Coram: Appellant (in iail) I^^l%^^l^^@s^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Hon'bleShri T.P.Sharma and Hon'ble SJiri Raieshwar Lal Jhanwar, JJ. Criminal ApDealNo. 736 of2005 Ravi Panna, S/o Soman Panna, aged about 28 years, Constable No. 150, S.A.F. 4th Battalion Wahini "C" Company, Mana, Raipur at present camp Kodejunga, Kanker, District North Bastar, o' Kanker (C.G.), R/o village Maheshpur, tlfi P.S. Bagbahar, Dist. Jashpur (C.G.) Versys State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Kanker, Distt. North Bastar, Kanker GRIMINALAPPEALU/S374 (2)CR.P.C. Respondent Present !l!l? Ms. Sophia Khan, counsel for the appellant. Shri V. V. S. Murthy, Dy. Advocate General for the Sfate/respondent. ORALJUDGMENT (Passed on 16"' December,2009) Thefollowing oral orderof the Courtwas passed byT.P.Sharma, J. The chalienge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.07.2005 passedby 4th Additipnal Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Kanker in Sessions Gase No. 547 of 2001 whereby and whereunder after holding the appellant guilty forthe offence of culpable amounting to murder of deceased Subiraj Singh, Suregh Kumar @ Babloo Pandey and Santlal Pachbiye convictedthe appellantthrice under Section 302 ofthe I.P.C. and sentencedhim to undergo life imprisonment thrice and pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and indefault to undergo additional rigorous \. imprisonment forsix monthson eacheount. 2. The judgment is challenged on the ground that withQut assessing any evidence oftriplemurder, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has 11 ^; ^. convicted and sentenced the appellant thereby committing illegality and irregularity. \ 3. Brieffacts ofthe prosecution is that on fateful day i.e. 15.10.2001 at about 3.00 p.m. at Sharab Bhatti, Kanker, the appellant demanded liquor from the deeeased Santlal and Subiraj and Suresh Kumar @ Babloo were also present in that 0/?aff/. When the appellant again demanded liquor and Gigarette from them, it was dehied by Santlal, whereupon the appellant threatened the decgased Santlal by holding his collar, then x_ . \ : • Santlal slapped the appellant'. Thereafter,' the appellant went back after threatening him that he will see. After half an hour, he came back with rifle loaded with cartridges and indiscriminately firedat the deceased Santlal and Subiraj and Suresh Kumar @ Babloo and caused instantaneous death of the deceased. Dinesh Patel P.W.1, a vendor before Sharab Bhatti who was present on the date of incident and also witnessed the same lodged F.1.R. vide Ex.P.1 within 15 minutes after the incident promptly and has also lodged merg intimation of the deceased vide Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4.Articles like piece of cigarette, liquor bottle and glass were seized from the spot vide Ex.P.6. One Hero cycle was also seized vide Ex.P.7. Cartridges of the rifle were seized vide Ex.P.8. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P.10 and the appellant was identified videidentification parade Ex.P.9. A register bodk showing the cycle taken by the appellant on rent was also seized vide Ex.P.11. Inquest over the dead bodies of all three deceased was prepared vide Ex.P.35, Ex.P.41 and Ex.P.42 and thereafterthe dead bodies ofallthree deceased were sent to GovernmentK.D.Hospital, Kanker for autopsy. Autopsy on dead body of Subiraj Singh was conducted by Dr. J.S.Sahu P.W.26 vide Ex.P.38, on dead body of Santlal, Dr.Pradeep Claudius P.W.28 vide Ex.P.41 andon dead body of Suresh @ Babloo, Dr.Vijay Shukla P.W.24 vide Ex.P.24. ^Upon autopsy, gunshot injuries overthe dead bodieswere found and death was as a result ofgun shots and was homicidal in nature. Magazine ofSLRand Rifle was seized by one Head Constable vide Ex.P.5. Roznamcharecord relating to use of rifle and its cartridges of the appellahtwas also exhibited vide Ex.P.11-0. .\ •O'd'l t^oe yoiiosg ^o yed puooss puoAaq |9Ae4 )ou ssopioe siq pue q}esp sseo 0} A|9))!| ABUI JSA|OASJ )B4)sBpa|Mou>| e'L|}IM psjy seq iue||9dde84} )eqi SMoqs LuipiA jo L|}esp pue luipiA^o SSnOL| eqi SpJEMOl AlStBUIlUUOSIpUI posnooe eq') Aq Buuy 94} isjjenb usppnsuo 4641 pist^ ijnoo xedv si|) ijoiqM ui 08Z OS 8QOZ WV''d'n/o ^fBfs'A ueiinew JBwnyffaauiA p jeHBLU sij} UISOUBIISJ p9oe|d }ue||eddB9qi JO^issunoo 's}USLun6je siq p yoddns U| •o'd'l QUKS-O 1-PBd frOS puoAeq |eAB4 iou seop pBsiq pue suosjsd sejLji jo jspjniu ^o souayp Aue psyiLUujooiou sey SH •lusiuoiu jo Jnds e ui A|UO uje^ }B psjy )ue||adde 341 IBL|) pue qiesp jisy} ssneo 0} uoiiustU! jo uo!}Bt!psuj9jd AueinoLitiM pueuoiiBoixoiuipSBBis sq} ui SBM 94 Stuit 1B4) )B pue jspjnuj o} Buitunoiue loeep lepioiiuoy pssneo iou seq sq )nq 1045 un6 Aq fejiqns pue ooiqeg @ jeiun»qssjng 'ieBueg A|eujeu suosjsd ssjqi io L|)esp iBpioiLUO^ pssneo iue||sdde sy} leqt ps|esA8j S'M'd lUBjnejnyo pue s-M'd vewe-\ '|8}Bd yssuia [.•M'd ^oeouspiAS S4t q6noi;}|e }B4i psn6Je AiiustusqsA )Ue||9ddB 9L|) jo^ [esunoo •/ •ynoo JSMOI syt ^o pjooaj pue psu6ndLU! }u8iu6pnf pssnjsd pue seiped 9qi jo^|ssunoo psujesi pjeoi) eAeq SM •g •(ejdns) i. qdejBejed u! psuoiiusLUsjoje se lueiisdde 941 p83U9}uss pue psioi.Auoo j8)|ue» '('o'l'j) sBpnp suoissss IBuojtippv ^f psu-ies) 8L|} PJOOSJUO siqeiieAe souspiAS 941 Buissssse jsye pue JS^SUBJ} uo aseo sqi ^o idiaosj jeyv 'iueijadde lusssjd 84} (suieBB sauapiAS as|e^ sonppe 0} [.•AA'dl8iecl ijssuia uodn sjnssejd p9}BSJO SE4 301|0d tEl)} pSSOdSp OI)M Z-AA'Q ^Suig uiBj6uB9 PUB 1,'M'a BJSL|!|/\| JBiun» i<ssjng SSSSSUIIM 'sseo s,}ue||sddB si|} pua^sp. 0} jepjo ui pue uo!)eo!|dLui SS|B^ pue eousoouu! ps^uieio pue uiiq isuieBe GuuBeddB seoueisuinojp 94} psiuep 94 t^oiqM ui spoo 941 io ei.e uo.iioss Jspun peuiLUBxs OS|B SBM )ue||sddB 941 •sessauiiM ge se Aueiu se psuiuiBxs seq uoitnossojd 34) 'iueiigdde s^ 10 wnB ai^ SAOjd 01 jspjo U| •g •js»|uex'sBpnp suoissss si<l 01 eseo sqipsuiiuuioo ujn} uj O^M 'WT'O 341 sjo^sq p9|y ussq set| laoqs aBjeijo uoiieeitssAUi ^o uo!)S|diuoo JSUV -pspjooaj ueeq SAeq (,apoo 94}, yo4,s joj) spoo sjnpsoojd |BU!IUUO sqtjo 1.91. uoipag jspun sssseuiiM 04} ^o siusLueieis •f M' 8. On the other hanc(, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State vehemently opposed the appeal and argued that in the present case the appellant firstly demanded liquor from the deceased Santlal and thereafter when second time the appellant again demanded liquor, the deceased Santlal slapped him. The accused then left the plaee~and after half an hour returned with Rifle loaded with cartridges and fired upon three persons i.e. Santlal, Suresh Kumar @ Babloo and Subiraj which shows the grave intention to killabovQ,{persons by using dangerous weapon of ^i' . . offence i.e. rifle. He further ar^iied thatprosecution has proved its case beyond all reasohable doubts and the appellant has committed the murder of 3 persons at once thereby causing the instantaneous death of three persons. 9. In order to appreciate the arguments, we have examined the material evidence available on record. In the present case, cbunsel for the appellant has notsubstantially disputed the death of deceased Santlal, Suresh Kumar @ Babloo and Subiraj being homicidal and otherwise established by autopsy on dead body OfSubiraj Singhconducted by Dr. J. S. Sahu P.W.26 vide Ex.P.38,on dead body of Santlal, Dr.Pradeep Claudius P.W.28 vide Ex.P.41 and on dead body of Suresh @ Babloo, Dr. Vijay Shukla P.W.24 vide Ex.P.24 which revealed that gunshot injury was found over vital parts of the bodies of all three deceased and death was as a result of haemorrhage and shock and was homicidal in nature. 10. As regards the complicity ofthe appellant in the said offence in question, case ofthe prosecution rests on direct and ocularevidence of P.W.1 Dinesh Patel, P.W.3 Lakhan and P.W.5 Ghurauram. P.W.1 Dinesh Patel, who after witnessing the incident has lodgeda prompt F.I.R. Ex.P.1 and alsolodged merg intimation vide Ex.P.2, Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.4, has deposed that he has a petty shdp-keeper and used to sell articlesnear Sharab Bhatti, On fateful day of incident i.e. 15.10.2001 he was present in his petty shop. The appellant was drinking liquor and on demand of cigarette and more liquorfrom the deceased Santlal, the deceased Santlat provided the same to the appellant. He further deposed that the appellant again demanded cigarette from Santlal whereupon the deceased Santlal 1 45 refused and slapped the appellant who left the spot and returned after half an hourwith rifle loaded wth cartridges and fired atSantlal, Suresh Kumar @ Babloo and Subiraj indiScriminately. Eye witnesses Lakhanlal and Ghurau, who were also present in the liquor shop, corroborated the evidence of Dinesh Patel. The defence has cross-examined these witnesses atlength but has not been revealed anything to discredit their testimony. The testimony of eye witnesses present at the time of incident is also duly corroborated by F.I.R. Ex.P.1 as also merg intimation vide Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. Theijse eye witnesses' evidence is sufficient for ^'•i ' • drawing an inference that the appellant who was in drunken condition has caused homicidal death of the above deceased by firing indiscriminately at them with Rifle and.that the ocular evidence is totally consistent with the opinion of doctors who have given injury report and the port-mortem report. 11. As regards the question of motive, motive only aids in criminality and it loses its importance in case of direct evidence. Motive can be inferred onthe basis ofweapon used, injuryfound overthe body and part of the body affected and other like circumstances. In the case of Vineet Kumar Chauhan v. State of U.P. (supra), the Apex Court held that in a sudden quarrel the appellant fired towards the victim's house and the victim received injury at the time of closing the door shows that he has not intentionally fired, and therefore, the^ase fallswithin the ambits of Second Part of Section 304 of the I.P.C. and in the present case the incident took place in two parts. The first part relating to demand and denial of cigarette and the deceased slapped, then after issuing threat he went away from the spot and came after an hour with Rifle and fire upon the three deceased. This is not a case where the appellant fired after receiving injury and is a case in which the appellant left the spot and returned the place after an hour with dangeroys weapon of offence i.e. Rifle and has fired indiscriminately upon the three persons and caused death of those three persons. This shoWs grave intention of the appellant for causing homicid.al death amounting to murder of Santlal, Subiraj and Suresh Kumar @ Babloo. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the II . i! !1 :11 appellant is fully distinguishabte on the grounds and facts of the present l' case. 12. On close scrutiny and after minutely scanning the evidence available on record, we do not find any irregularity and infirmity in the impugned judgment. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned AdditionalSessions Judge has rightly found the appellant guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in paragraph 1 (supra), for the murder ofthree persons namely Santlal, Subiraj and Suresh withi'yangerous weapon of offence i.e. Rifle loaded with cartridges. 13. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is dismissed accordingly. ;" Sd/- TiR Shamia Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge v-f