text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
After registration of the crime,inquest was conducted over the dead body of Bhavna on 26.11.2003.Post mortem was conducted by Dr FAC |
Naresh Tiwari and Dr FAC |
M.Deodhar,who gave their report which is marked as Exhibit P/18.Spot map was prepared by the Inquiry Officer (IO); bloodstained cloth of accused Shashi Tripathi was taken into possession along with broken bangles; bloodstained cement mortar and plain cement mortar were also taken into possession FAC |
Shashi Tripathi,Mahesh and Binu FAC |
Chandra Prakash were arrested on 29.11.2003.A bloodstained knife was taken into possession FAC |
The accused Raju FAC |
Devendra Choubey was taken into custody on 22.12.2003 and a Suzuki motorcycle was also taken into possession FAC |
A test identification was conducted by the Executive Magistrate in the Sub Jail,Bemetara on 13.12.2003.A similar identification parade of Raju FAC |
Devendra Choubey was conducted on 26.12.2003 after his arrest FAC |
A sealed packet containing hair found in the grip of the deceased and another sealed packet containing bloodstained cloth of the deceased were taken into possession vide Exhibit P/35 FAC |
After committal,the Trial Court framed charges u/s.302 read with Ss.34 and 120B of the IPC.The prosecution examined 32 witnesses STA |
No defence witness was examined after the statements of the accused were recorded u/s.313 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 STA |
According to the prosecution the accused Shashi Tripathi is the step mother-in-law of deceased Bhavna Tripathi FAC |
Bhavna was married to her step son -Jitendra Kumar in July,2003.Shashi Tripathi used to be annoyed with Bhavna Tripathi on account of some domestic dispute FAC |
She engaged the other accused for murdering Bhavna FAC |
Bhavna was murdered on 25.11.2003 at about 18:30 hours in the house where she resided with Shashi Tripathi FAC |
There is no dispute that Bhavna's death is homicidal FAC |
Dr FAC |
M.Deodhar,who conducted the postmortem,opined that cause of her death was neurogenic and hemorrhagic shock FAC |
The injuries found on person of the deceased were as follows: "External Injuries: (1) incised wound on left scapular region of size 3 cm x 1 cm; (2) incised wound on left scapular region of size 4 cm x 1 = cm FAC |
x 1 = cm; (3 FAC |
one incised wound on left auxiliary region on the posterior auxiliary region of size 3 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm FAC |
4) incised wound on lower costal region left of size FAC |
3 = cm x FAC |
2 cm x 1 cm; (5) incised wound on lower costal region right side on right epigestic region of size 3 = cm FAC |
x 3 cm with punctured wound; (6) incised wound over right costal region of size 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm FAC |
7) incised wound on right supra mammary region near middle of size 4 cm x 1 cm x FAC |
1 = cm; (8) incised wound on right supra mammary region lateral aspect of size 3 cm x 1 = cm x 1 = cm; (9) incised wound on radial aspect of left forearm near wrist joint of size 2 FAC |
cm x FAC |
cm x = cm; (10) incised wound on forearm left hand radial side dorsal aspect on lower 2/3rd region; (11) incised wound on left forearm middle l/3rd region,radial side and posterior aspect of size 2 FAC |
cm FAC |
x 1= cm x 1 cm; (12) incised wound on left hand dorsal aspect on 2 nd and 3rd metacarpal region of size 2= cm FAC |
x = cm FAC |
x FAC |
1= cm; (13) incised wound on ulna region of left hand on lower 1/3rd region of size 1 cm FAC |
x = cm x FAC |
1 cm; and (14) incised wound over left side of neck,on anterior triangle of size 2 cm FAC |
x 1 = cm FAC |
Internal injuries: Brain membrane pale; lungs,trachea pale,punctured wound on right and left lungs of size 2 cm x 1 cm,2 = cm and 1 cm FAC |
x 3 cm; lobe was cut and there was 3 cm punctured wound FAC |
Incised wound was also present on the right lobe of size 3 cm x 1/3 cm x 3= cm FAC |
Liver,kidney and spleen were pale FAC |
The deceased was carrying fetus of two months FAC |
The sole eyewitness was a boy of 13 years of age -Anil Kumar (PW-21),who worked as a servant with the family FAC |
Shashi Tripathi had brought him home from Bilaspur FAC |
He participated in the identification parade,which was held in Sub Jail,Bemetara,and identified the accused persons in the court by touching them FAC |
We have carefully examined the manner in which the identification parade was conducted and the manner in which the boy -Anil Kumar (PW-21) identified the accused in Court and we have no reason to doubt the identification of the accused,which assumes importance in this case since the boy did not know the accused before ... |
It is Anil Kumar (PW -21),who first informed the head of the family Dr FAC |
Sharda Prasad Tripathi (PW-1),the complainant,about the incident,when he came home after closing his clinic FAC |
He deposed before the Court that Shashi Didi (accused) brought him to village -Jevra from Bilaspur FAC |
He lived in the house of Shashi Didi FAC |
He ate his food there and studied in a school FAC |
He deposed that Doctor Sahab is her husband and Shivendra and Jitendra are her sons FAC |
Jitendra is her step-son and the deceased Bhavna is the wife of Jitendra FAC |
She resided with Shashi Didi FAC |
Jitendra is a doctor,resided and practiced at Khamaria,whereas his wife resided at Jevra FAC |
His brother -Shivendra studies at Calcutta FAC |
He referred to Bhavna as Bhabhi FAC |
He stated that Shashi Didi and Bhavna sometimes used to quarrel FAC |
About the assault,he deposed that Devendra caught Bhavna and Chandra Prakash attacked her with knife 3 to 4 times and she fell down FAC |
The incident occurred in the courtyard and Shashi Didi was present in the passage FAC |
Mahesh,the fourth accused,was standing outside the house FAC |
After the assault,Chandra Prakash went to the TV room where Shashi Didi had kept some money in a rubber band on the table FAC |
The accused -Chandra Prakash had threatened him not to disclose anything about the incident to anyone FAC |
Thereafter all the three accused fled from there FAC |
He further deposed that Shashi Didi took him upstairs to the terrace and asked him not to disclose the truth to anyone but to say that thieves came into the house and committed the crime FAC |
Shashi Didi thereafter started shouting FAC |
Then she lay down on the courtyard near Bhavna Bhabhi FAC |
This deposition clearly implicates accused Nos.1,2 and 4.The picture that emerges is that Shashi Tripathi caused Bhavna to be killed and for this purpose engaged Chandra Prakash (accused No.2) and Raju Ratio |
Devendra Choubey (accused No.4) by paying them money Ratio |
She also seems to have had a scuffle with Bhavna,which is apparent from the fact that her hair was found in the grip of the deceased during investigation Ratio |
It is obvious that accused nos.2 and 4 did not enter the house to commit a robbery and had a single mission,namely,to kill Bhavana Ratio |
There is no evidence that they had any previous animosity with the deceased and appeared to have acted as contract killers Ratio |
The prosecution has found it difficult to pinpoint the motive but Shashi Tripathi's husband Dr Ratio |
Sharda Prasad Tripathi (PW-1) deposed before the Court that she tried to create a hindrance in the marriage of his son Jitendra since she wanted her daughter Abhilasha to marry him; however,he went ahead with the marriage of Jitendra to Bhavna,whereupon Shashi Tripathi remained silent Ratio |
The credibility of the evidence of Anil Kumar (PW-21) was attacked by the learned counsel for the appellants,who submitted that the boy is a tutored witness,who has been influenced by the police with whom he spent a lot of time ARG |
In fact,he even came to the Court in the company of a police constable after being served summons at Allahabad ARG |
The learned counsel submitted that the evidence of a child witness must be carefully scrutinized before acceptance since a child can be easy prey for tutoring and the court must insist on corroboration from other evidence ARG |
On a careful perusal of the deposition of this child witness,we have not found any reason why he would have lied Ratio |
He was brought to the house by Shashi Tripathi (accused),who apparently took care of him and sent to school and gave him food and residence Ratio |
He had no grouse against her neither any ulterior motive in identifying the accused,who were not acquainted to him Ratio |
There was no reason for the sole eye witness -Anil (PW-21) to implicate anybody falsely Ratio |
Merely because he has been some time in the company of the police at the police station his testimony cannot be discarded as untrue Ratio |
The incident occurred within the four walls of the house of the accused -Shashi Tripathi and the only witness was the boy -Anil Ratio |
PW-21).His statement that the accused Chandra Prakash attacked the deceased is corroborated by the recovery of knife from Chandra Prakash Ratio |
It must be remembered that the boy comes from a rural back ground and was 13 years of age when the incident occurred Ratio |
His presence in the house is entirely natural and we have no reason to discard his testimony Ratio |
The learned counsel for the appellants forcefully attacked the conviction of the other accused viz ARG |
Mahesh,Chandra Prakash and Devendra Kumar,who admittedly were not known to the child witness Anil Kumar ARG |
It was submitted that the test identification parade were delayed and the identification of these accused by the witness in Court was not reliable ARG |
It is not possible for us to accept this contention Ratio |
Mahesh and Chandra Prakash were arrested on 29.11.2003,their identification parade was conducted on 13.12.2003 -(within a fortnight or so Ratio |
The accused Devendra Kumar was arrested on 22.12.2003 and his identification parade was conducted on 26.12.2003-(within four days).There is no evidence on record to show that the child witness had an opportunity to see and study the features of the accused between their arrest and test identification parade to enable a... |
In any case,the period between the arrest and the identification parade was not large enough to constitute inordinate delay Ratio |
The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the Judgment of this Court in Budhsen and Anr PRE |
Vs PRE |
State of U.P.(1970) 2 SCC 128 1970 Indlaw SC 136 where this Court made the following observations:- "7.Now,facts which establish the identity of an accused person are relevant u/s.9 of the Indian Evidence Act PRE |
As a general rule,the substantive evidence of a witness is a statement made in court PRE |
The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character PRE |
The evidence in order to carry conviction should ordinarily clarify as to how and under what circumstances he came to pick out the particular accused person and the details of the part which the accused played in the crime in question with reasonable particularity PRE |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.