@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Crimind Agpcal No.550/93 AWELLANT Ramchamn S/o Bapuhl 5mmm‘i aged Z9 years, R/o Pmgaon, P.S. Jefhudafai District Bilaspur (MP) (Now CG) VERSUS The Sfnfe of MP. (Now Chhaffisgnrh) Through Polica Sfafion, Bankimongm, Bilnspur RESPONDENT Appearance: Shri N.K.Chafferjee and Shri B.K. Chakraboriy, counsel for fhe appéllan‘f. Shri Rakesh Kumar Jha, Dy. Government Advoca1e for The Sfafe. Divibion Bench:- Han'bl¢ Shri T P. Shanna & Hon'bie Shri R_,L.Jhqnwar,JJ ORAL JUDGMENT (30.04.2010) Per T.P.5harma, J. 1. Challenge in fhis appeal ls +0 The judgmenf of convic'rlon and order of senlence dafed 31.3.1993, passed by fhe 2““ Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur- in Sessions Trial No.80/89, whereby and whereunder, The learned 2"“AddiTional Sessions Judge has convicted The appellanT for- commissian of culpable homicide, amounTing To murder- of Narmada Prasad conVIcfed the appeNan'r under Section 302 of fhe IPC and sen‘renced fo undergo Imprisonmen'r for lufe 2. The conviction is impugned on 1he ground Tha‘r wi‘l'houf any credible, clinching and Iegal evidence, Courf below has convic'red and seniencedf'rhe appeiiam- as aforementioned and Thereby commifted iliegali'iy. /\ 3. Brief case of fhe prosecu‘i'ion is Thai on fateful day of 31.8.88, a‘r about 6.00 pm, deceased Narmada Prasad was presem in front of fhe house of Jefhu, 'rhe appellan'r assauITed him by a wooden plank of cof, on which, he fell down, 'l'hen again fhe appellan‘l’ assaulfed him by . stick. _Some persons gathered there and objected then the appellant wen? away from fhe spot Narmada Prasad died on the spot Anandram (PW-1) wen? fo 1he Police Sfafion and lodged F.I.R. vide Exw P/1. Merg was recorded vide Ex. P/13. Affer summoning 'rhe wifne’sses vide Ex. P/6, inquesf over fhe dead body of 'rhe deceased was prepared vide Ex. P/7. Dead body was sen'f for autopsy, where Dr. Shankarlal Paliwal (PW-9) conducted autopsy vide EXP/10 and found following injuries: i. One lacerated wound on left side of the head at parieto temporal region of 4 x iv" X bone deep One lacerated wound on left ear cartilage, visible of 2 i- x 1/5" iii. One lacerated Wound over right thumb of 1 it x % x i “ IV. Fracture of parietal temporal region and zygomatic bone Mode of death was shock. Accused/appellant was taken into He made disclosure statement of stick vide Ex. P/Z, the same was ecovered at his instance vide EXP/3. Blood stained and r custody. M7 3 piain soil was recovered from ‘the spof vide Ex. P/4. One under- garmenf of The accused was seized vide Ex. P/5. 5po1' map was prepared vide Ex. P/8. Sealed clo‘rhes of The deremed were‘seized Vlde Ex P/14 Seized ar‘hcles were sen? for chemical examma'hon Vlde Ex P/15 Smfemenfs of The WITnesses were recorded under SecTIon - 161 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in shorT The Code). 4. AfTer' compleTion of The invesTigaTion, charge sheeT was filed before The Chief Judicial MagisTraTe Bilaspur, who in Tum, commiTTed The case To The CourT of Sessions, Bilqspur, from where The Iearned‘ AddiTional Sessions Judge received The case on Transfer for Trial. 5. r. In order To prove The guilT of The accused/oppellanT iifj prosecuTIon has examined as many as 10 wITnesses The accused was exammed under SecTIon 313 of The Code, where he denied The circumsTances appearing againsT him, innocence and false implicaTion in crime in quesTion was claimed. / 6. AfTer affording opporTuniTy of hearing To The parTies, The learned AddiTional Sessions Judge has convicTed and senTenoed The appellanf as aforemenTioned. u/ 7. We have heard learned counsel for The parTies aT lengTh, perused The judgmenT impugned and record of The CourT below. 8. Learned counsel for The appellanT vehemenTly argued ThaT convicTion of The appellanT is based on The evidence of eye wiTnesses Anandram (PW—1), Bhuribai (PW-2), Tijram (PW-3) and Bedu (PW-4) buT, Their evidence does noT inspire confidence and TrusTworThy’ Their evidence is self—confmdicfory and in case of commission of such heinous offence like murder, prosecution is required fa prove The case beyond reasonable doubt which has nof been done in fhis case. . 9. 0n The ofher hand, learned counsel for 'rhe State opposed 1’he pefifion and submi‘Hed fhaf fhe evidence of Anandram (PW—1), Bhuribai (PW-2), Tijram (PW-3) and Bedu (PW-4) is sufficienf for drawing an inference fhaf The appellant hos committed culpable homicide amounting to murder of the deceased. 10. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of‘ the parties, we have examined the material available on record. 11. In the present case, homicidal death as a result of ante mortem fatal injuries to the deceased Narmada Prasad has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant, on the other hand; it is established by the evidence of Dr. 5hankarlal Paliwal (PW-9) and autopsy report Ex. P/10, which revealed that the ante mortem fatal injuries were found over the head of the deceased and death was homicidal in nature. 12. As’ regards the complicity of the accused/appellant in crime in question is concerned, the conviction is substantially based on the evidence of eye witnesses Anandram (PW-1), Bhuribai"(PW—2), Tijram (PW-3) and Bedu (PW-4). In the present case, Anandram (PW-1) son of the deceased has deposed that on 31.8.88, at about 5.30 pm, he heard commotion and reached near his house, where he saw that his father was lying on land and the appellant was assaulting him by, a woodén plank of cot over his head and leg and 2 ofher co-aCcused persons were instign‘ring ‘rhe accused/appellanf. He caugh‘r hold of The wooden plank of The accused, by which 'rhe appellanf was assaulfing his fafher, a? 'l'haf Time, Bedu reached ‘rher'e and separated him from 'rhe appellan'r- Ramcharan and ‘rher-eaf'l’er, The accused wenT away. His faTheri'died on The spoT. He wenT To Police STaTion and lodged FIR. vide Ex. P/1. Bhur-ibai (PW-2), TIJ‘ram (PW-3) and Bedu (PW-4) have subsTanTially corroborated The evidence of Anandram (PW-1). Defence has cross examined These wiTnesses aT lengTh, buT has noT been able To illiciT anyThing in Their evidence To discrediT Their/ TesTimony. Evidence of These wiTnesses, whose presence oT The Time of incidenT on The spoT was naTural, inspires confidence, TrusTworThy ‘ and is safe To rely. AfTer appreciaTing The evidence available on record, learned AddiTional Sessions Judge has convicTed The appellanT under SecTion 302 of The IPC and senTenced him To undergo imprisonmenT for life. The convicTion is based on credible, clinching and legal evidence, susTainable under The law. CourT below has awarded a minimum senTence prescribed under The law. 13. On close scruTiny of The evidence, we do noT find any illegaliTy or infirmiTy in The judgmenT impugned. Aw 14. ConsequenTly, The appeal is liable To and is accordingly dismissed. Sw- Sd/- R.L.Jhanwar T.P. Sharma i gudgei f ‘ Judge r x.\J.