NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.331 OF 2011

LAXMINATH                                   APPELLANT(S)

                               VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH                      RESPONDENT(S)   

J U D G M E N T

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This appeal by the accused is directed against the

judgment of the High Court dated 27.03.2008 whereby the

High  Court  while  upholding  the  judgment  of  the  Trial

Court convicted the accused for offence punishable under

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to

life imprisonment.  

We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant

that the High Court has not discussed the entire evidence

in the manner in which the First Appellate Court in a

murder case should discuss the same. However, we are of

the considered opinion that keeping in view the fact that

the  occurrence  is  of  12.12.1997  and  22  years  have

elapsed, it would not be fair to either side to remand

the case only on this count. We, therefore, have, with

the  assistance  of  the  counsel,  gone  into  the  entire

relevant evidence in detail. The FIR (Ext.P/5) was lodged

at the instance of PW-1, who is the cousin of the accused

1

and father of the deceased. In this FIR it is stated that

his  brother  (Laxminath-Deceased)  wanted  to  construct  a

house  on  his  land  to  which  his  son  Kursan  (deceased)

objecting  and,  therefore  there  was  altercation  between

them.  

At about 8-9 am in the morning accused Laxminath

came armed with an axe, entered his house and attacked

his son and gave three blows of the axe on the side of

the face as a result of which his son died. He further

states that his wife and daughter-in-law raised an alarm

and  shouted  that  the  deceased  had  been  killed  by  the

accused. Therefore, he has lodged the report.  

On the basis of this report, the investigation was

conducted.  The  case  of  the  prosecution  is  that  a

confessional statement was made by the accused and the

confession led to the recovery of axe, which was used as

the weapon of offence. The prosecution filed chargesheet

under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. against the accused. The

accused was charged for having committed the murder of

Kursan. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After

trial he was convicted by the Trial Court and sentenced

to life imprisonment. The appeal was dismissed and hence

this appeal before us.  

We  have carefully  gone through  the statements  on

record. Only five witnesses have been examined. The first

is the informant, who in the Court stated that he heard

the  voice  of  his  wife  Kosibai  (PW-2)  that  accused

2

Laxminath has killed Kursan. He ran home and found that

Kursan was lying dead with injuries on the side of his

head. He was informed by his wife and daughter-in-law

Lachchandei  (PW-3)  that  Laxminath  had  murdered  the

deceased with an axe. He then went to the Sarpanch of the

village to complain and a Panchayat was called but the

accused  did  not  attend  the  Panchayat.  PW-1  has  been

cross-examined with regard to the motive for the crime

and he has admitted that the accused had built the house

even prior to the date of occurrence, though, according

to him, the accused built the house on the land of the

complainant. He has not been cross-examined in respect of

the allegations that his wife and daughter-in-law told

him that the accused had murdered the deceased or that he

reached the house on hearing the cries of his wife.

Kosibai (PW-2) is the wife of PW-1 and mother of the

deceased. She states that she was sweeping the courtyard

and  at  that  time  Kursan  was  sleeping  inside.  Accused

Laxminath came there, armed with an axe and killed Kursan

by giving blows of the axe on the side of the head. She

states that she asked Laxminath not to kill her son but

he did not pay heed to her request. She raised an alarm

and on hearing her alarm her husband came from the field

and found that Kursan was dead. Daughter-in-law had also

come  there  in  the  meantime.   PW-2  had  informed  her

husband  about  the  occurrence  and  the  manner  in  which

Kursan was killed. She has also been confronted with the

3

statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein it

is not mentioned that she was sweeping the courtyard. She

first denied the suggestion that she had witnessed the

occurrence but she immediately corrected herself and said

that she had not actually seen accused Laxminath killing

Kursan but she had seen him coming out of the room with

an axe in his hand.  

PW-3 is the daughter-in-law and wife of the younger

brother of the deceased. She states that she was outside

the front portion of the house and cleaning the same,

whereas the mother was on the back portion. The accused

came and gave blows to the deceased with an axe and he

died as a result thereof. She admittedly is not an eye-

witness.  She has not witnessed the accused giving blows.

However, her statement is to the effect that she saw the

accused coming out of the room with an axe in his hand.

There is some contradiction between her statement and the

statements of PW-2 and PW-1 with regard to the motive but

she has stated that after the occurrence, she came to

know that there was some dispute with regard to the land.

She has virtually not been cross-examined as far as her

statement of seeing the accused coming out of the room is

concerned.  

PW-4 is the village Sarpanch who states that the

Panchayat was called but according to him the accused

came to the Panchayat and confessed the crime. This is

contradictory  to  the  statement  of  PW-1.  PW-5  is  the

4

doctor and he has proved that the death was homicidal

with regard to which there was not much dispute. PW-6 is

the Investigating Officer who has proved the recovery of

the axe and the statement made by the accused and on this

aspect he has not been cross-examined at all. The only

cross-examination directed to him is that he recorded the

statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as

they  told  by  them  to  him.  With  regard  to  the

investigation there is no cross-examination at all.

It is true, as contended by Mr. Goburdhun, learned

counsel  for  the  appellant  that  there  are  some

contradictions  in  the  statements  of  the  witnesses,

inasmuch as whereas initially the case set up in the FIR,

by PW-1 was that the accused wanted to raise construction

which  was  being  objected  to  but  during  the  course  of

trial it has been revealed that in fact the construction

had already been raised. However, it is clear from the

statements of the witnesses that there was some dispute

as to whether this construction had been raised on the

land of the complainant or not. As far as contradictions

between the statements of PW-2 and 3, we do not think

there is any major contradiction after going through the

original  record  in  Hindi.  This  contradiction,  in  our

view, is not sufficient to discredit the testimony of the

witnesses  on  material  issues.  The  Trial  Court  rightly

held that these two witnesses were not eye-witnesses but

they  were  witnesses  of  facts  immediately  after  the

5

occurrence. They had seen the accused entering the room

armed with an axe and leaving the room armed with an axe.

In the meantime Kursan died because of blows of axe. This

can lead to only one inevitable conclusion that it was

the accused who murdered Kursan. The versions of these

witnesses are supported by the medical evidence because

the injuries found on the body of the deceased tally with

the version given by the eye-witnesses.  

It was contended that axe was not sent for forensic

examination.   That  may  be  true  and  the  investigating

officer may have committed lapse in this regard, but the

statement of doctor does show that this injury can be

caused by an axe and furthermore recovery of the axe,

which has been stated to by the investigating officer,

has  not  been  subjected  to  any  cross-examination.  Even

otherwise on the statements of PW-1, 2 and 3 alone, we

are of the considered opinion that prosecution has proved

its case beyond reasonable doubt.  

We, therefore, find no merit in the case. The appeal

is accordingly dismissed.

...................J.  (DEEPAK GUPTA)

...................J.  (ANIRUDDHA BOSE)

New Delhi September 05, 2019

6

ITEM NO.109               COURT NO.13               SECTION II-C

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No(s).331/2011

LAXMINATH                                          Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH                            Respondent(s)

Date : 05-09-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE

For Appellant(s) Mr. D. N. Goburdhan, AOR

                   For Respondent(s)

Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Pandey, Adv. Ms. Tanuja Manjari Patra, Adv. Ms. Shweta Mulchanddani, Adv. Mr. Manoj Selvaraj S., Adv. Ms. Aswathi M.k., AOR Ms. Yogita Ahuja, Adv.

                              UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed non-reportable

judgment.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(ARJUN BISHT)                                   (RENU KAPOOR) COURT MASTER (SH)                               BRANCH OFFICER

(signed non-reported judgment is placed on the file)

7