\ iGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR DiVISION BENGH: Coram: HON'BLE MR.T.P.SHARMA & HON'BLE MR.R.N.CHANDRAKAR, JJ. Appeilant (!n Jai!) Respondent Crimina! Appea! No.851 of 2008 Damru iviore @ Anant More, Caste Mi^iya, aged about 20 yaars, R/o Vilf^ge Kudkansr, Police Station Jagdalpur, At present Ghatakwa!!, Poiice Station Frejarpur, District Bastar (CG) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Frejarpur, Dislrict Bastar (CG) (CRMiNAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE Cr.P.C.) Mr.Shrawan Chandei, counsel for ihe appeltanf. Mr.Neeraj Mehta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. (Passed on 14°' November, 2011) T.P.Shamia, J.:- 1. Chaiienge in this. appea! is to the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 8.11.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bastsr af Jagdalpur, in Sessions Tria! No.275/2006, whereby & whereunder teamed Ssssions Judge after hoiding the appeilant guiity for commission ofculpable homicide amounting to murder of Raimati @ Raya convicted him under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for iife and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.l. for two months. ^ 2; Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being any iota of evidence, the irial Court has convicted & sentenced the appeiiant as aforementioned and thereby commiKed iiisgaiity. 3. As per case of ths prosecution, deceased Raimati @ Raya was pregnant fhrough the appeiiant. Meeting was convened. Father and mctherof Raimati @ Raya asksd the appellant to keep the deceased with him. On ;i v t 1.6.2006 at aboul 8 p.m. the appeilant came to t'ne house of deceased Raimati @ Raya, he brin^ing her with him and thsreafter on ^cond day injured dead body of the deceased wss founa'. F.I.R. v/as lodgsd vide Ex.P/1. Merg was recoded'vide Ex.P/2. After summoning thswitnesses •i/ide.Ex.P/10 inquest overjhs body ofthe deceasecTwas prepared vide Ex.P/11, Spof map was prepared by jnvestigatjng officer vide Ex.P/12. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Maharans Hospita!, Jagdaipur vlde Ex.P/14 where Dr.R.B.P.GuptE^(R/y-5) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P/3 .?'' ' ' -: : ~ and found foiiowng injuries:- (i) incised ana stab wound of 6 cm. x 1 cm. over teft scapuia up to muscle-deep. (ii) Incised wound of 6 cm. x 2 cm. over right scapuia up to muscie deep. (iii) Incised 9nd stab wound of 8 cm. x 2 cm. over right scapula. (iv) incised wound of 8 cm. x 2 cm. over !eft scapuia. (v) Stab wound of 6 cm. x 2 cm. and 6 cm.in depth over sub- mandible area up to mouth with fracture of mandibie bone. (V!) tncised and stab wound of 6 cm. x 4 cm. over axilla. (vii) Incised wound of 6 cm. x 2 cm. over thumb of right hand. Mods of death was shock. During the course of iRvesfigation, btoocistainedand plain soii were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P/6. The appeilant was taken into custody, he made disciosure statement of kadri (dig knife) vide Ex.P/7, same was recovered at the instance ofthe appeliant vi'de Ex.P/8. Ctothes of the appeitant were seizsd vide Ex.P/9. Seaied ciothes of the deceased was seized vide Ex.P/16. 4. Statements of the witnesses wer^ recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for shqrt 'Code') and after eompietion A of investigation, chaF9& sheet was fited in the Court of Chief Jua'icia! Msgistrate, Jagdalpur, who in tum committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Jagdsipur. 5, in order to prove the guift of the acoused/appellant, the prosecution has sxamined as many as fweive witnesses. Statement of the accuss.d/appeiiant was recorded underSection 313 ofthe Code, in which ^It^B^ £: he dsnied ihe circumstances appearing against him and pieaded ,\ .. . .. . . .. : '' innocence and false implication in the crime in question. 6. After providing opportunity -of hearing to the parties, iearned Sessions Judge, Jagdaipur convictsd & sentenced the appeilant as t>. aforementioned. 7. We have heard learned counsei for the parties, pemsed the judgment 1 'Y ' . .. .. impugned and record of the trial|pourt. f-'t 8. Leamed counsei for the appeliant vehemently argued that convicfion is based on circumstantiai evidence of last seen theory of Rambati (PW-3) which does not inspire confidence and trustworthy. Rambati is mother ot Raimati @ Raya. As per para 3 of her cross-examination the dsceased was ssen iast time aiive in the company of Birsingh (PVV-12) and not in the company ofthe appeilant, therefore, this is the case of no evidence. 9. On the oiher 'nand, ieamed Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent opposed the appeai and argued that Rambati (PW-3) has categoricaily deposed in para 2 of her evidence that the appeiiantaiong with Bireingh (PiA/-12) came to her house, they took the deceased wfth them. She has further deposed that shs toid Birsingh not to permii the appeliant to take and Keep the deceased. This evidence cieariy reveals that the deceased has not seen in fhs'company of the appeliant alive last time but onty the appellant has taken the deceased with hsr. The appeiiant was having grudge against the deceased that she has compiained to her parenis and other persons that she is pregnant through the appeiiant and the appeliant was not ready to keep her. These evidences are sufRcient for conviction of the appe!!ant. 10.in order to appreciate the arguments ad^anced on behaif of the parties, ws have examined ffie evidence adducrid on behsif of the prosecution. i.in the present case, homicidal death asa resuit of fafat injuries fouiid over the body of Raimati @ Raya has not been substsntiaiiy disputed on behaif ofthe appeiiant, even othsrwise, it is estabiished by ihe evidence of Dr.R.B.P.Gupta (FW-5) and autopsy report Ex.P/3 that deerth of the deceased v/as homicida! in nature. ^.^ii\,y V&'SSS!' 12.As regards the compHeity of4he appeiiants in the crime in question, \ of conviction is substantiaily based on the evidence of iast seen theory of Rambati (PW-3) who has categoricaiiy deposed that her daughter Raimati @ Raya was having pregnancy ihrough the appeiiant but the appellant was not admitttag the fact. Just before the recovery of dead body i.e. a{ about 8 p.m. the appellant came along with Birsingh to her house, appeilant took the deceased with him and thersafter onsecond day injured dead body of j^e deceased was recovered. She has ^i - . ,...!, specifically deposed that even she toid to Birsingh not to permit the appeliant to take and keep the deceased with him, atthough she has admitted in para 3-of her cross-examination that Birsingh has cailed the deceased at the instance of the appeliant, but para 2 of her evidence is unambiguous and sufficient for drawing inference that the deceased was not seen last time alive in the compsny of the appeiiant but the appellant himself has iaken the deceased from the house of the deceased and thereafter she was not alive. in these circumstancss, heavy burden was on the appeilant to expiain that when he parted the company of the deceasedand why he has taken the deceased from her house. In absence ofaforssaid explanation, theonty inferencewouid bepossibie that the appeliarrt was the author of the crime and has committed homicidal death amounting to murder ofthe deceased. 13.After appreciating the evidencs available on record, learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appettant as aforementioned. 14.0n ciose scrutiny, we do not find iilegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned warranting interference. • 15.Consequsnt!y, ihe appeal bein^devoid of merit is Kable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. A [ Sd/- R-N. CIiandrakar Judge ..<. Sd/- T^R Shamli Judge ?.. i/l