The Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirmed the conviction and life imprisonment of Ashwani alias Golu Dhuri for the brutal double murder of his in-laws. In its judgment, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad emphasized the evidentiary significance of the testimony provided by an injured eyewitness, terming it crucial in ensuring justice in this case.
The Incident
The case revolves around a horrific attack on the night of October 8, 2018, in village Khapri, Takhatpur, Bilaspur. The convict, Ashwani Dhuri, had stormed into his in-laws’ residence and attacked his estranged wife Uma Dhuri, along with her parents, Siyaram and Shakun Bai Dhuri, using a spade and a gandasa. The assault left Siyaram and Shakun Bai dead, while Uma survived with severe injuries.
The gruesome act was motivated by Ashwani’s anger over Uma leaving him and living with her parents after a social divorce. Despite multiple threats and prior altercations, Uma refused to return to her husband, which enraged Ashwani, culminating in the fatal attack.
The Trial Court’s Findings
Ashwani was convicted by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in November 2021 under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 450 (house trespass), and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court imposed concurrent life sentences, along with additional penalties for related offenses.
The conviction heavily relied on the testimony of Uma Dhuri, the injured eyewitness, and corroborating forensic evidence, including blood-stained weapons recovered from the crime scene.
Arguments in the Appeal
In his appeal before the High Court, Ashwani’s counsel argued that:
– The testimony of Uma, being that of an interested party, was unreliable.
– The prosecution failed to produce independent witnesses.
– Alleged inconsistencies in the recovery of evidence weakened the case.
The defense also suggested an alternative narrative, pointing to disputes within the victim’s family over property and questioning the motive attributed to the appellant.
The State’s counsel, however, argued that the prosecution’s case was supported by irrefutable evidence, including Uma’s testimony, corroborated by medical and forensic reports.
High Court’s Observations
The High Court dismissed the appeal, placing significant weight on the testimony of the injured eyewitness. Citing legal precedents, the court observed:
“The evidence of an injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.”
It ruled that Uma’s account was consistent and credible, and the defense failed to provide compelling evidence to discredit it. The court also referenced the findings of Dr. Ashish Kachhyap, who conducted postmortems on the deceased and confirmed that the injuries were caused by sharp weapons, consistent with Uma’s testimony.
Key Evidence Considered
– Eyewitness Account: Uma’s testimony, describing how Ashwani attacked her parents and her, was detailed and corroborated by medical reports.
– Forensic Findings: Weapons recovered from the scene and the appellant’s blood-stained clothes matched forensic evidence, strengthening the prosecution’s case.
– Motive: The appellant’s prior threats and history of domestic abuse substantiated the intent behind the crime.
Court’s Final Ruling
The bench upheld the trial court’s verdict, emphasizing that the prosecution had established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It ruled:
“The broad substratum of the prosecution’s version remains intact. Discrepancies that naturally creep in due to human memory cannot overshadow the substantive evidence presented.”
The High Court reiterated that testimony from injured witnesses, such as Uma, holds heightened reliability as their presence at the crime scene is beyond dispute.
