1 nl9h Cour. ^ •j^\^]Wl^ -STT^ —A^-^'S^Wi--ST^ - <^SS4L-aU3l_'?i5 1%' tj' 19 9 o' Uader seetion. |^'G_-_foy;?3??^^" /^S^f^^'f77^im{r^Q^^,j'1J * f;'et>^-!a'^ i>TtRO:rtsSz>1 S1',-^.. •3(f,jw ~ ' ^^T4R ^JW^ -^^ ^QCZFf-y tffS S{,j 4-tofc^WfiF JTOieiAL MAGWtW ~^f^vsc^^^^ SWs 9v 3-fc^ T4W'-i»c,h>(^<<^S>6: ot' r« M.CESO ®€ Agpea " \) ^ 'v ^ r\' ^ :'^ ^A mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGrARH AT BILASFUR Cr. Anneal No. 698/1990 Banafar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) l^l^^;;ii?e^Ra... '"'''^•^lBa'ii JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATION Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Hon'U.e Shri JwaftSce FaMuruddln f^ c^^V-i.'s-^ Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge o^ Postfor '»'8-07-2005 Sd/- (JUDGE) S-07-2005 7V mGH COUKt OF CMHAmSGARH AT BILAOTUR C».Anneal No. S98/1990 Banafar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) CORAM: HON'BLE 8HRI PAKHRUDDIM, HON'BLBSHM D.R.DB8HMUKH, JJ. Shri Rakesh Jain with Snat. Kiran Jain and Smt.Nisha Chaturvedi, Counsel for the appeUant. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate for the State. JUDGMBNT IDeUvered on. 18-07-2005^ P®rDiUv BlaoaaIwB* D*—hn>"l«h, «J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 18-04-1990 deUvered by Shri S.K.Mishra, IInd Additional District 8s Sessions Judge, Anabikapur in Sessions Trial No. 84/89 whereby the appeUant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section- 302 of I.P.C. for cominitting murder of his daughter Meera aged about 11 years and son Deodhar aged about 8 years on 05-11-1988 in Village-Karia, P.S.- Ambikapur, District-Saiguja and was sentenced to undergo imprisonnient for life for both the offences. The sentences were ordered to run concurrentiy. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution stoiy is that on the uitervening night of 4th-5th Noveinber, 1988, the appellant Banafar was sleeping in his house along with his daughter Meera aged 11 years and son .j:; . 1: .ii|.LUL.illljr^it^i^^^s^u*A-£eff 1*.» ^ Deodhar aged 8 years. His wife had gone to her parents' house a day eariier. The father of fhe appellant Charku Rain was sleeping in another house. In the night at about 2 A.M., Charku Rain heard the shouts of Meera Bai and went there and saw that fhe door was locked frojn inside. The appellant did not open the door froin inside and said that he would kffl all of thein. After hearmg the shouts of beating the chndren, Charku Ram ahouted whereupon Rameshwar Prasad PW-6, Suinar Sai PW-7, Mahabir PW-10 and Nanka, PW-11, arrived at fhe spot and al that tiine, tiae appeUant was inside the roorn. Afler soinetiine, the appeUant came out frona the rooin. His hands were blood stained. The appeUant inade an extra judicial confession before the above witnesses that he had slained both fhe cdiUdren Deodhar & Meera by the Shaving Razor. Thunnu Ram, PW-8 lodged Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-20 at about 8.30 A.M. on 05-11-1988 in Vfflage-Karia, Police Station- Arabikapur. The panchnaina of the dead body of Deodhar & Meera was prepared vide Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-19. The Postnaortem was conducted on the dead bodies by Dr. A.K. Jaia, Assistant Suigeon, District Hospital, Ambikapur. Dr. Jain vide reporf Ex.P-3 & Ex.P-4 found an incised wound in the front side of fhe neck on both the dead bodies extendmg frmn R^ht Stemoclenoid inuscle to left stemodenoid rauscde, the skin flap situated wide apart showing fhe tradiea, oesphgaus, carotid vessels, thyroid gkind cut through & through. Dr. Jain opined fhat the death of Deodhar & Meera Bai was homiridal in nature and was caused due to shoek 8s nijury in blood vessels, wind & food pipe at the necdi. 3. During investigation, on the meinoranduin ESE.P-Q of the appellant, one round solid stone and Shaving Razor were seized frona the house of the appellant on 05-11-1988. Blood stained Lungi Ex.P-13 was also seized frona titie appellant's house. After coinpletion of investigation, the accused was prosecuted for offences punishable under section-302 of I.P.C. Tbe aceused abjured his guilt. The prosecution exanuned as inany as 12 witnesses. No evidence in defence was adduced by the appellant. The Leamed Trial Judge refyix^ upon the proseeution evidence convicted the appellant for c6innaitting the inurder of his chUdren i.e. Meera 8s Deodhar under section-302 of I.P.C. and sentenced hun to undergo unprisoiunent for Ufe for each ofifence under section-302 of I.P.C. The sentences were ordered to run eoncurrently. 4. The Leamed Counsel for the appeUant only contended that there was no eye-witness to the murder of Meera & Deodhar and the circuinstaatial evidence led by the prosecution did not establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 5. On the other haad, the Leamed Govt. Advocate while supporting the Judgment of tiie Trial Court contended that the appellant had been released froin Jail having undergone sentence upon grant of probation on the occasion of "Gum Ghasidas Jayanti" on 18-12-2002 by the State Govt 6. We have considered the aiguinents of the Leamed Counsel for the appeUant and have also perused the ^.^ record and gone through the evidence led by the prosecution. So far as the nature of death of Meera aged about 11 years & Deodhar aged about 8 years, both chfldren of the appeUant, is concemed, the testihaaony of Dr. A.K. Jain PW-3 leaves no nianner of doubt fhat the death of Meera & Deodhar was hoinicidal, since, both had been slained by a hard & sharp object and their Stemoclenoid inuscles were completely cut and the trachea oesphgaus, carotid vessels, thyroid gland were also cut throu^i & through. Thus, it is proved beyond doubt that both fhe children Meera SE Deodhar had died a homicidal death. ) We have also gone through the evidence of 'Hiunnu Ram PW-8, Rameshwar Prasad PW-6, Sumar Sai PW-7 and Mahabir PW-10 and £md that their testimony is wholly unrebutted. The Trial Court has rightly relied upon fheir testiinony which establishes that upon an alarm being raised these witnesses had reached the place of occurrence and found fhat the appellant was inside the roona and was not coming out. However, after soinetune when the appellant caine out, there was blood like stains in his hand and he made an extra judicial confession before these witnesses of having slained his children Meera & Deodbar by the Shaving Razor. There is absolutely noti.iing in tiie cross examination to indicate that fhe extra judicial \*ie^. eonfession by tlis appellant/not voluntarUy and was obtauisd due to coercion. We have also gone through the testunony of Deputy Superintendent of PoUce Shri Ratan Singh, PW-12. It establishes that he had recorded the ineinorandum of 4 M SAIISH appeBant vide Ex.P-9. At the instance ofthe appellant, he had recovered the Shaving Razor vide Ex.^10 fi-om the house of appellant. \ 9. Having thus considered the prosecution evidenoe in its entirety, we are of the considered opinion Sat the circuinstantial evidence led by the prosecution wholly exduded the hypothesis of the innocence of fhe accused and was wholly consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant. 10. We are of the considered opinion fhat the convicdon of ie appellant for the offences punishable under section-302 of I.P.C. for coinxnittmg the murder of his children i.e. Meera & Deodhar was based upon legal evidence. We therefore, find no infuinity in the Judgment of fhe Trial Court. 11. Accordingly, the appeal stands disinissed. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge ^07-2005 Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ts' -07-asuuo - - - - 1.