who is the Sarpanch of the village,
about the incident and along with PW 5 and some other
persons they had gone to the Dhawraghat Nala from
where they recovered the dead body of the deceased,
Shantibai, as pointed out by the accused. PW 2 had
further deposed that the accused had killed his first wife
in July 1986 and that he had just come out of jail after
serving the sentence in connection with the said offence.
PW 3, who is the sister-in-law of the accused, did not
support the prosecution case. However, a reading of the
evidence of PW 3 discloses that the death of Shantibai
had occurred a day after the husband of PW 3 had died
and soon after the cremation of her husband had taken
5
Page 6
place. A reading of the evidence of the said witness also
discloses that at the time of cremation of her husband the
deceased was present in her house. PW 4 is the
Investigating Officer of the case who had deposed with
regard to the recovery of the broken bangles and blood
stained clothes of the deceased from the house; the
taking of samples of bloodstained earth and plain soil
from the same place as well as the recovery of an axe
from the house of the accused and a bloodstained T-shirt
of the accused from the Dhawraghat Nala. PW 4 had also
deposed that the accused had admitted carrying the dead
body of his wife from his house to the Dhawraghat Nala.
PW 5 is the Sarpanch of the village whose deposition is on
lines, similar to that of PW 2. Both PW 2 and PW 5, in
their cross-examination, had denied the suggestions put
on behalf of the defence that they had previous enmity
with the accused.
6. The above recital of the core of the evidence tendered
by the prosecution witnesses in the present case would
6
Page 7
go to show that there are no eye-witnesses to the
occurrence and that the prosecution has sought to bring
home the guilt of the accused on the basis of
circumstantial evidence. PW 2 and PW 5 have proved and
established the extra-judicial confessions made by the
accused before them to the effect that he had killed his
wife and had thrown the dead body in the Dhawraghat
Nala. The aforesaid piece of evidence is corroborated by
the recovery of the dead body from the Dhawraghat Nala
which was witnessed amongst others by PW 2 and PW 5.
From the evidence of PW 2 it clearly appears that the
accused had admitted that he had killed his wife in his
house whereas from the evidence of PW 4 it transpires
that the accused had admitted carrying the dead body of
his wife from the house to Dhawraghat Nala. PW 2 had
deposed that on going to the room of the accused where
the crime was committed he saw blood scattered all over
in the room. The evidence of PW 2 in this regard stands
corroborated by the evidence of PW 4 (the Investigating
7
Page 8
Officer) who had deposed that bloodstained earth and the
bloodstained clothes belonging to the deceased were
recovered from the place of occurrence. In addition to the
above, the prosecution has established that, at the
instance of the accused, an axe (Tangi) was recovered
from the house of the accused and a bloodstained T-shirt
of the accused was recovered from the Dhawraghat Nala.
The evidence of PW 1 (the doctor who had performed the
post-mortem of the deceased) as well as his opinion
dated 13.8.1998 (Exhibit P-3) clearly establishes that the
fatal injuries found on the body of the deceased were
capable of being caused by the blunt side of the axe
(Tangi) which was sent to him for his opinion. The
presence of human blood in the specimens of earth,
clothes etc. sent for forensic examination also stands
established by the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
7. The law relating to proof of a criminal charge by means
of circumstantial evidence would hardly require any
reiteration, save and except that the incriminating
8
Page 9
circumstances against the accused, on being proved,
must be capable of pointing to only one direction and to
no other, namely, that it is the accused and nobody else
who had committed the crime. If the proved
circumstances are capable of admitting any other
conclusion inconsistent with the guilt of the accused the
accused must have the benefit of the same.
8. In the present case the circumstances that the
prosecution had succeeded in proving beyond all
reasonable doubt, in our considered view, are not only
highly incriminating but, read together, the said
circumstances constitute a complete chain of events
which unerringly point to the culpability of the accused.
No other conclusion save and except it is the accused
who had committed the crime can be reached on the
proved and established circumstances of the case. We,
therefore, do not find any reason to doubt the correctness
of the view taken by the learned trial court as well as by
the High Court.
9
Page 10
9. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal and affirm the
judgment of the High Court.
…………………………………J.
[P. SATHASIVAM]
………………………………..J.
[RANJAN GOGOI]
New Delhi,
September 20, 2012
1