^ IIUtil WlBt]«» HIGhLCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR APPELLANT: (InJail) RESPONDENT: Cnmmal Appeal No.1073 of 2004 Jagiram S/o Ghansai Gond, aged about 54 ' years, resident of Patel Para, Kodagaon, P.S. Korar, District Kanker (C.G.) Versys State of Chhattisgarh, through the D.M., -Kanker. {Appeal under Section 374 (2) ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} Present: • ;'• Mr. Mukesh Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant. Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Government Advocate for the State/respondent. Division Bench: - Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma and Hon^bleJVIr^ R.N. Chandrakar. JJ JUDGMENT (3-11-2011) T.P.^harma.J: - 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24-9-2004 passed by the 4 Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kanker, in Sessions Trial No. 120/2004, whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of his son Ramsai, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rl for six months. 2. Conviction is impugned on the groynd that without any iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appellant, and thereby committed illegality. 3. As per case of the prosecution, on the fateful day of 2-3-2004, on account of family dispute that Ramsai (since deceased) was not working for livelihood, the appellant who happens to be father of Ramsai, assaulted Ramsai by knife and caused his instantaneous death in his \ house. The incident has been seen by Rohidasin (PW-3), wife of the ^& llllf fS^^ appellant & mother of the deceased. She rushed to the house of Jaggu Ram (PW-7) and catled Jaggu Ram (PW-7). Mansharam (PW-2) & Ramesh Dipak (PW-1) have also seen last part of the incident. Ramesh Dipak (PW-1) todged FIR Vkie Ex.P-1 and morgue vide Ex.P-2 on the basis of extra judicial confession made by the appellant to him. The Investigating Officer left for. the scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P-6 prepared inquest over the dead body of the deceased vide Ex.P-7. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-8. Bloodstained and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-11. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Primary Health Centre, Dhaneli Kanhar vide Ex.P-17. Dr. Digeshwar Kumar Kashyap (PW-16) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P-21 and fdund following injuries: - (1)0ne incisedwound overneckof4c.m. x2c.m. x3c.m. (2) One incised wound over 11 rib of4c.m. x 2 c.m. x 3 c.m. Mode of death was shock and death was homicidal in nature. Blood stained knife and clothes of the appellant were seized vide Ex.P-9 from the appellant on the basis of discloser statement of the appellant vide Ex.P-16. Sealed clothes of the deceased were seized vide Ex.P-13. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory vide Ex.P-18 and presence of blood over knife and clothes ofthe appellantwas confirmed vide Ex.P-19. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kanker who committed the case to the Court of the then Sessions, Jagdalpur from where learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as seventeen witnesses. The accused was examinedunder Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. 6. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. . . ^ ^ "Al v 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that in the present case, the prosecution has failed to adduce credible, clinching and sufficient evidence against the appellant for his conviction under Section 302 ofthe IPC. Conviction ofthe appellant has been based on surmises and conjectures not sustainable under the law. Ramesh Dipak (PW-1 ), Mansharam (PW-2) & Rohidasin (PW-3) - the alleged eyewitness, have not seen the incident, their evidences are not sufficient for conviction of the appellant. Even otherwise, there was no motive for causing murder of his son by the appellant. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the appeal and submitted that conviction of the appellant is substantially based on evidence of Ramesh Dipak (PW-1) before whom the appellant has made extra judicial confession, Mansharam (PW-2), Rohidasin (PW-3) - eyewitness & Jaggu Ram (PW-7) to whose house Rohidasin (PW-3) has gone for calling him to save her son i.e. deceased Ramsai. Evidences of above prosecution witnesses are sufficient for conviction of the appellant. 10.1n order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf ofthe prosecution. 11.1n the present case, homicidal death of deceased Ramsai as a result of fatal injuries found over his neck and 11 rib has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant. On the other hand, it is established by evidence of Dr. Digeshwar Kumar Kashyap (PW-16) and autopsy report Ex.P-21 that death ofthe deceased was homicidal in nature. 12.As regards complicity ofthe appellant in the crime in question, conviction of the appellant is substantially based on evidence of Ramesh Dipak (PW-1), Mansharam (PW-2), Rohidasin (PW-3) & Jaggu Ram (PW-7). 13.As per evidence of Rohidasin (PW-3), mother of the deceased & wife of the appellant, whom the prosecution has declared hostile, she bas not completely supported the case of the prosecution, but has deposed in para 3 of her evidence that the appellant & the deceased were quarreling then she went to the house of Jaggu Ram (PW-7) for-calling him, he was taking meals on which she came out from his house where she met her elder son Mansharam (PW-2) whom she narrated the incident. Mansharam (PW-2) went inside the house and came back and told her that his father appellant Jagiram is not present there, but dead body of Ramsai is lying in the house. In her cross-examination, nothing has been asked to her to discredit her evidence relating to aforesaid facts. 14.Jaggu Ram (PW-7) has also not supported the case of the prosecution and the prosecution has declared him hostile, but he has admitted in para 2 of hisevidence that at the time of taking meals Rohidasin (PW-3) came to his house for calling him. This fact also finds corroboration from the evidence of Rohidasin (PW-3), mother of the deceased & wife of the appellant. ,, ,•'• 15.As per para 8 of the evidence of Ramesh Dipak (PW-1), whom the prosecution has also declared hostile, on the fateful day at about 7-8 p.m. he was sleeping in his house, his door was knocked by appellant Jagiram and when he came out from his house, he saw that the appellant was present, hands of the appellant were stained with blood and the appellant made extra judicial confession before him (this witness) that he has committed murder of his son Ramsai by causing injury over his neck. On being asked, the appellant has further made statement that on account of day to day quarrel, he has committed aforesaid murder. Defence has also not asked anything to this witness relating to aforesaid facts. IS.Mansharam (PW-2) has also not supported the case of the prosecution and the prosecution has also declared him hostile. However, in para 8 of his cross-examination, he has admitted the fact that when he came after evening walk, he was informed by his mother that the appellant & his son Ramsai were quarrelling, then he went to the house of the appellant. This fact is also unrebutted in his cross-examination. 17.1f all the aforesaid evidences are considered together, only inference would be possible that the appellant & the deceased have quarrelled, and thereafter, dead body of Ramsai was found in the house of the appellant. The appellant has made extra judicial confession, before Ramesh Dipak (PW-1) that he has committed murder of his son Ramsai. These evidences are sufficient to establish the fact that the appellant has committed homicidal death of his son Ramsai by using knife over his t ...p-'ik-" !l?K':lRi I ""^/ (§. neck, which is also sufficient for drawing inference that the appellant has committed homicidal death of his son with intent to cause his death. 18.After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge convictecl & sentenced the appellant in the aforesaid manner. Conviction of the appellant is based on clinching and credible evidence sustainable under the law. On close scrutiny of evidence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence requiring any interference. 19.Consequently, the appeal is devoid of merit, same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Soma Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^ m -^i u