H£GH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appea! No.781 of 1992 Munnaram APPELLANT: Versus RESPONDENT: JUDGMENT FOR CONS!DERAT!ON /g_\, HON’BLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J ¥ ’ Sd/- a ‘‘Manindr Mohan Shrivastava Judge j v POST FOR JUDGMENT ON A«FEBRUARY. 201 0 Sd/- DI-HRENDRA MISHRA Judge Sdi- Dammnm MISHRA V Paw k State of Madhya Pradesh (new CG) Judge \ # l H§GH CQLIRT OF CHE-9A?T!SGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Ap§$ai N0.781 of 1992 Munnaram, aged 25 years, S/o Eisahuram Yadav, R/o iVii!age Murra, PS. Nandghat, District APPELLANT: Durg, Presentiy at viliage Khongapani, Puram Basti, PS; Manendragarh, District Surguja (MP) (now CG) Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (now CG) RESPONDENT: Pfeseni: Smt. Kiran Jain, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ashish Shukla, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent. Division Bench: Hon. Shri Dhirendra Mishra & V Hon. Shri Manindra Mohan'Shrivastava JJ. J 11 D G M E N T (Deiivered on WK February, 201G) The foilowing judgment of the Court was de!ivered by Dhirendra Mishrag J. 1. This criminai appeai is directed against the judgment ofconviction and order of sentence dated 14‘“ March, 1992, passed in S.T. $105292, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge Surguja has convicted the appeltant under Section 302 of the tPC on two counts for causing homicidal death of Ram Singh and Sugri Bai, under Section 307 of the IPC for attempting'on iife of Phooimat Bai and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment on both counts and to undergo R.i. for 10 years respectiveiy. Aii the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Briefiy stated, the prosecution case is that on 20f“ dune, 1991 around 3 pm Karan Singh was splitting the wood by axe whereas, his daughters lndira and Phooimat Bai were working in the house, his wife Sugri Bai was also working in the house, at that time the \\ . .. {J\ agapenant entered their house in drunkgn candition and asked for liquor from the woman foik. On their refusal, he started arguing with them whereupon Karan Singh stopped him. The appellant came out of the house, snatched the axe from Karan Singh and threatened him. His daughters puiied him inside the house, however, the appeilant remained there with axe. When Sugri Bai came out to take back the axe, the appellant went tewards the ground. Sugri Bat foitowed him to the ground. Ram Singh aiso reached there. When Ram Singh‘asked the appeitant to return the axe, he gave one blow of axe on his head. He also assaulted Sugri Bai on her head. _She felt on the ground and died. When Phoolmat Bai went to save Sugrl Bai, she was also assaulted by the appellant, however, she sustained inturies on her hand and head and she also felt on the ground. People gathered there on hearing shouts and apprehended the accused with btood stained axe. .. Report of the Incident was lodged by Karan Singh (PW-1) on the ,same day vide Ex.-Pl1. The poiice proceeded for the scene of oceurrence and after performing inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased persons vide Ex.-P/11 and Ex—Pl13, sent their dead bodies for autopsy to Government Hospital, Manendragarh Vide Ex.— Pi4 and Ex.-P/7. Dr. P.K. Niyogi (PW-5) conducted postmodern on the dead body of deceased Sugri Bai and gave his report of Ex.—P./5. Dr. Suresh Tiwari (PW-6) conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Ram Singh and gave his report of Ex.-P/8. injured Phootmati Bat was also referred for medical examination vide Ex.- PIQ to CHC Manendragarh where Dr. PD. Soni examined her and I. gave his report of Ex.-PI9-A. _ After compteting usual investigation, charge sheét was fried in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manendragarh, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ambikapur and the same was received on transferfor trtai by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. , The trlai Court framed charge under Sections 302 of the IPC for causing death of Ram Singh, 302 of the IPG for causing death of XS @ Sug!i Bai and under Section 307 of the {PC for attempting 0n the 5ife 0f Phoaimati Bai. The appeliant ab}ured his guilt. The prosecution in order to estabiish the charges against the U) appeiiant examined 12 witnesses in ail’ Thereafter statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prusecution case and pieaded innocence and faise impiication. However, the triai Ccurt after hearing learned counsel fer the respective parties ccnvicteci and sentenced the appeiiant as mentioned in paragraph-1 cf this iudgment. 7. Homicidal death of Ram Singh and Sugri Bat is not in dispute. Even otherwise, from the evidence of injured eyewitness Phooimat Bai {PW-7) and other eyewitnesses Karen Singh (PW-1), Jamuna (PW- 2), iNdira (PW—3) and further from the evidence of Dr. P.K. Niyogi (PW-'5) who has proved the postmortem report of Ex.-P/5 of Sugri Bat and Dr. Suresh Tiwari (PW-6), who has proved the postmortem V ’report of Ex.-P/8 of deceased Ram Singh and found the foiiowing injuries, homicidai death of Sugri Bai and Ram Singh is estabiished. injuries of Suqri Bai (i) One incised wound of size 2" x 3A“ x bone deep on ieft temporal region 1" above mastoid process. Underlying fracture of skuil SEE“. iii) ‘One incised wound of size 1/2” x 2" x bone deep over occipitat region. Underlying fracture present. (iii)Clotted blood present on ieft temporai region in 8” x 6" area and in occipitai region 6” x 4” area (iv)0n internai examination, fracture of skuii extending from 11/2” above ieft eye towards occipital region of iength 8". Depressed fracture on the ieft temporai region of size 3" x 1.5". Ciotted hiood was coming out from the fractured area invoiving left tempro parietal region. He further opined that cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage and due to ante moretam injuries over head and fracture of skull. Death was homicidal in nature. o \\ i i mimies 0t Ram $inqh (i) Swelling over neck on antero Iatera! aspect, abrasion of size 1 cm x 1 cm over posterior side of right hand. (H) One abrasion of size 1/2 cm x V2 cm on right forearm. {iii)0ne abrasion of size Vz cm x 1A cm over right jaw. {MOne iacerated wound of size 312 cm over right occipitai region. (v) One lacerated wound of size 4 om x 2cm x icm over ieft parietal region. On. internai examination, he found clotted biood on the muscies of right and left side of the neck and fracture on right oocipitai bone of size 3 cm; linear fracture on left parietal bone of size 4 om. He opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature. The same were caused by hard and blunt object. The t injuries present over head and fractures were sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature. The deceased died as a resuit of shock due to excessive haemorrhage and fracture of skui! bone and death is homicidal in nature. . $mt. Kiran Jain, teamed counsel for the appellant submitted that iearned trial Court was not justified in relying upon the prosecution witnesses, as there is materiai contradiction and omission in their version. The entire incident occurred suddenly without any pre- meditation. There was no animosity between the appeiiant and the deceased persons and, therefore, the trial Court was not justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC for committing the murder of the deceased persons and the offence committed by the appellant oniy amounts to cuipable homicide not amounting to mutder punishable under Section 304 Part or Part ii of the IPC. . On the other hand, teamed counsei for the State/respondent supported the impugned judgment. to. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. ‘We have perused the record of the trial Court as also the impugned judgment. .The triai Court placing its reliance on the evidence of injured eyewitness Phoolmat Bai (PW-7) and other eyewitnesses nameiy, : @ Karan Singh (PW-1), Jamuna (PW-2) and Indira (PW-3) has convicted the appeilant. Phoolmat Bai (PW-7) is an injured eyewitness. She sustained 12‘ injuriss in the same incident as described in the injury repent of Ex.- PIQ-A, .ciuiy proved by Dr. PD. Soni (PW-8), who faund one. iacerated wound of size 5 cm x 3 cm x bone deep extending from earietai region to occipitai region and there was tenderness around the above injury on the radius of 8 cm; tenderness and pain on the right hand due to fracture of metacarpai bone. 13. Phooimat Bai (PW-7) has deposed that on the date and time of the incident, she was working in her house with the wife of Karen Singh when the appeiiant assauited her sister-in-iaw Sugri Bai by an axe in front of the house of Karan Singhi When she rushed to save her, he aiso assaulted on her head, however, she stopped by her hand. He gave another biow which hit on her right palm. After assaulting Sugri Bai, the appellant assaulted Ram Singh @ Jhakkad, who aiso’ ’ reached there and tried to intervene. The appellant assauited him with an axe. as a result he fetl down. in the cross-examination, she has stuck to her version in examination-in-chief and the prosecution has not been able to make her evidence unreliable or untrustworthy. 14. Her version is also supported by the evidence of other eyewitnesses namely, Karen Singh (PW-i), who has lodged the report naming the appeiiant as perpetrator of the offence. He has aiso deposed that on the date and time of the incident, the appeliant went inside his house from the back side and started taiking with his daughters. On hearing noise, he went inside holding axe. He stopped the appeiiant' from talking to woman foik and asked hirn to go out whereupon he snatched his axe and came out of the house. His wife went out and asked the appeilant to return the axe and arguments took place between them, thereafter the appellant ran towards him to attack hirn with axe whereupon his daughter closed the door. He came out from the other door and ran away. Munna hit the door thrice with his axe. He has further stated that the when appeiiant assaulted his wife Sugri Bai with axe, his son came there and intervened. He aiso Ban/e assauited him with axe which struck on his head and he feli dead. He has also stated that at the same time Phoolmat came there fat separaténg them and Munna assaulted her also and she sustained lnjurles on her head and hand. His wife fell dead thereafter. l He has proved first information report of Ex.-P/1. This witness has aiso been cross-examined at length by the defence, however, he has stuck to his version of the examination-in-chief and the prosecution could not elicit anything to discredit the evidence of this witness. Similar is the version of Jamuna (PW-2) and indira (PW-3) 15. On due appreciation of the evidence of aforesaid witnesses and the evidence of iniured eyewitness Phoolmat Bat (PW-7), we are of the opinion that their version is trust worthy and reliabie and the same is corroborated from the promptiy lodged first information report as also from the injury report of injured eyewitness Phoolmat Bai (PW-7) and the evidence of Dr. P.Kl Niyogi (PW-5) and Dr. Suresh Tiwari (PW-6) who have conducted postmortem and found corresponding injuries Von the persons of the deceased. The trial Court was entirely justified in relying upon the evidence of aforesaid witnesses in convicting the appeilant. 16. The argument that the incident occurred in a spur of moment and the appeliant had no intention to cause death of both the deceased persons is without any substance, as from the evidence available on record, it is manifestly clear that the appellant assaulted both the deceased persons and gave several blows on their vital part Le. head by a deadly weapon axe resulting in their instantaneous death. 17. in the result, the appeai has no force, the same deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. The appeliant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the trial Court forthwith. . / i DrunnNDRA MIsrmA iManindra Muhan Shrivastava i Judge ll\- Judge Sd/— sai- [