!^ L^s^ 'l ^93^% J l!i.:,.^^SiS&^ "i'il£Bsf1py HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLBMR. T.P. 8HARMA & HON'BLB MR. RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR. JJ. APPBLLNAT <{InjaU) RESPONDENT CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. 889/200S Sur^ndra Kumar, S/o Laxmi Prasad Khandekar, aged 30 yrs. R/o Padabpara, Miir^eli, Distt BUaspur (C.G.). VERSUS StateofC.G. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDBR SBCTION 374 OF THB CODB OF CRIMINAL PROCaEDURE. 1973. Present- Mr. Shrawaa Agrawal, Advocate for the appeUant Mr. J.A. Lohanl, P.L. for fhe State/respondent, ORAL-JUDGEMENT (Passedon 20/07/2011) Th^fQllowmg mdgment of the Court was passed by T.P. Sharma. J:- 1. Challenge in ftus appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28/11/2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Mungeli, District BUaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 125/2005 whereby and where under after hoMing fhe appellant guilty for the commission of ofience of culpable homicide amoiintu^ to murder of R^uram 'Mahilange convicted the appellant imder Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced imprisonment for life and fine of i J i jt jj ^b^ t B Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of &ne ainount \ additional rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence-sufiicient for conviction of appellant, Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned affd thereby committed an Ulegality. ••'i As per case of the prosecution, on fateful day of 4/1/2005 at about 9:00 P.M. present appellant took Rajuram MahUange (since deceased) to county liquor shop (?i'ii6i'4c<Jl) where they consumed liquor thereafter present appellant caused repeated injuries to Rajuram Mahilange by Knlfe (<I'SI'MI). Public gathered and tried to rescued Rajuram MahUange but present appellant was out of control, Police came and tried to caught hold him, he also tned to cause tnjruy to Police Officers, fiiially they caught hold the appellant. Police OfEicers took injured R^uram Mahilange to the hospital where he died. PW1 Sawantrain went to the Pollce Station and lodged First Information Report vide Ex. P-1 relating to murder of Rajuram Mahilange. Investigatmg Ofilcer left for scene of occurrence and after suminoning fhe witnesses vlde Ex. P-5A, mquest over fhe dead body of Rajuram Mahilange was prepared vide Ex. P-5. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-7. Dead body of Rajuram EJ.. !E»[« Mahilange was sent for autopsy to Coimnuruty Health '\ Center, MungeU vide Ex. P-10A where PW12 Dr. Sudesh Ratre conducted autopsy vlde Ex. P-10 and foi.md foUowing injuries:- (i) Incised wound over frontal area of 5" x 2". (il) Incised wound over f^ontal area of 4" x 2". (iii) Incised wound overleft temporal area of 4" x 2". (iv) Incised wound over supra orbital area of 4" x 2". (v) Incised wound over mfra orbital area of 4" x2". (vi) Frontal bone was found fractured. (vil) Supra orbital & infra orbital bone was found fractured. (vui) Left temporal bone was found fractured. (tx) Incised woiuid over squaoious part of temporal region of 3" x l". (x) Squamous part of temporal bone was found Iractured. (xi) Incised wound over zygomatic area of 4" x 2" (xU) Zygomatic bone was found fractured. (xiii) Nasal bone was found fractured. (xiv) Incised wound over upper jaw of 4" x 2". (xv) Upper jaw (maxilla bone) was found fractiired. (xvi) tocised wound over lowerjaw ot4" x 2". (xvil) Lowerjawwas found fi'actured. (xviii) Incised wound over mouth of 3" x l". (xik) Incised woiind over left hand of 3" x %". ite!;ai%\ 8 '^s'!i^w'S;i-'y\ 'fS i •tmsss-sj.i '%?• "1! 6. (xx) Capitate, hamate and rtzopezoid bone was found fractured. (xxi) Incised wound over right hand of 2" x %". (xxil) Hamat, rapezoid and trapezium bone was found fractured. (xxiii) Brust out of bratn matter. Mode of death of coma as a result of hemorrhage aflff. death was homicidal m nature. Knife ('I-SI'MI) was seized from the spot vide Ex. P-6. Patwari prepared spot map vide Ex. P-2. Cloths of deceased were seized vide Ex. P-8. Cloths of appellant were seized vide Ex. P-13. Sei2red articles were sent for chemlcal examination vide Ex. P-16. Presence of blood was confirmed over fhe cloths of appellant vide Ex. P- 17. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code'). After completion of fhe investigation chai^e sheet was filed before fhe Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungell who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, BUaspur from where leamed Additional Sessions Judge Mungeli, District Bilaspiir (C.G.) has received the case on transfer for trial. In order to prove fhe guUt of the appeUant/accused prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. Accused/appeUant was examined under Section 313 of U i^ ; : L ;-^ '?.,':^.:^.^^, 10. the Code wher^ he denied the clrcumstances appearing against hun and pleaded innocence and false impllcation In fhe crime in question. After affording ari opportunily of hearing to (he parties, leamed Additional Sessions Judge Muneeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) conv|cted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, leamed counsel for the appeUant and Mr. J.A. Lohsni, P.L. for the State/respondent are heard. Judgment impugned and record of the Court below perused. Leamed counsel for the appellant vehementty argued that conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of PW8 Gulab Sonwani; Head Constable, PW9 Mathush Maiihar; Constable, PW11 AmamaCh Choubey; Constable 8s PW16 Murlidhar Jalswal; flead Constable but evidence of aforesaid witonesses does not inspire confidence and trustworfhy. Leamed counsel for the appeUaat further argued that all the witnesses are Police Ofilcers. As per Para-24 of evidence of PW16 Miirlidhar Jalswal; Head Constable who has flnally caught hold the-appellant on fhe spot. He went irom the Police Station to the spot di.mng coiirse of recordmg Pirst Infonnation Report by PW1 Sawantram which show& that Sawantram went to the Pollce Station aflter commission of murder of Rajuram \ MahUange. This evldence shows that Police Ofiicers have not seen fhe mcident and evldence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufilcdent for conviction of the appeUant. 11. On the other hand, leamed Panel Lawyer for fhe A respondent/State opposed fhe appeal and argued that aforesaid evidence of aforesaid witoesses are sufiident for drawing defiiiite conclusion fhat oiily appeUant has caused homicidal death of Rajuram Mahilange and Court below has rightly convlcted and sentenced fhe appeUant as aforementioned. 12. In order to appreciate the ar^uments advanced on behatf of the parties, we have examuied fhe evidence adduced on behalf ofthe prosecutioii. 13. fo the present case, homicidal death as a resiilt of multiple fatal injuries l.e. more than 20 injuries found over fhe body ofdeceased Rajuram Mahilange has not been substantiaUy disputed on behalf of the appeUant on fhe ofher hand, pfherwise also established by the evidence of PW12 Dr. Sudesh Ratre and autopsy report Ex. P-10 and death was homicidal in natiu'e. 14. As regards the complicity of appellant in cnme in question, conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of PW8 Gulab Sonwaru; Head :m_iA''!(:'[inL •". f ;s 's <? •tal Constable, PW9 ^athush Maiihar; Constable, PW11 Amamafh Choubey; Constable & PW16 Murlidhar Jaiswal; Head Constable. As per evidence ofPWS Oulab Sonwani; Head ConStable, he was came from vUlage Fasterpur to Police Station Mungeli, while he was crossing near Padabp^ca square; he heard some quacrel near county Uquor shop (^i-<i<r*ie<fl) then he along with PW16 Murlidhar Jaiswal; Head Constable reached to the spot where fhey saw that appellant was assaulted to Rajuram Mahilange by weapon like sword and kntfe and caused repeated injuries over his body resulting into his death. They were tried to apprehend the appellant but appellaat was showing sword to them and finally, appellant was apprehended by Miirlidhar Jalswal; Head Constable. His evidence finds corroboration from the evidence of PW9 Mathush Manhar; Constable, PW11 Amaraath Choubey; Constable 8s PW16 Murlidhar Jaiswal; Head Constable. Although PW16 Murlidhar Jaiswal; Head Constable has admitted iii Para-24 of hfe evidence fhat at the tune of lodging First Information Report by PW1 Sawantram, he went to spot after hearing that-some quarrel is going on near Padabpara but evidence of fhis witness well corroborated by ofher witnesses reveal fhat after receiving information of quarrel, fhese Pollce Officers Jj,-,:,, reached to the spot where appellant was assaulting \ Rajuram Mahflai^e by weapon llke sword and knife. He also tried to assault-the persons who gathered near the place of incident and finally he was apprehended by Murlidhar Jaiswal; Head Constable. 15. Defence has cross-exai^ined fhese witnesses at length ,-'1 but except aforesaid contradiction, defence has not been able to elicit anyfhing in their cross-examinatton to discredit fheir testimony. Evidence of aforesald witnesses are sufficient for drawlng deflnlte inference that present appellant has caused multiple fatal mjuries resulting into death of Rajuram MahUange by dangerous weapon near county liquor shop (5RW^). 16. PW2 Shantibal, wife of deceased Rajuram Mahilange also corroborated fhe evidence of aforesaid witnesses to the extent .tfaat appellant took her husband in her house to county Uquor shop (?t'(|6i<ic<rl) fhereafter her husband died as a result of multiple fatal injuries. Evidence of aforesaid witnesses, nature of inji.iries, number of injuries and<;weapon used are suffident to establish fhe fact that appeUant has caused homiddal death of Rajiiram Mahilanee with intent to cause his death. @ 17. After appreciating the evidence avaUable on record, \ learned Additional Sessions Judge Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.O.) has rightiy convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Conviction and sentence of the appeUant is based on credible, clinchtng and legal evidence sustainabl^ under the law. ,^ 18. On close scrutiny of fhe evidence, we do not find any illegallty of infirmity in the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant. Consequently, criminal appeal is devoid of merits and same is Uable to be dlsmissed and is herebv dismissed. Sd/- . T.P. Shai-ma Judge Sd/- . R.N. Chandrakar Judge —n—B ®EESTDF