s^igasiil! XT-HC—78 3i(i?rv{ k-ii'a l!t!NSftis!.s.s_.^ l^^i:i^.i -"*a«61iJifc- -s^s "><|^|^, d'Tn^lto, (siciiuy firaCT *^i* <^.A......5J 2^ an^?r TRW (ljt<t-|,«i<w^ TCiTOCgfelSII^iI ^nferih •«tm?if-Ei.fe^tfeSR ^;3{RlH 311^1 APPELLANT: (!n Jaii Custody) RESPONDENT; {Criminai appea Division Bench: Hon'bie Mr. L.C. Bhadoo and Hon'bleMr. Suni! Kumar Sinlla. JJ. 27. Mr. V.P. Gupta, counse! Mrs. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Ora! judgment dictated 0(1 Dais. This This appeal is directed a< sentence dated 6* December, Raipur in Sessions Triai No.41; undsr Section 302 of t'ne i.P.C pay a fine of Rs.1 ,000/-, m def; for t.A'o months. Rajesh Satnami, S/o Fatteehand Satnami, aged about 20 years, Occupation Labourer, R/'o Viiiage Ro'nra, P.S. Bhatapara, Tah. and Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh At and Post Viilage Baronda, P.S. Dharsivva, DistS. Raipur, C.G. -Versus- State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Dharsiwa, Distt. Raipur, C'nhattisgarh. under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C.} ;or the appeliant. , povt. Advocate for the State/respondent. ^ainst the judgment of conviction and order of |2001 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS, 5/2000, whereby the appellant v/as convicted and sentenced to undergo R.i. for life and juit of payment of fine to further undergo R.l. •1r~. B 3^T '<iWW<^, •QT^WW, fsjcil^^ •qraw ^>q|<^----------...-.^-................^ 2002- sn^?r ''WK (ijgf^g^iT) an^w.w Ki-fN? WIT31R?! *41<ti ii8Stsja,ae!,j..,3,.,^, 's":s^^^a;g;N^ ?^IKR':Rf%?[ SD^t ^l^f^i^li ^iw^iT ^f 'fe^ <.i~3i-y[< ^'aiRnaiT^l Case of the prosecution is tfiat on 9-10-2000 at about 10.30 a.m. the deceassd namely, Udeychand Sat:nami and his v/ife nameiy, Ghasnin Bai were present in the house. The ac^cused/appetlant is the son of Ghasnin Bai from her eariier husband. Since o|ie month prior to the date of Inddent, the appe!!ant was a'so residing in the (louse o* deceased Udeychand Satnaml & his wife Ghasnin Bai who was th^ mother of the appellant. Ai'iegations are that at that time.some aitercatioh was going on betvveen Udeychand & Ghasnin Bai, hearing this, the accpsed/appeliant al! of a sudden came over there along wlth one spade in his|hand and assauited the deceased by the spade. The Incident was witness^d by hvo eyewitnesses nameiy, Kanhaiya @ Bhoia (PW-6) & Sadhan Bai (PVV-7). Kanhaiya @ Bhola (PW-6) narrated the story to Dukaiu (PW-1) who tel^phoned to the Poiice Station on which the investigating Officer came to th^ vilSage. Merg intimation was recorded under Ex.P-15. Dehati Nalishi wafe recorded under Ex.P-10 based on which the F.I.R. was registered under px.P-14, The investigating Officer gavs notice Ex.P-1 to the Panchas afid prepared inquest on the body of ths deceased under Ex.P-2. Theldead body was sent for post-mortem examination to Mekahara, Raipu|-. Clothes (fui! shirt & fuil pant) of the accused/appeiianS Vi'ere seized un^ier Ex.P-4. Weapon of offence i.e. spade was seized under Ex.P-; deceased. Biood stained soil an occurrsnce under Ex.P-5. Site Ex.P-6. from the Varandah of the house of the plain soil were seized from the place of plan was prepared by the Patwari uncer GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007 — 50.090." XI-HC—7S grcf ^||4<|^, ^Tfly'lti, (sf^l+<y V{Wci\ *t<l* <^,^. ••V^ 2002^ sn^v ??i R-fi'* 1 ^s?T 3TT^T^HT^> an^r •tra^; (4»if-l«<iia) TRHWdfW 311^1 •kiiifi-i'il'i 'RTtRff 'if.fs'A 'dsnsR •^isTfiitisn^r Dr. Sanjay Kumar Dadu ^ on the body of the deceased s fol!owing injuries on the body oftl pW-4) conducted post-mortem examination |nd prepared his report Ex.P-8. He found he deceas'ed: - 1. One lacerated wound at t^e left side of the head admeasuring 5 cms. x 1.5 cms. bone deep; 2. One !acerated wound on t!|ie head situated at a distance of 1 cm. from injuny No.1 in the size of 4 |;ms. x 0.5 cm. bone deep; 3. One lacerated wound on tll tragus to pinna admeasuriil 4. One lacerated wound just ic right ear obliquely piaced extending from ig 5 cms.; above 3 cms. from injury No.3 in the size of 1.5 cms. x 0.2 cm. obliquelV p'aced bone deep; 5. One abrasion on the back^ide of right shoulder admeasuring 5cms. x 1 cm.; 6. One abrasion on the left s and houlder admeasuring 1.5 cms. x 0.2 cm.; 7. One abrasion at 2 cms. ri^ht angle of mandible on the right side of neck in the size of 1.5 cms.|margins irregular. On internal examination, hjjge quantity of blood was found beneath the skin on the head. The right| many pieces in 6 cms. diameter, was fracture of ieft terian and ther tempore-parieta! bone was fractured into pieces of bone had pierced inside, there & was also a fracture of lett orbita!. There was subdural haemorrhage al! o^/er the brain. According to his opinion, death was due to shock and h^emorrhage as a resuit of head injuries. Injuries were caused by hard, biLfit and heavy object. it was homicidal in nature. i n-—- XI-8C—78 ^eq'.sfpn^T, yxn^ld, Rciltiy •qra^n' *HI<B (!p,^.^/ •H^ 2002- ai^r •WSE (i^-j^i^s) sn^i ?;? f?;ira; ^fan 3TT^?T ?h+llch ^nwflfei3^ After usual investigation, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, the Court of Sessions Judge, Rai; transfer by the Specia! Judge, R^ipur convicted and sentenced the accU; +l<<I<-l'il-f 'WRlf 'il.fe^t if^R ^i'a.iRmsii^r charge sheet was fiied in the Court of ^aipur, who in turn committed the case to 'ur, from-whsre, the matter was received on for trial, who conducted the tria! and |sed/appellant, as aforementioned. Conviction of the appellattit is based upon the testimonles of two witnesses name!y, Kanhalya @ Bt|r Lsarned counsel for the aplf are not reliable witnesses, therefol cannot be sustained. We have heard Mr. V.P. Gi) Mrs. Anju Ahuja, learned Deputy q Learned counsel for the s| death of deceased Udeychand evidence of Kanhaiya @ Bhola (P| deceased was assaulted by the repeated blows on the deceasec evidence of Dr. Sanjay Kumar mortem examination of the decei external injuries on the body of th< died due to shock and haemorrhas to him and the mode of death vi !a (PW-6) & Sadhan Bai (PW-7). sliant argues, that both the eyewitnesses , conviction based upon their testimonies pta, learned counsel for the appeilant and ovt. Advocate for theState/respondent ppe!lant has not disputed the homicidai latnami. Moreover, i{ has come on the ||/V-6) as also Sadhan Bai (PW-7) that the [ccused/appsilant with a Rapa who gave Their evidence is supported by the padu (PW-4), who has conducted post- (sed and who found as many as seven deceased. He opined that the deceased l^ on account ofthe above injuries caused f^s homicidal in nature. Therefore, it is established that the death of deceaped Udeychand Satnami was homicidal in nature. i XI-HC—78 311^1 Wf^'IRT WTSD^IWqRT ^p9]' ; g^ST ^tFTI^T, giTftWS, Rftf>l+<y •wi^n' *^ii*^........&..A.4—.-.-.. Wl, 200 •2- sn^r IWK (4<iit-j«i<ff) ^giWtlfTO ail^T So far as involvement <*i^Id4") ^WvS ^f^S <l»i«;i< •^; aiRTiT sn^i of the accused/appellant in the crime in question is concerned, as statep earlier, learned counsel for the appellant has stressed upon reliability of Bhola (PW-6) & Sadhan Bai (PWJ the two eyewitnesses namely, Kanhaiya -7). We have carefully consid^red the evidence of these witnesses. Kanhaiya @ Bhoia (PWf-6) has stated in his evidence that t'ne appellant was step-son of dejseased Udeychand Satnami. . House of Udeychand Satnami is situated ]near the house of Narad Satnami. At the relevant time, he was going to th^ house of Narad Satnami, on the way when he reached near the house of Utleychand Satnami, he saw that Udeychand Satnami and his wife namely, G^ some altercation was going on lasnin Bai were talking with each other and petween them. At the same time, a!i of a sudden, accused/appellant Raje^h came out from his house aiong with a Rapa in his hands and gave threje fatal blows on the head of the deceased. The deceased died on account Seeing this, he informed Kotwar, Sadhan Bai (PW-7) has s| Ghasnin Bai from her eariier hust of the injuries received by the said b!ows. ^Jp-Sarpanch IVIansaram & Sukhwatin Bai. [ated in her evidence that Rajesh is son of |and. At the relevant time, she was going to the tank. House of Udeychand $atnami is sltuated on the way to the tank. She deposed that she sawthat U^ieychand Satnami has fei! down atthe door in his house and his son namely, ^ccused Rajesh assaulted with Rapa on his head. She saw that biood starte() coming out from the injury and thereafter, she went away form that place. XI-HC—78 sn^i ^i R-ii<ti j ?TSSH STR^T ?h^|cn IMl B9B^.' w ^S^S •-t^ww^, ^w'-is, Ri^iyy (^) HlKdl **1|eb •^ WI. 2002^ sii^?r TRR; Cpi^sRd) wnw^CTsn^r Soma In the entire cross-exartii material has been brought on re<| witnesses are concocted witnessles not witnessed the occurrence. assail their testimonies in any| narrating the actual ver-sion of th4 Besides the above oculail seizure of the weapon of offence). the place of occurrence and sei< before whom such seizure was were sent to Forensic Science 18 has been received. Accordin^ on Rapa as weil as shirt & fuii p^r blood stainsd soil seized form t deceased. In the light of above ocul.at any infirmity when the tria! against the appeilant based on t^ the appellant is cogent, clinchin^ such evidence is based on sounijl cr>T£iTtn4Ti^i4^f '^,'f^^l' <[fl|^i< ^affinsn^i lination of thesa two witnesses, nothing pord by the ctefence to hold that either these or they are the witnesses who had in fact Even no material is brought on record to manner so as to hold that they are not occurrence which they have witnessed. evidence, other circumstance is about the j. Weapon of offence Rapa was seized from :ure has been supported by Dukalu (PW-1) |nade by the Police Officer. Seized articles ^aboratory, Raipur, from where report Ex.P- to the said report, btood stains were found (seized from the accused) as also on the |he place of occurrence and Cheddi of the o^nt I- and cireumstantial evidence, we do not find Ci+irt has recorded the finding of convictlon :|iese materials on record. Evidence against and reliable, therefore, conviction based on reasonings. In the result, the appeal flails same is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge