\x HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.883 of 2006 APPELLANT: (In Jail) Ashok Ram Gond, Slo Shri Dayaram Gond, aged about 35 years, Caste Gond Occupation Cultivation, R/o Viliage Jharaama, Police Station Lailunga, Tahsil Gharghora, District Raigarh (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh Acting through Police Station Lailunga, Tahsil Gharghora, District Raigarh (C.G.) RESPONDENT: {Criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure} Mrs. Hamida Siddiqui, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Akhil Mishra, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent. Division Bench: - Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Chandrakar, JJ ORAL JUDGMENT (3-8-201 1) T.P. Sharma, J: - 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction .& order of sentence dated 21—1 1-2006 passed by the 15‘ Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No.81/2006, whereby & whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of Ronhi Bai — neighbour, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.500/—, in default of payment of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appellant, and thereby committed illegality. 3. As per case of the prosecution, on the fatefut day of 27-6-2006 at about 9 a.m. the appellant who is neighbour of unfortunate deceased Ronhi Bai who was present in her house, assaulted Ronhi Bai by axe and caused as many as eleven seriousinjuries. After hearing the sound of Ronhi Bai l (since deceased), Ratan Singh Sidar (PW—1), Gokulsai (PW-2), Balita (PW-3) & Sunita (PW-4) reached to the house of Ronhi Bai and on being J asked, Ronhi Bai made dying declaration before Ratan Singh Sidar (PW- 1), Gokulsai (PW—2) & Sunita (PW-4) that appellant Ashok Ram has caused injuries to her by axe. Balita (PW-3) has also seen the appellant running from the spot after causing injury to Ronhi Bai. Ratan Singh Sidar (PW-1) went to Police Station Lailunga, lodged merg vide Ex.P-1 and FIR vide Ex.P-2. The Investigating Ofticer left for the scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P-4, prepared L inquest over the dead body of the deceased vide Ex.P—3. Blood stained and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-8. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-9. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Community Health Centre, Lailunga vide Ex.P-10A. Dr. Vinod Naik (PW—6) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P-10 and found following injuries: - (1) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. over parietal bone of scalp. (2) Incised wound 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. over left tempo parietal portion of scalp. (3) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep over left tempo parietal portion of scalp. (4) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep over left tempo parietal portion of scalp. (5) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep over left tempo parietal occipital portion of scalp. (6) Incised wound 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep over right zygomatic arch. (7) Incised wound 6 c.m.-x 2 c.m. x bone deep over right temporal- occipital-parietal portion of scalp. (8) Incised wound 7 c.m. x 2 c.m. x bone deep over right posterio occipital portion of scalp. (9) Incised wound 3.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep over right parieto v occipital portion of scalp. (10)lncised wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep over right occipito parietal portion of sclap. (11)lncised wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep over upper middle portion'of occipital bone of scal. Cause of death was head injury and death was homicidal in nature. During the course of investigation, the accused was taken into custody, S p he made discloser statement of axe vide Ex.P-6 and same was recovered at his instance vide Ex.P-7. Seized articles were sent for chemicai examination vide Ex.P-16. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was med before the urt of Judicial Magistrate First Ciass, Gharghora who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Raigarh from where Iearned Additionai Sessions Judge received the case 'on transfer for trial. . In order to prove the guilt of the accused/pellant, the prosecution has examined as many as ven witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he deie the circumstances appearing against him, pleade innocence and false implition in the crime in question. After affording opportunity of earing to the parties, learned Additionai Sessions Judge, convicted and sentenced the appellant as an . We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the tril Court. . Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of dying declaration of the decased made before Raan Singh Sidar (PW-1) Gokulsai (PW-2) & Sunita (PW-4) and evidence of Balita (PW—3) who has seen the appellant running from the spot after commission of murder, bu evidence of aforesaid witnesses does not inspire confidence an is not trustworthy. Considering huge number of injuries found over body of the deceased, the deceased would not be in a position to state anything and she must have remained unconscious till her death. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the appeal and submitted that evidence of Ratan Singh Sidar (PW-1), Gokulsai (PW-2), Balita (PW-3) & Sunita (PW-4) inspires confidence, it is trustworthy and same to rely. After appreciating evidence available on record, the trial Court has rightly convicted & sentenced the appellant in the aforesaid manner. 10.ln order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, A 1 we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. VI 1 foremetioned. Co ap se nd d ca . h a e t , t d 11.ln the present case, homicidal death of the deceased as a result of injuries found over her body has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant, even otherwise, it is established by evidence of. Dr. Vinod Naik (PW-6) and autopsy report EXP-10 that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 12.As regards complicity of the appellant in the crime in question, conviction of the appellant is substantially based on evidence of dying declaration made by the deceased before Ratan Singh Sidar (PW-1), Gokulsai (PW— 2) & Sunita (PW-4). As per evidence of Ratan Singh Sidar (PW-1), Gokulsai (PW-2) & Sunita (PW—4), after hearing the sound of Ronhi Bai, they rushed to the house of Ronhi Bai, she was badly injured and stained with blood, on being asked she made dying declaration that Ashok has caused injuries to her by axe, then after arranging jeep they took her to Lailunga hospital where the doctor declared her dead. Balita (PW-3) — child witness, has deposed that she heard the sound of Ronhi Bai on which she was sent by her father Gokulsai to the house of Ronhi Bai where she saw that the appellant was running from the spot after causing injuries to Ronhi Bai. Defence has cross-examined these witnesses at length, but has not been able to elicit anything in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony relating to the dying declaration and the fact that after commission of offence, the appellant fled away from the spot. 13.The principle of dying declaration is based on legal maxim “nemo moriturus proesumitur mentirf’—a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. lf the dying declaration is proved to be true, then same may be sufficient for conviction of the accused. 14.ln the present case, evidence relating to dying declaration inspires confidence and well corroborated by evidence of Balita (PW-3), medical evidence and the‘promptly lodged FIR. Conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is sustainable under the law. 15.For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The appeal is devoid of merit, same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sdl- Judge Judge ’l T.P.Sharma L Rangnath Chandrakar Soma