O/g, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2008 APPELLANT: Betti Hidma, S/o Betti Budu, aged 3O years, In jail (25.08.2006) R/o Near Ayyappa Temple, Bacheli, Police Station Bacheli Versus RESPONDENT: State of Chhattisgarh Criminal Agpeal No.285 of 2008 Poyami Sannu, S/o Poyami Raju, aged 25 years, R/o Railway Colony, Near Ayyappa Temple, Bacheli. APPELLANT: Versus State of Chhattisgarh AND Criminal Appeal No.286 of 2008 RESPONDENT: Poyami Budhram Son of Poyami Bhima, aged 28 years Resident of Behind Ayyappa Tempie‘ Bacneli, Police Station Bacheli, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh {Criminal appeals under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: Present: Mr. R.M. Solapurkar, counsel for the appellant in Cr.A.No.27/2008. Mrs. Kiran Jain, counsel forthe appeiiant in Cr.A.No.285/2008. Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, counsel for the appeiiant in Cr.A. No.286/2008. Mr. Ashish Shukla, Government Advocate for the State/respondent. Division Bench: - Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Chandrakar, JJ ORAL JUDGMENT (1 3-1 0-201 1) T.P. Sharma, J: - 1. Since all the above criminal appeals are arising out of the same judgment dated 4-12—2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, South Bastar Dantewa'da, in Sessions Trial No.208/2006, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. By the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life & pay fne of Rs 1 OOOI- each m default of payment of fne to further undergo Rl for three months 3. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence, the trial‘Court has convicted & sentenced the appellants, and thereby committed illegality. 4. As per case of the prosecution, on account of suspicion of witchcraft, on 23—8-2006 at about 10 p.m. all the appellants came to the house of Bodda (since deceased) i.e. husband of Smt. Jogi (PW-6), they were holdings weapons, they called .Bodda' from his house, Bodda came out from his house, then the appellants assaulted him by knife, stick and a hands & fists. Bodda fell down. ’Appellant Sannu chased Smt. Jogi (PW- 6) who was witnessing the incident, she rushed from the spot along with vfher kids towards the forest. Second day morning she came back to her house. She searched for her husband and injured dead bodyvof-her husband was found near the field. She went to the police station and I lodged FIR on second day vide EXP—15, Morgue was'recorded vide Ex P46. The investigating Officer left for the scene of occurrence and after, summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P—9 prepared inquest over the dead body of the deceased vide Ex.P-10. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Government Hospital, Bacheli. Dr. VG.R. Uraon (PW-2) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P-7 and found following injuries: - (1) incised wound over right ear of 3 c.m. x % c.m. (2) incised wound over neck of 8 c.m. x 5 c.m. x 5 c.m., trachea and esophagus were cut. (3) incised wound over left temporal region of 5 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x scalp deep.- (4) lncised wound over abdomen on epigastrium region of 6 c.m. x 1 c.m. x skin deep, internal part of abdomen were cut. REE. l . (5) Incised wound of 10 c.m. x 5 c.m. x skin deep over abdomen, peritoneum was cut, intestine was visible. (6) Whole penis and scrotum were cut from root, size of wound is 10 c.m. x 8 c.m. (7) Incised wound over right shouider of 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x skin deep. (8) Lacerated wound of 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. over Ieft axilia. Injuries were ante-mortem in nature. Mode of death was syncope. Death was homicidai in nature. During the course of investigation, accused Poyami Sannu was taken into custody, he made discloser statement of knife vide Ex.P-2 and same was recovered at his instance vided EXP—3. Appeliant Betti Hidma made discloser statement of stick vide Ex.P—4 and same was recovered at his instance vide Ex.P-5. Plain soil and blood stained soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P’-6. Undergarment was seized vide Ex.P-17. Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis vide Ex.P-18. . Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the > CrPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was tiled before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantewada who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Dantewada where trial of the case was conducted. . in order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses. The accused were examined under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied the-circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. . After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Sessions . We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court. . Mr. R.M. Solapurkar, Mrs. Kiran Jain & Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants vehemently argued that conviction of the appellants is based on solitary evidence of Smt. Jogi (PW—6.) — wife of the deceased who is relative & interested witness and whose evidence does not inspire confidence and is not trustworthy. Even the prosecution has declared her hostile, there is Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. material contradiction in her evidence before the Court and the statement recorded before the police under Section 161 of the CrPC, as Ex.D-1. She has exaggerated her evidence. in these circumstances, only the evidence of Smt. Jogi (PW-6) is not safe for conviction of the three appellants. 10.0n the other hand, Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/respondent opposed the appeals and submitted that Smt. Jogi (PW-6) — wife of the deceased has witnessed the incident. The incident took place in front of her house where all the appellants came and called her husband. The appellants chased her then she fled away from the spot. Her presence at the time of incident and fleeing from the spot were natural. She has lodged FIR EXP—15 promptly. Her evidence inspires confidence and is trustworthy, same is safe to rely. 11.ln order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 12.l-n the preSent case, homicidal death of deceased Bodda as a result of injuries sustained by him has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellants. On the other hand, it is established by evidence of Dr. G.R. Uraon (PW-2) and autopsy report Ex.P-7 that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 13.As regards complicity of the appellants in the crime in question, the prosecution has examined Smt. Jogi (PW—6) as solitary eyewitness. As per evidence of Smt. Jogi (PW—6) — wife of the deceased, on the fateful day, at about 1O p.m. she along with her husband and kids were present in her house, at that time all the appellants came to her house, they called her husband, when her husband came out of the house, the appellants assaulted him, appellant Sannu assaulted by stick, appellant Hidma assaultedby knife and appellant Budhram assaulted by hand. She herself has witnessed the incident. Thereafter, appellants Budhram & Sannu chased her, then she fled away from the spot to the house of her brother-ln—Iaw along with her two kids where she stayed. Again, at about 1 p.m.‘ she came to her house, but she did not find her husband there, on second day morning she searched for her husband then, dead body of her husband was found. She narrated the incident to villagers and lodged the report. Defence has cross-examined this witness. She has denied the suggestion that she has not seen the incident on account of darkness. She has specifically deposed that in her house, there is electricai faciiity and when her husband woke’up, she put on the light. She has denied the suggestion that she was not present on the spot. 14.There is contradiction relating to holding of knife in her statement Ex.D—1 and in her evidence before the Court, and also relating to chasing by appellant Budhram. As per her statement Ex.D—1 recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, she rushed towards the forest when she was chased by appellant Sannu, but as per her evidence before the Court she rushed to the house of her brother-in-law along with kids. Definitely, there is exaggeration and contradiction, but that is not on material point effecting the evidentiary value or root of the case. 15.The incident took place at about 10 pm. at night in a village. At 1O p.m., presence of wife of the deceased in her house was natural. When she was Ichased', she rushed from the spot.’ This conduct of wife of the deceased-Smt. ’Jogi (PW-6) is also natural though there is contradiction relating to the place where she rushed but only on account of such exaggeration or contradiction, her evidence cannot be discarded. She is: wife of the deceased and relative. Relatives are the last persons to s’pa’re real culprit and implicate falsely the innocent persons. 16.Evidence of Smt. Jogi (PW—6) inspires confidence and is trustworthy, same is sufficient to establish the fact that all appellants came to the house of deceased Bodda, they called Bodda, when Bodda came out, from his house, they caused injuries upon'him and as a result of such injuries, her husband Bodda died. As per evidence of Dr. G.R. Uraon (PW-2), this is a case of brutal murder in which even penis and scrotum of the deceased have been chopped. Aforesaid proved facts are sufficient to prove the offence that all the appellants in sharing common intention have caused homicidal death of deceased Bodda with intent to cause death and they have brutally murdered Bodda. 17.After appreciating evidence available on record, learned Sessions Judge convicted & sentenced the appellant in the aforesaid manner. Conviction of the appellants is based on clinching and credible evidence sustainable under the law. On close scrutiny of evidence, we do not find an ” rx y / illegality or infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence requiring any interference. 18.Consequently, the appeals are devoid of merit, same are liable to be dismiféed and they are hereby dismissed. soma Sdl- ‘7“ T‘ P' Sha’ma em w ‘ I ’ f Sd/_ R.N. Chandrakari l t J Judge