B”§§GH COgR'? OF CHHATHSGARH AT B§LASPUR DEVESEON BENCH: gomm: HON’BLE MR.T.P.SHARN§A & HON’BLE MRRN. CHANDRAKAR, JJ. §§imina§ Appeai No. 691 of 2W? Ganesh @ Bachchu Yadav S/G Late Payre!a! Yadav, aged about 43 years, R/o Nariya! Kathi, Dayalband, P.S. Kotwali, Biéaspur (6.6,) Kiersag Reapendent Staie of Chhattisgarh Thmugh : City Kotwali, Biiaspur (CG) (CRMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTDN 3?4 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRlMiNAL PROCEDURE, 1973) Appeilani/ (in Jail} Prese’uth Ms Kiran Jain, caunsei for the appeliant. Mr. D‘K. Gwa!re, Govt. Advocate for the State. QRAL augGMEm (Passed on 06th September, 201 1) Per T.P.Sh&rma, J3:- ‘ ChaHemge in this appeal is m the judgment of conviction & crde¥ 0f genience da‘ea‘ 16.05200? passed by ihe Sessians Judge, BiXawur, in Semions Triai No.91/2007, whereby & whereunder ieamed Seasicns Judge after heéding appenant guiiiy for commission of culpabie hemicide ameuniing i0 murder of his faiher Pyareiai (since deceased) convicted ine appeliant under Seciion 302 of the LPG. and senienced him to undergo imprisenment for iiie and fine cf Re.5GO/—, in defaui’t of payment 0f fine further “i0 undergo additiona! Ri. for one month. 2. Con‘ric‘iion is impugned en the ground that without there being any iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appeliant as aforementioned and thereby committed itiegaiity. '3. As per caee of prosecution, on fatefui night of 22.12.2066 between 8:09 to 8:36 om oresent appeilant. son of deceased Pyaretat, was sitting in A- ihe mam af his father. He used i0 quarrei with his father. He da‘nanded Rs401- §r0m his mcther PW/Z—Suraj Bai and purchased liquczr & eiher materiel; and went in3§de the mam 9f his father. Afier some time appellant came cut from mam of his father; jusf afier Ms {eaving the mam 0f his father fume was earning cut fmm mere then acme personz; rushed ta ihe room where they mum bumé dead bady cf deceaged Pyareml, jusi beiow the cat. Deheased Pyareml was not Eh a positich wen t0 WaEk withsui any assistance 6f perscn. PW! -Punnifa! recerdgcf merg vide EXP]? Burnt cog empty bathe af Eiquor, me bumt mafeh eiéck, ene maich box, sch coniaihing sme“ ef kerosene, bamt ctothee {hewer} and ehe yehow 'coieur jen’ycan cemainfng V2 Ltr. Kemsehe were seized hem éhe epo€ v§de EXP/3. investigating officer tefi fer scene e? accurrehce, af€er summoning the Witnesses vide EXPH, inquest ever the dead body of deceaeed was prepared Vide EXP/2. Spot map wee hrepared vide EXP/4. Dead body was sew: for auiepey t0 CWIS, Bilespur. Dr. SK. Paw (PW/12) conducfed autopsy vide ExPHa em fauhd {chewing Enjuriee/sympteme: (1) The body of deceased was Sean 8: thin, 78% burhi. (2) Bum injuries found over the body. (3} Carbon found 'in rhe trachea Bum injuries were anti—mortem in nature. 4. Cause or“ death Wes ehook. Fihaiiy, PW/2—Suraj Bai iodged HR. on 24.12.2606 \Jiole EXPIE. During oouree of investigation, appeiiani wae Eekeh inn) custody. Burnt ciothee of deceased were seized vide EXP/a Siaiemen‘ie of the wiineesee were recorded under Section 161 of ihe Code of Criminai Procedure (for short the ‘Cocie'). After compietien of investigatien, charge sheet was filed before ihe Court of Chief Judiciai Magietrate, Biiaepur, who in turn cornmiiied Sessions Judge, Biiaspur, iearned Sessions Judge received ihe case on irensfer for triai. 8. in order is proye fhe guiit of ihe acoueed/appeiiant, prosecution has examined as many as t2 witnesses. Statement of the aoousedleppeiiant was recorded under Section 333 of the {lode where he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pieaded innocence end feise impiioation in the crime in question. o1 A L Afier pmvidmg opportunity of hearing t0 ihe partie’s, ieamed Sgssimm IM Judge, convicted & $entenced the appeiiam as afm’emenmned. a. M3 Kkan Jain, counsei fer the appeiiam and Mr. BK. Gwalre, Govt Advecate for the State are heard. Perused the }udgment impughed and record of the ’{rial Court. 9. Learned oounse! for the appehant vehemently argued that conviction is baeed on circumsianiia} evidence but the circumstances moved by nrosecution ie not sufficient for drawing any inference that crriy appeiiani hare caused homicidal deai of deceased with intent tc cauee his death. There is m3 enmity and riveraiiy between appeiiant and his father deceased. Evidence adduced on beheif of prosecuiion showe ihe’c afrer ieaving rhe roam of deceased by appeiiant deceased died as a resuii er burn injuries. in these ctrcumetances, it is difficult to presume that appeiiant hae caused hemicidat death cf deceased and prosecution ie required to prove its case beycnd doubt. ta. Qh the ether hand, teamed Govt. Advocate for the State opposed the appeat and submits that evidence of PW/t-Ramesh end PWQ—Suraj Bai are sufficient for drawing inference that only appettant has caused homicidal death of deceased. 11in order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf or“ the parties, we have examined the evidence avaitabie on record. 12.ln the present case, death of deceased as a result of burn injuries has not been substantiaiiy disputed on behalf of the appeliant; even otherwise same is also established by the evidence of PW/t2 Dr.S.i<. Patel and autopsy report EXP/t6 that death of deceased Pyarelal as a result of burn injuries is estabiished. 13.As regard complicity of the appeilant in crime in question is concerned, conviction of the present appellant is substantialiy based on circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has tried to estabiish the following circumstances:- (i) Appeliant was duarrelling with his father before his death and thereby he was a motive for commission of the offence. (ii) Just few minutes before the death of deceased, appellant who was present inside the room of the deceased had ieft the room. GE) The deceased Pyarelal was net in a position to walk withaui: any assistance of person and it was not possible fer him to pour kerosene over him and set himse!f abiaze. (iv) Kerosene oi! in container, match box and used match stick found inside the room. MAs per evidence of PW/i—Ramesh and PW/2‘Suraj Bai, preseni appeiian’i was in a habit of quarreiling wiih his father deceased Pyareiai. On the dais of incident appeiiani: came wiih iiquor and went inside the room of his father. He aiong with his father consumed liquor and quarreied with each other. Thereafter, appeiiant ieft the room of his father and went in another room. Just after few rainutes, fume came out from the room then'they rushed atong with other persons to the room of deceased Pyareiai where they found burnt dead body of deceased. They oaiied appeiiant, who was siee‘ping in his room. On being asked he repiied that he was steeping. Deceased was not in a position to waik or move without any assistance of person, even for answering the caii of nature deceased was required reguiar assistance. PW/4—Astam Uiiah Khan has partiatty corroborated the evidence of PWI2-Suraj Bat, PW/3-Dunnitai, PW/5-Sunti Yadav. Defence has cross—examined these witnesses at iength but has not been abie to eiioit in their cross—examination to discredit their testimony to the extent that he was quarreiing with his father, just before the incident he was present in the room of his father aiong with iiquor and after leaving the room of his father deceased Pyareiai by abbeilant, death of deceased by burn iniuries has been noticed. As per evidence of PW/‘i 1-V.K. Mishra, inspector, he has stated FIR. EXP/5, conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased vide EXP/2 and has seized yeitow colour jerrycan containing is ltr kerosene, burnt clothes, match box and burnt match stick vide EXP/3 from the room of deceased. These evidences are sufficient for drawing inference that kerosene oil has been poured upon deceased by the appellant and set him ablaze. Deceased was not able to walk or move without any assistance of person then how it is possibie to pour kerosene oii over himself and set abiaze. The appellant was present just before the incident and quarreied with his father and thereafter dead body of deceased was found inside the room and cause of death was burn. if the aforesaid circumstances are considered together then only inference Waauid be passible that only appeHant has caused homicidai death of his father Pyarelal with intent to cause his death and no oihea' pemGn has caused homicidai death of deceased Pyareial. 15.After appreciating the evidence availabie on record, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appeiiant as aferementioned 16. On ciose scrutiny of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, we do not find any iiiegaiity or infirmity in convicting and sentencing the appellant. 17‘ Consequently, the appeai being devoid of meriie is iiable to be dismissecl and is hereby dismissed. Sd/— ,,l sw— RN. Chandrakar T.P. SHARNLA Judge Judge Vijay l 7