High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Vinod Kumar Chaubey v. State - JAIL APPEAL No. - 5577 of 2005  RD-AH 16634 (11 October 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 5577 of 2005
Vinod Kumar Chaubey..................................................Accused
State of U.P..................................................................Respondent
Hon'ble M. Chaudhary, J.
Hon'ble R.N. Misra, J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Chaudhary, J.)
This is a criminal jail appeal preferred by the accused appellant from Central Jail Varanasi from judgment and order dated 5th of May, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 4 Varanasi in Sessions Trial No.622 of 2004 State Vs Vinod Kumar Chaubey connected with Sessions Trial No. 621 of 2004 State vs Vinod Kumar Chaubey convicting the accused under section 302 IPC and section 4/25 of the Arms Act sentencing him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1000.00 and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500.00 respectively thereunder with the default stipulation.
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal as unfolded during the trial are that Ram Avdhesh Chaubey who was employed in Air Force retired on 31st of December, 2003. He had three daughters and one son. Out of his three daughters he had married his two daughters and youngest daughter Rajni was studying in Allahabad. After his retirement Ram Avdhesh Chaubey shifted to Varanasi and started living in a rented accommodation as tenant of one Santosh Rai in Chandmari Colony. At about 10:00 p.m. on 10th of June, 2004 Ram Avdhesh Chaubey alongwith his daughter's son Ankur who used to reside with him was sleeping in outside verandah of the house and his wife Smt Amrawati alongwith her daughter Rajni was sleeping in the room adjoining the verandah. Vinod Kumar alongwith his son Sandeep aged about 9 years was also sleeping in that very room. At about 12:00 midnight Vinod Kumar taking a chopper (daon) went out of the room and gave 3-4 blows to his father with the chopper hitting him at his neck. Sustaining the fatal injuries he died. As Amrawati and her daughter Rajni asked Vinod as to what he did he replied them to keep quiet otherwise they would also be done to death. In the morning Vinod Kumar went to police station Shivpur situate at a distance of 7 kms from that colony and handed over written report of the occurrence to the police there at 7:15 a.m. mentioning therein that his father was murdered by someone during the night and at about 6:00 a.m. that morning as Ankur knocked the door they woke up and on opening the door he found that his father was done to death by someone with sharp edged weapon causing injuries at his neck. The police registered a crime against some unknown person under section 302 IPC and started the investigation.
Station Officer R.K. Singh who took up investigation of the crime in his hands went to the scene of occurrence and on his directions SI Virendra Vikram Singh in-charge police outpost Chandmari, police station Shivpur drew inquest on the dead body of Ram Avdhesh Chaubey and handed over the dead body in a sealed cover alongwith necessary papers to constables Masudul Hasan and Rajeev Kumar for being taken for its post mortem. The investigating officer inspected the place of occurrence and prepared its site plan map ( Ext ka 12). He got bloodstained and simple floor scrapped and sealed in separate packets and prepared their memo. He also collected bloodstained bed sheet and bloodstained bushirt of Ankur who was also sleeping with the deceased, sealed them in a packet and prepared their memo. Since Amrawati, wife of the deceased and her daughter Rajni were under shock due to murder of Ram Avdhesh Chaubey their statements could not be recorded.
Next day investigating officer went to the house of deceased and recorded statements of the deceased's wife Amrawati and daughter Rajni. Both the witnesses gave eye witness account of the occurrence naming Vinod Kumar Chaubey as the assailant. They also disclosed that after retirement of his father Vinod used to ask him to transfer his house and land in his name and also give the cash received by him after retirement and since his father did not accede to his request he got annoyed with him and on that very account he murdered him.
Autopsy conducted on the dead body of Ram Avdhesh Chaubey by Dr S.K. Tripathi, Reader and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi on 11th of June, 2004 at 5:00 p.m. revealed belownoted ante mortem injuries:
Incised chopped wounds ( four in numbers) with skin tags found over left side of neck front & outer aspects extending 2 ?? cm below left ear lobule to root of neck and adjacent to left side chest preclavicular region and posteriorly it reached to back of neck midline left in an area of 18 cm x 16 cm x spinal cord level over neck & chest. Soft tissues, muscles, nerves, vessels all chopped and intermingled with each other.
On internal examination brain and its membrane, larynx, trachea both the lungs and pleurae, pericardium and peritoneum were found pale. 5th cervical vertebra was found cut upto spinal cord level. Carotid artery and jugular veins on left side were transacted. Stomach contained 200 gm undigested food material which was identified as aaloo and parval.
The doctor opined that the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage about eighteen hours ago.
After receiving information in the afternoon of 19th of June, 2004 Station Officer R.K. Singh apprehended Vinod Kumar Chaubey at Natinia Mai level crossing at 3:10 p.m. On being interrogated he told his name Vinod Kumar Chaubey alongwith address. He also disclosed that during the night in between 10th and 11th of June, 2004 he murdered his father Ram Avdhesh Chaubey by giving blows with the chopper and concealed the same in the lobby of his house situate in Chandmari colony and that he could get the same recovered. Then the investigating officer recovered the bloodstained chopper wrapped in a newspaper kept under a gunny bag in north- east corner of the lobby at the instance of accused Vinod Kumar Chaubey. He sealed the same in a packet and prepared its recovery memo (Ext ka 11).
Then taking accused Vinod Kumar Chaubey alongwith the sealed packet of chopper SI R K Singh alongwith the police personnel returned to the police station. A case was registered against the accused at police station Shivpur at 5:30 p.m. under section 4/25 of the Arms Act. Investigation of the crime under section 4/25 of the Arms Act was entrusted to SI Chhavi Nath Singh.
The investigating officer got bloodstained clothe of the deceased, bed sheet and bushirt of Ankur, bloodstained floor scrapped and bloodstained chopper sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow for serologist's opinion.
After completing investigation the police submitted charge sheets against the accused accordingly.
A perusal of the serologist's report goes to show that the bloodstained scrapped floor, clothes and chopper ( item nos 1 to 5) contained blood. Bloodstained clothes contained human blood. However bloodstains on scrapped floor and chopper were found to be disintegrated.
After framing of charge against the accused the prosecution examined Rajni ( PW 1) and Smt Amrawati ( PW2) as eye witnesses of the occurrence. PW 3 Constable Moharrir Irfan Ali who prepared check report on the basis of written report handed over to him by Vinod Kumar Chaubey at the police station and made entry regarding registration of the crime in GD proved these papers ( Exts ka 1 & ka 2). He also proved check report prepared on the basis of recovery memo handed over by Station Officer R.K. Singh regarding recovery of bloodstained chopper under section 4/25 of the Arms Act and made entry regarding registration of the crime in the GD proved these papers ( Exts ka 3 & ka 4). PW 4 Dr S.K. Tripathi who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ram Avdhesh Chaubey proved the post mortem report ( Ext ka 5). PW 5 SI Virendra Vikram Singh who on the directions of Station Officer R.K. Singh drew inquest on the dead body of Ram Avdhesh Chaubey proved the inquest papers. He also appeared as a recovery witness ( Ext ka 11). PW 7 SI Chhavi Nath Singh who investigated the crime under section 4/25 of the Arms Act and submitted charge sheet against the accused proved the police papers. PW 6 Station Officer R. K. Singh who investigated the crime and submitted charge sheet against the accused proved the police papers.
The accused pleaded not guilty denying the alleged occurrence altogether. He stated that after cremation of his father he went to his village in Bihar and the police brought him from the village and by planting recovery of chopper challaned him falsely. He also deposed that his sister had friendship with some boys and she used to bring her boy friends to her house and have drinks with them which was disliked by his father and it might be that she got her father murdered by his boy friends in order to grab his property.
On an appraisal of the parties' evidence the learned trial judge held the accused guilty of the charge levelled against him and convicted and sentenced him as stated above.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order the accused appellant preferred this appeal for redress.
Heard Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.A. Siddiqui, learned AGA for the State respondent.
After going through the impugned judgment and record of the case we find no good reason to differ with the findings recorded by the learned trial judge against the accused appellant. PW 2 Amrawati, wife of the deceased and mother of accused Vinod Kumar Chaubey narrated all the facts of the occurrence from beginning to the end as stated above deposing that her husband Ram Avdhesh Chaubey who was an employee in Air Force retired from Allahabad on 31st of December, 2003; that thereafter they shifted to Varanasi and started living in a rented accommodation in Chandmari colony; that after retirement of her husband Vinod used to ask his father to transfer the landed property and the house in his name but he did not agree as he told that in his lifetime he will not transfer his property in his name; that on that very account Vinod was annoyed with his father and used to talk with him very less; that at about 10:00 p.m. the alleged night she alongwith his daughter Rajni slept in the room adjoining the verandah and her husband alongwith his daughter's son Ankur in the verandah; that at about 12:00 midnight Vinod taking chopper went in the verandah where her husband was sleeping, that in the meanwhile she made her daughter awoke; that then they saw Vinod giving blows to her husband with the chopper hitting at his neck and that she heard the voice of her husband ''aah' and then he became quiet. She also deposed that immediately as she and her daughter asked Vinod as to what he did he asked them to keep quiet otherwise they would also be done to death. PW 1 Rajni, daughter of the deceased also deposed stating likewise. Both of them emphatically denied the defence version. Both these witnesses were subjected to searching and gruelling cross-examination but nothing tangible could be elicited therefrom to shake their credibility. Their sworn testimony stands well corroborated by medical evidence. Both of them stated that as Vinod assaulted his father they could not resist as virtually there was no time as the incident occurred within a minute or so and at that time as Vinod gave first blow to his father Ram Avdhesh they got stunned and bewildered. Both of them stated in their cross-examination that on account of terror of Vinod they could not state true facts of occurrence before the police when following morning the police came to their residence.
It has come in evidence that Vinod the only son of Smt Amrawati was not much educated as he passed only high school and thereafter sometimes he used to go to his village and do cultivation and sometimes elsewhere. There is no reason as to why Smt Amrawati would tell a lie and implicate her only son Vinod in the murder of her husband falsely. It is also unpalatable that Rajni, the youngest daughter in the family studying only in B. Com. would go against her only brother to the extent of implicating him in murder of her father falsely. On the other hand Vinod had a motive to commit murder of his father as he was not well settled in his life and hence aspired to have the property owned by his father transferred in his name and since Ram Avdhesh did not agree to his unjustified demand he got annoyed and murdered him.
Assailing judgment of the trial court the appellant's learned counsel argued that since Vinod was the only son of Ram Avdhesh Chaubey the property owned by the latter was ultimately to devolve upon the former after his death why he would have murdered his father. No doubt, property owned by Ram Avdhesh Chaubey was to devolve upon his only son Vinod but only after his death, and probably because Vinod was not settled in his life he aspired to have property of his father transferred in his name at that very time and lost patience.
It has also been argued by the appellant's learned counsel that there is no independent witness of the alleged murder. Ram Avdhesh Chaubey was done to death in his house at night hour. He was assaulted so suddenly that he could not even cry. PW 4 Dr S.K. Tripathi deposed that after receiving the ante mortem injuries at his neck the victim would not have been able to speak and would have died within a minute or two. PW 2 Amrawati, wife of the deceased and his daughter Rajni (PW 1) deposed that as they saw Vinod giving chopper blows to Ram Avdhesh Chaubey they got stunned and bewildered and the assault was so quick that they could not even resist. A perusal of the site plan map goes to show that all around the house of Ram Avdhesh Chaubey where he was done to death there was no house and there was vacant land on all the four sides. Hence the said argument advanced by the appellant's learned counsel has no substance and is repelled.
For the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the learned trial judge was perfectly justified in believing the prosecution case and evidence and we agree with the findings recorded by the Court below against the accused. The appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and order convicting accused appellant Vinod Kumar Chaubey under section 302 IPC and section 4/25 of the Arms Act and sentencing him thereunder as stated above is hereby affirmed. He is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence imposed upon him.
Office is directed to send copy of the judgment and record of lower court to the court below immediately for ensuring compliance under intimation to this Court within one month from today.
Dated: 11th of October, 2007
Crl Appeal No.5577 of 2005
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.