A-F.^ ''~,. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (DIVISION BENCH1 CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.457/1992 Peeda®Ja®leshwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATION Sd//- V.K-Shrivastava Judge Hon'ble Shrl Justice FakhEiddliL Fakhruddin Judge Post for \Y708/ 2005 ^^l^. JUDGE I']/08/2005 '^ [rti:^i •?":re'(:-?-.T!FT^IW^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH ; BtLASPUR (Division Bench) CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Fakhruddin, J &, Hon'ble Shri Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, J. ApBellant CRIMINAL APPEAL No.457/1992 ResBQjident PRESENT Vs Deeda @ Jageshwar sto.Luru Urao, aged19yeaars r/o. village Rere PS Bagbahar, Dist. Raigarh (CG). State of Chhattisgarh ThroughSHOPS Bagbahar, Dist. Raigarh (CG) Ms. Nisha Chaturvedi, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate with Shri Akhil Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the respondenystafe. JUDGMENT v (Delivered on \1 IOS1200S] Per Viiav Kumar Shrivastava, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by llnd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh,.ffl Sessions Trial No."148/91 on 05/02/1992 by which the / appellant has been held guilty for committing offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C-, and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, indefault of payment of fine, to urLdergo additional R.l. for one month." 2) Deceased Shushma is the daughter of Shobit Ram and the appellant is his brother-in-law. The date of incident is 06/08/1 991. Prior to the date of incident, appellant took Shushma along with him for keeping her as his wife, but the family members of the accused did not allow her, therefore, Shushma came back to her parental house. Thereafter, appellant contacted marriage with an another woman and Shushma refused to join the company of appel.lant. The relation by accused with Shushma was also disliked by Shobit Ram and his family members. Annoyedwith all these facts, on 06/08/1991 appellant came to the house of Shobit Ram and by inflicting multiple injuries by an axe onthe neck of Shushma caused her to death. Shobit witnessed inflicting multiple injuries by the appellant on the neck of his daughter Shushma. Appellant after killing Sushma threw the axe on the spot and ran-away. Shobit Ram raised the cry while the appellant was inflicting injuries by an axe on the neck of Sushma, On hearing the voice, Hari Singh came there. Hari Singh and Shobit Ram reached near Shushma and found, Shushma was dead. Shobit Ram lodged firet information report and merg intimation at Police Station Bagbahar. 3) Police officials came there and prepared panch nama of the dead body and sent the same for post mortem. During the investigation axe left by the appellant at the spot was seized from Shobit Ram who had produced the same. From the spot, blood stained, earth and simple earth were seized/ Map was drawn by the Patwari and identification of axe was also conducted. Clothes of dceused were seized. Axe was also sent to Medical Officer for opinion. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Dr. Kailash Dubey conducted autopsy and in his report he described various injuries found on the body of Ku. Shushma and opined that Ku. Shushma died due to shock and coma (severe hemorrhage) and opined the death homicidal in nature. All the wounds found on the body of the deceased Shushma were caused by sharp object and ante mortem in nature. He further opined that the injuries found on the body of Shushma might have been caused with axe. After completion of investigation challan was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, who committed the case to Sessions for trial. 4) Learned trial Court framed charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C., against the appellant. Charge was read over and explained to him who abjured his guilt. The defence of the appellant was that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned trial Court evaluating the evidence held appellant guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. accordingly convicted and sentenced him. 5) Parties are heard and record of trial Court perused. 6) Doctor Kailash Dutt Dubey ( R/V/13) in his evidence deposed that on 07/08/1991 he' conducted autopsy and on examination of dead body of Ku. Shushma he found the following injuries present on her body. 1) Incised wound in the size of 3" x 2" x 2" deep mid neckinfront rightside. ^ / 2) Incised wound at base of neck in front in the size of 3"x 2"x2»%" deep right side. 3) Incised wound left side base of neck oblique in the sizeof 2"x1"x2%"deep. 4) Incised wound at left side supra scapular space .shoulder in the size of 3 %" x 2" x 2 %" deep. 5) Mid neck left side lateral in the size of %" x %" x 1 deep incised wound. 7) He has further deposed that on opening the wound No.2 i.e., incised wound at the base of neck he found internal jugular vein cut, cordial artery cut and in No.3 trachia left sjde artery and vein cut. He further deposed that the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage. All the injuries were caused by the sharp object and the death was homicidal in nature. His report is Ex.P/17. He also after examination of the axe opined that the deceased received all the injuries from the sharp edge of axe. Neither his evidence has not been challenged in cross- examination nor his evidence suffers from any infirmity, therefore, from the evidence of Dr. Kailash Dutt Dubey, it was proved that Ku. Shushma died as a result of multiple injuries caused on vital part of her body i.e., neck by sharp object like an axe. 8) Shobit Ram, the father of the deceased Shushma, in his evidence deposed that around 5.00 pm he came back to his house from market. He saw his daughter an'd appellant in the verandah. Appellant saw him and instantly inflicted three blows by Kulhadi (axe). He gave two blows on the neck of Shushma and one blow near her chest. Shushma fell down and appellant threw Kulhadi (axe) on the spot and ran.away. He shouted that Deeda (appellant) killed Shushma with Tangia. Hari/ Singh on hearing the voice rushed to the spot. At that time appellant was running away from the spot. They went near Shushma and saw injuries on her body, bywhich time she had lost her breathe. 9) Hari.Singh (PW/2) in his statement deposed that around 5:00 p.m. be heard the cries of his uncle whoj^ised voice that Hari Singh ili: i "Dowcto Deeda ne Shusftma to Tangia se marcSya he/. He hearing the voice rushed and reached to the house of Shobit Ram. He saw the dead body of Shushma lying in the verandah and the appellant was running away from there. He saw injuries on the neck and near the chest on the body of Shushma. Shushma was bleeding and also died. 10) Somnath (PW/3), Dh(?ond Ram (RA//10), Ku. Nan Bai (PW/12) have deposed in their statement that from Shobit Ram they came to know that Dida had killed Shushma by inflicting injuries by axe. They saw the dead body of Shushma and also injuries on her body. They also saw the axe lying there. 11) Shobit Ram (R/V/1) and Ganesh Ram Sahu, Head Constable (PW/17) have proved first information report (Ex.P/1) and Merg Intimation (Ex/P.2) Seizure of the axe on producing the same by Shobit Ram has been proved by Shobit Ram (PW/1) and Kesav Narayan (RA//16), A.D. Manik Puri (ff/V/18) had sent the axe to medical officer vide Ex.P/22 that has been proved by A.D. Manik Puri (PW/18). 12) The sole contention of the appellant is that Shobit Ram who is eye witness, the witnesses who saw the appellant running away from the spot and other witnesses to whom soon after the incident Shobit Ram, narrated the incident are near relatives of the deceased, therefore, their version should not be accepted. •ir . •*•»••• 13) tn Ram Udgar Singh Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2004 (10) SCC 443, Hon'ble the Apex Court has observed at para 7 as below: "7 - Relationship is not a factor te affect ffse credSiiSty of a mfness. It is more often (han not- that a re&fen or a friend i' tliil 1!:1 woukf not conceal ffiie actual culprit and make allegaSons against an innocent present. FoundaVon has to be ted if a pfea oi false implicaVon is macte. In such cases, tne Court has to adopt a careful approach and anafyze the evidence to find out whefher it is cogent and crec&bte". In the instant case, no doubt, Shobit Ram (PW/1), Hari Singh (PW/2) Somnath (PW/3) Ku. Nan Bai (PW/12) are near relatives of the deceased. Her®it is also to be'remembered that the appellant is also thickly related to the deceased and Shobit Ram. After scrutinizing the evidence meticufpusly of all those witnesses nothing could be found which may create any doubt on the credibility of these witnesses. Neither their evidence is shacking nor there is any reason for them to implicate falsely the appellant in the instant case. The evidence of eye witness Shobit Ram (PW/1) is corroborated by other witnesses and also by the first information report and post mortem report. From all the evidence it was proved that the appellant inflicting multiple injuries on the vital part i.e., neck of Shushma by deadly weapon axe has caused her death. 15) The evidence of Shobit Ram (PW/1), Hari Singh (PW/2). Somnath (PW/3) Dhoond Ram (PW/10), Dharam Ram (PW/11) and Ku. Nan Bai (PW/12) is sufficient to establish that the appellant and Shushma had illicit relation. Earlier appellant took Shushma to his house for keeping her as his wife, but family members of the appellant did not a!low it, 33 a' result of that Shushma came back to her parental house, / thereafter appellant contacted mamage with an another woman and ^ Shushma declined to keep any relation with accused, therefore, it appears to be the motive beMnd thej'nurder. -^ 16) Taking into consideration the deadly weapon used, several injuries inflicted on the vital part ofthe deceased and the motive behind it, do clearly establish that the appellant intentionally by inflicting various injuries on the neck of the deceased Shushsma caused her death, therefore, was guilty of committing offence of murder and the trial Court has rightly arrived at the finding. There is no infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court. 17) IrrtheresulUh^ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd//- V.K.Shrivastava Judge Fakhruddin - Judge