1 HON’BLE M . HARMA 8i HON’BL MR. N J. Manoj Nam, so of Ru Netam,“ age abou 25 years, residentf _ village Masora, Poliee Statio , Kondagaon, Dist. Jagdalpu (CG I Versus Ste of hhatsgar througl tt Rr (CG) (CINAL APPEAL UNDER ECTION 374(2 OF T CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDUR 73) Hesn ' S , ouns for the ppellan é% hn A P Shama cel at h Radra Agrawa Pane Lawyer, or the State/responden a E .K. W J “APPELLANT et n am In il) (assed on 24th ebruary 20 10 P F ) The judgment of the Court was delivered by T.P.Sharma, J.:- 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction & - order of sentence dated 12-3—2003 passed by the 15‘ Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur int Sessions Trial No. >360/2002 whereby and Whereunder learned Additional, Sessions Judge after =holding the appellant guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of his daughter and concealing the evidence of criminal case, l convicted the appellant under Sections 802 and 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced’to undergo imprisonment for life with r fine of Rs. 2000/—, in default of payment of dne, to further undergo R.I. for 6 months; and to undergo RI. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 500/—, in default of payment of dne, to further undergo R.I.‘ for 3 months. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. . Judgment is impugned on the ground 9/at Without there I being an iota of evidence, the Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby -' committed illegality. - Q“ HIGH COURT OF CEHIATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 672 of 2001 CORAM R TP S ( Ja d t 'o n t r ? 4 ta Cuh Dlsnc alpu RM S ) HE E 19 RESPONDENT Sn vm l l f t JUDGWNT I 3'. rief facts of th prosecutioxcase are that the apell a B e n pant ws - havin llicit relations with Smt. Anupa afi aa rsult of llicit relatios, Anup born one ema child. Afte irt of female chil, th relation etween the appelian an Sm. A ame d n at y 52 ‘ nupa bec un~coriaL O the feful da of -7-002 at about 12.0 at noon, Anupa Went to the appeEat ith he aughter and put the daughter on roa and told that ou should take the daughter an maint he. Ten. he I appellant took the daugter with im nd went b icycle and d her and hrownvr dead body in the Nallah ter tying the s with stone. Mer wa eporte y vid Ex P. BO: he mvegati Oiflc proceedd fo th lac of = occurrence ter summonin witness ide Ex 71nqes . Af g y . P-,.inti v over the dead body was prepared vide Ex. P—2. Dead body” was sent fortautopsy to Medical College, Raipur vlde Ex. P- 22. P.W. 5 Dr. Sanjay Kumar Dadu conducted autopsy along with. Dr. Kiran Agrawal vide Ex. Pl‘l6 and opined that the dead body was decomposed therefore, definite cause of death was not possible but they found Sigi of assault over private part of the child aged 6’months. During the course of investigation, the appellant was taken into custody. He made disclosure statement vide Ex. P-3, an the basis of which one bicycle was seized vide Ex. P-4. Water of the Nallal'i was seized in a bottle vide Ex. P-S. The dead body of the deceased was identified Vide Ex. P—6 and the clothes were identified vide Ex. P-7. Panchnama of recovery of dead body was prepared vide Ex. P—8. Spot map was prepared Vide EXP- ‘ ' 10. Seized articles were sent for chemicaleXamination vide ' Ex. P-12. Statement of accused was recorded under Section ' J- 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinaiter referred to as ‘the Codei. After, completion of investigation, v charge sheet was med in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur who in turn committed the case to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Raipur ‘n'om where the Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. g i d si e i n a fle r bh d e b t d t 0 n w r d d y ; d ain r h t l h h a y b l kille the af i ame g s rd b e . T ating e e r e pe ' '7 In order to prove the guilt of appellant, pmsecution examined as many as 14‘ Witnesses. Statemem of the accused was also recorded under Section 313: of the Code where he denied the circumstances appearing against him and claimed innocence and false implication. 5. After appreCIauon of ev1dence, learned Addltlonal Sesslons Judge, has conwcted and sentenced the appellant as r aforementloned 6. We have heard Shn A P Shanna, learned counsel for the appellant and Shn Ravmdra Agrawal Panel Lawyer, for the State/respondent and perused the Judgnent impugned. and. . the record ofthe Court below. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the case rests of circumstantial evidence but prosecution has ” failed to prove any of the circnmstances sufficient for drawing the interference that the appellant has murdered his child and concealed the evidence of cnmmal case; 8. Shn Ravmdra Agrawal learned Panel Lawyer appearing for v the State opposed the appeal and argued that the ev1dence of " G P W 6 Manbodh is summent for drawing mkrence that the r u appellant 1s the person who has committed on‘ence of murder » of his daughter and concealed the ewdence of q‘lminal case 9. In the present case unnatural death of a child aged 6 months and the dead body found m the Nallah in hidden condition, has not been substantially disputed by any of the parties P W 5 Dr Sanjay Kumar Dadu who has conducted autopsy has deposed 1n his ev1dence that the dead body of 6 to 8 months child was decomposed therefore, no definite dpnnon relating to cause of death was poss1ble PW 6 Manbody has deposed 1n his ev1dence that he along With the ’ appellant was gomg to market by bicycle Hls Wife who was , liavmg small child met them on the way Appellant gave Rs I 200/ to her and asked that Rs 200 300 he W111 give on , S day, which his Wife refused and put her daughter on a . " road.(Sadak main sulakar chali gayee) and told that you take - the daughter and she went away. Then appenant tooki’the ‘ daughter with him and went by bicycle. Afterwards, the police arrested him. The defence has cross—examined this -v witness but has not asked anything relating to the fact that the appellant has not taken his 6 to 8 months aged daughter With him by bicycle. In absence of any explanation, the' evidence of this witness clearly reveals that the appellant has taken his 6 to 8 months aged daughter with him. The other evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecutian is suiiicient for drawing an inference that the dead body of the child was found hidden in Nallah In the present case, the deceased was not seen in the company of the appellant Iasttime, but the deceased aged 6 ‘ to 8 months child was in complete custody of the appellant” * and afterwards she was found dead in hidden condition in a Nallah. The appellant has not offered any explanationpthat ~ how the child died and Who has hidden her in'Nailah.-In - absence of any explanation, the only hypothesis’which could A M be possible is that the appellant is the person who has killed the child and has hid her in Nallah. After appreciating the evidence, learned Additional Sessions judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant Wm X i (under Sections 302 and 201 .of I.P.C. On a‘close scrutiny of l the evidence, we are of the view that the Court below has not - committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant for killing his daughter and concealing thew evidence of a criminal case. The appeal being devoid of substances, deserves to be ’ 2. . and is hereby dismissed. Sdl— Sd/- N.K. Agrawal T.P. Sharma Judge Judge