^ HIGH^OURT O^CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Coram : piiww'u Hon'ble Shri T.P. Sharma and Hon'ble Shri Rajeshwar Lal Jhanwar, JJ. Cr,ABBealNojL132of 2003 APPELLANT : Kapi] Satnami, son of Jayram Satnami, (In Jail) ~ aged 60 years, Resident of village : Jogidipa, Police Station: Tumgaon : Dist. 'Mah'^isamund, Chhattisgarh. Versus • RESPONDENT : State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station, Tumgaon. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (21 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 Appearance: Shri N.K.Chatterjee, counsel forthe appellant Shri Sandeep Yadav, Deputy Government Advocate General for the State Klii!!B>S||,t ORAL JUDGMENT (Delivered on 09.04.2010) The following judgment was delivered by T.P.Sharma, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.08.2003 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Sessions Case No. 176 of 2003 whereby and whereunder after holding the appellant guilty for the commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of his wife - Purain Bai, the Court below convicted the appellant under Section 302 pf the I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to further R.l. for three months R.l. 2. The conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of clinching and credible evidence, the Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid and thereby committed illegality. l-.:i lS<teu.i. ^c^ iiis.riinssssav^.. y!^^f^'ii 3. Brief case of the prosecution is that the appellant and Purain Bai are the husband and wife and were residing in the same room. The appellant was suspecting her wife relating to her character, on account of which, they used to quarrel. On fateful day of 27.03.2003 at about 6.00 a.m. a quarrel took place between the appellapt and his wife. The appellant took the small axe and caused injury on her head and different parts of her body and thrown her into a well. The deceased died as a result of head injury. Persons gathered at the spot. P.W.1 Koty|(ar Baliram went to the police chowki Tumgaon and lodged a report wherfe F.1. R. was recorded vide Ex.P.1. Merg was also recorded vide Ex.P.2. Investigating Officer left for scene of occurrence and after summoning witnesses vide Ex.P.4, inquest over the dead body was prepared vide Ex.P.5. Dead body was sent to Community Health Center, Mahasamund for autopsy vide Ex.P.13. Dr. N.K.Mandpe P.W.5 conducted autopsy vide Ex. P.16 and found the following injuries: i. Lacerated wound of 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm. x 1 cm. over left wrist. ii. Contusion with swelling over leftjaw of 3 cm x 2.5 cm. iii. Incised wound over right ear of 3 cm. x 1.5 cm. x 1 cm. iv. Incised wound over parietal bone of 5. 5 cm. x 1.5 cm. x deep bone. v. Incised wound over right side of the head of5 cm x 1.5 cm. x deep bone. vi. Incised wound over left side of the head of 4 cm. x 1.5 cm. x deep bone. vii. Incised wound over right side of head of 1 .5 cm. x 1 cm. x % cm. viii. Depressed fracture offrontal bone. Mode of death of coma. Death was homicidal in nature. Bloodstained soil and plain soil, sample of water of well and broken piece of bangle were seized vide Ex.P.8. Sealed cloths of the deceased was seized vide Ex.P.9. During the course of investigation accused was taken into custody on 27.03.2003 at 8.00 p.m. vide Ex.p.10. Accused made disclosure statement of small axe vide Ex.P.6, the same was recovered at his instance alongwith cloths vide Ex.P.7. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P.11 by Amrit Singh P.W.2. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination vide Ex. P.14. Statements of witnesses were recordedunder -'::T.I . ^ B "•fy..f 'E^t^ -^if^ tSSSMII ^ ts-wsstifsaxssf '•l'-'".i!Ra Section 161 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'). 4. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Raipur. Learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant / accused, the prosecution ^f:. has examined as many as 5 witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code where tie denied the circumstances appearing against him and has taken defence that on the date of incident he went to collect "Mahuwa" and 'collecting "Mahuwa" he came back to his house. Between 7-8 A.M., he found his wife inside a well. Parts were found scattered and thereafter he went to police chowki for lodging the report but instead of recording F.1.R. the police has detained him for two days in the police chowki. 6. After affordina opportunity of hearing to the parties and after appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Court below convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 7. We have learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the record ofthe Court below and impugned judgment. 8. Counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. In case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to prove essential ingredients of the circumstances and is also required to prove the complete chain of circumstances sufficient for conviction of the appellant. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient for drawing the inference that the appellant was the person who has committed the offence. The prosecution has also failed to prove the chain pf evidence pointing the guilt of the appellant for commission of said cnme. 9. On the other hand, counsel for the State vehemently opposes the appeal and submits that conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. At tbe time of homicidal death of deceased Purain Bai, the'appellant was •II, 1•lr: ^i •^y/ ,ji.,"y.lia5! ;,.-L.' wmitst present in the house. Except the appellant.no other person was present in the house along with the deceased. On account of suspicion relating to character of the deceased, the appellant was having motive for commission for offence. At the instance of the appellant, weapon of offence has been recovered from the hidden place. These all circumstances are sufficient for drawing a definite conclusiorr that the appellant was the person who has committed the offence and except the appellant none has committed the offence. ^f- 10. In order to appreciate the'arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. In the present case, the homicidal death as a result of ante- mortem fatal injuries of the deceased has not been substantially disputed by the appellant, on the other hand, it is also otherwise established by the evidence of Dr.N.K.Mandpe P.W.5 and autopsy report Ex.P.6 which revealed that fatal injuries were found over the head including fracture of scalp bone and death was homicidal in nature. 11. As regards the complicity of the appellant in crime in question, the conviction is based on following circumstantial evidence: i. On account of suspicion on the character of the deceased, the appellant was having motive which resulted into the death of the deceased. ii. On the date of incident at about 6.00 A.M. son of the appellant P.W.2 Amrit Singh had gone to collect "Mahuwa" at that time the appellant and the deceased, only two persons, were present in the house. iii. At about 6.00 A.M. the villagers gathered in the house of the appellant near the well. iv. The dead body of the deceased Purain Bai was found inside the well situated in the courtyard ofthe house ofthe appellant. v. The death of the deceased Purain Bai was homicidal in nature as a result of fatal injury. vi. Broken piece of bangle and other articles were found near the well. vii. The appellant has not offered any explanation that how his wife has died and who has caused injuries to her. viii. The appellant has taken false defence that he.had gone to police chowki for lodging the report but [nstead of taking ^^;^Nit^fi report, he was detained by the police for two days, which is false on basis of judicial record because the above fact has been specificallyvdenied by the investigating officer P.W.4 Ku. Maya Sharma. ix. The appellant was arrested at 8.00 A.M. on the same date i.e. 27.03.2003 vide Ex.P.10 and was produced before the J.M.F.C. Mahasamund on 28.03.2003 and was also remanded by the d.M.F.C. Mahasamund on the next date of incident. x. In the preseht case, homicidal death as a result of fatal injuries ofthe deceased js not disputed. xi. P.W.2 Amrit Singh, sdh of the accused has deposed in his evidence that at morning time he went to collect "Mahuwa" and his father and mother were present in the house. When he came back after collecting "Mahuwa", then he found the dead body of her mother inside the well. Parts were also lying scattered. Broken pieces of bangle particles were found lying near the well. Blood stains were also found near the well. This witness intimated the villagers who in turn intimated the police. This shows that the appellant and the deceased were present in the house. xii. The deceased died as a result of fatal injuries. Injured dead body of the deceased was found inside the well situated in the courtyard ofthe house ofthe appellant. |:aj;:5]nt»a(!Sij( 12. If the aforesaid circumstances are considered together, then only the hypotheses would be legally possible that the appellant is a person who has committed the culpable homicidal death amounting to murder of his wife - Purain Bai and except the appellant none other person has committed the murder of his wife. 13. After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. The prosecution has proved the complete chain of circumstances sufficient for hypothesis of the appellant for being involved in the crime. 14. On close scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find any merit in this appeal warranting any interference. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. __—-—- i T-RShar^ ' R.L.Jhanwar Judge Judge i -c,/--