WW,WW,W @ C {wk . Z g g 2001’ m W 200 mm (WW) ‘ (since deceased) along with his wi He was accompanied by Birbal his wife Bihani. At that time, accused Sanichar appeared on the scene a d attacked Charkuram with ‘a crowbar on DB: - HON’BLE SHRI LG. HADOO 8: HON’BLE SHRI DHI NDRA M!SHRA JJ. ORAL UDGMENT (Deliveredo 12 April,2007) L.C. Bhadoo, J The accused/appellant has eferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sente ce dated 10-8-2001 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Raiga in Sessions Trial No.125/2000 whereby ion 302 of the Indian Penal Code for d sentenced to undergo imprisonment r , he has been held guilty under committing murder of Charkuram, for life. 2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20-3-2000 Charkuram Batasibai was going to his wheat tield. n S a amt mW wm m mwm W?m § k2?m % aimm APPELLANT Sanichar, S/o Sukheyi, resident of (In Jail) Dandkesra, P.S. Kamleshwarpur. Distt. r Sarguja (CG). , -Versus- RESPONDENT w f State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Kapu, Distt. Raigarh (CG). Present :- Shri Ratindra Mishra. ounsel for the appellant, i ~Shri Ashish Shukla, A dl. Public Prosecutor for the State. @ Wm Qi 200 mm (W) mwm WW wW $WW€¥I under Section 313 of the Code of 3 material appearing against him in t e prosecution evidence. He stated that his legs, as a fésult of which he fell down on the ground. Thereaher, accused attacked with an axe ‘on his chest and Charkuram died spontaneously. Accused ran away eaving behind the crowbar and axe. The wife of the deceased informed about the incident to Chandroram and Amarsai. Manbodh. son of the d eased, who was.in forest was infatmed and he came‘to the place of incid t. Thereafter Manbodh (PW-1) reported the matter in the Police Station Ka u. The lnvestigating Oflicer Rakesh Bhoi (PW-1 1) took up the investigation. recorded the merg intimation (Ex.P/1 7) and First information Report (EXP 15). Thereafter he prepared the inquest (EXP/3) on.the body of the dec ased. He also prepared the site plan (EXP/1). The Investigating Officer seized the crowbar and the axe under EXP/4. The body of Charkuram wa sent for postmortem to the Govemment Hospital, Dharamjaigarh under Ex. 19 where Dr. Anii Kumar conducted the postmortem and prepared the repo (EXP/1 O). He opined that the deceased died due to syncope as a result of h morrhage due to injury. 3) After completion of the in gation, charge sheet was tiled in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Fir t Class, Dharamjaigarh, who in turn committed the case to the Court f Sessions Judge. Raigarh, from where learned Additional Sessions Judge Raigarh, received the same 'on transfer for trial. 4) . in order to establish the ch rge against the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses Statement of the accused was recorded minal Procedure in which he denied the e ‘ e v i i Wwg I he is inhocent and’has been falsely hat the witnesses are liars. P } lrespective parties, convictednand forementioned: We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the i materia! ava‘ilable on record. 'the accusedlappellant has not disputed Moreover, from the ocular evidence of i Bai (PW-1 0) as also the evidence of ished that death of Charkuram was mmm WW wm $aifcmanéar implicated in the case. He also stated ) )f 7) Learned counsel appearing fo the homicidal Heath of Charkuram. ‘ Birbal (PW-3), Bihani Bai (PW8), Dr. Anil Kumar (PW-6), it is e homicidal in nature. 8) As far as involvement of th saw the accused attacking the d thereafter attacked'with axe. ‘ ~. Learned Additional Sessions Wm vi 200 Judge after hearing counsel for the sentenced the accused/appellant as accused in the crime in question is concerned, Batasi Bai (PW-10), wif of the deceased, has stated that at the time of incident she along with her husband Charkuram was going to their field. The accused all of a sudden camé, in the first instance, he attacked with crowbar on the legs of Charku m, as a result of which he fell down and thereafter accused attacked with t e axe on the chest of deceased. The above evidence of Batasi Bai alarm (mm) wife Batasi Bai. The above evidenc is also corroborated by Bihani Bai (PW- ‘ 9), w'rfe of Birbal. Both Birbal and Bihani Bai categorically stated that they sed hrstly with crowbar on the legs and B s l s ( a Wm m 200 Wm (W) mgq“i; mam-«m mqamgww 3) Learned counsel appearing for the accusedlappellant argued that all he witnesses have stated that the aecused in the hrst instance attacked with crowbar, but no injury on the legs was noticed by the Doctor and, therefore, their evidence appears to be unnatural. 10) In order to appreciate the arg ments advanced'by leamed counsel for $ ‘ e accused/appellant, we haveper sed the record. As per the record, the rowbar was cylindrical, therefore, th re was no probability that by attacking ith crowbar Charkuram might hav received visible injury. Moreover, the consistent and their evidence is ‘ i idence ot three eyewitnesses corroborated“by the medical eviden e because Dr. Anil Kumar (PW~6) has categorically smted that there was sed wound on me front of right side of the chest extending upwards and o twards on to the neck, obliquely in size ‘of 7.6 cm x 3.1 cm x 2.8 cm. The gins were clear cut, clinical and upper ‘two ribs were fractured. Jugular eins and common carotid artery cut. Clotted blood present in and aroun‘ the wound. Therefore, form the above medical evidence, the evidence of yewitnesses is corroborated. Moreover, in cross-examination of these witne ses, the defence has not been able to elicit any circumstance, which make the case of the prosecution doubtful. 11) Learned counsel for the a cused/appellant also argued that the prosecution has not been able establish the motive, therefore, the prosecution case cannot be believ . 12) lt is settled law that when the e is cogent and clear evidence available on record regarding the ccmmissi n of the crime, then motive becomes irrelevant. It is not necessary that i such cases without proving the motive &e case cannot be established; “"’<MU\Q. s i i r t e . WW, WWW WW (W) W mwt 200 mmm ‘ 13) For the foregoing reasons we 1 ‘us no megahty or Infrmlty In the jud« attacked the deceased on the chest wnth a deadly weapon i e axe as a result 0n the chest and died spontaneously conviction unde’r S ion 302 of the lndian Penal Code and nl under that Section is legal, of which he sustained fatal Injury Therefore, the us‘entence imposed against the accu ed/appella whichrequires 14) In the result, the appeal it is hereby dismiss . y dismissed and DHIREN'DRA MISHRA £ Gowri no interference. Sdl— L.C.BHADOO Judge GRPRJ i FS/246ei 2/200;7‘:~— 50,000. G mmte‘aw samam are of the considered opinion that there ;ment of the trial Court The accused eing devoid of merit deserves to be