(/1 Cr 1° \ Q ^'°i !1:J ;:q oo ••Jl a> *- £ .li 'S Q. & w ^' M <• oo 110oo !,w .< ^; ^'^.. Si'" tpi \ ^•X ^' RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Date: 2025.02.07 12:29:05 +0530 "<,. (]^y HICai COl»RTOF CHHATH8GARH : BIUU3PUR (Divisioa Beach) COKSMt Hon'bte Shri Fakhmddia, J & Hou'bte Shri Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, J. CMMINAL APPBAL No. 305/93 A,PB®UM»t Vs Respondent CbsatSsOsa. Prasad, s/o. Maageil Ranu, aged atoout 30 yeass, r/o. vinagje Jnliun, Thana Abhaupiu, Dist. Raipinr (CQ). State of CItliatUsgwh Throagli KS Ablianpar, Dtet. Rriput (CG) PRE8BMT Mr. Sunil Sahu, Counsel for the appeUant Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Additional PubUc Prosecutor for fhe Stete. JUDGMBITT (DeUvered on ^09/2005) PerVUay Kiynar Shrivastava. J. This appeal is directed ^ainst the judgmcnt of conviction aad oidcr of sentence dated 11/03/1993 passed by fhe IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Trial No. 158/91 by which the appeBaat has been held gujilly for cominittmg ofiFence of mxirder punishable under Section 302 of fhc I.P.C., aadhasbeen sentenced to undergo miprisonnient for Ufe. 2) Brief facts of the case are fhat fhe appellaut and fhe deceased were drivers. Bofh were doing fhc work ofploughmg aad (^ leveling the fiekl of Kamal Ram toy Tractor No. CIS 19098 and CIS 19233. On 09/03/1991 after completion of their worii: in fhe forenoon they took their luu.ch and thereafter aU of a sudden a quarrel erupted betwcen fhem. in coDnection with payinent of nionsy and that quarrcl resiilted in inurder ofdeceased D.S. Naik by the appeBant, who wielded injury on D.S. Naik wifh a spade which is aa agricultural cquipiuent. The iujury was inflicted on the teiaple region of D.S. Naik who iastaafly succumbed to iajury on the spot. 3) Kainal Rain lodged report ia the Police Station. PoUce recorded the inei^ and first mfonnation report and iuvestigated fhe case. Investigatix^ OfBcer S.R. Yuwane preparcd paach nama of dead body and forwanled the sainc for autopsy to the inedical of&cer. Froin the spot, spade used by fhe appeUant for wielding injuiy on D.S. Naik was seized by the Investigatmg Officer who also forwarded fhe same to fhe inedical ofi&cer for his opinion. Dr. Harved Nirelvar conducted autopsy and also examiaed fhe spade. Medical OfBcer -waa ofthe opinion fhat the death of D.S. Naik was as a result of coiaa duc to head injuiy and the injury found on fhe head offhe deceased could have been caused by fhe seized spadc. 4) During iavestigation. witnesses were exanuiied uiider Section 161 ofthe Cr.P.C. Map was prepared. Recovered spade, plaia earth, blood stains and clofhes ofdcceased were sent to FSL. On exaaunation, cheinical examiner found fhe artictes except the plam. carfh to be blood steined. Afliier due iavesti^ation fitual ^- ^\J report was lcd in fhe Court of Judkaal Magisteate First Class, Raipur, who ooinmittcd thc case to fhe Court of Sessions for triaL 5) Chaige under Section 302 of the I.P.C., was fi-amed agaiast the appellant. Charge was read over aad explauied to him, who abjured his guilt and claimed hunselfum.occnt. 6) Leamed trial Court rclied on fbe evidence of extra judicial confession duly supported by other cncumstances held fhe appeBant gidlty for committing inurder ofdeceased D.S. Naik and accordingly convicted the appeUant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. aad scntenced as aferenaentioned. 7) Both the parties are heard and record of trial Court pcrused. 8) From. the statement of Doctor Harval Nirelwar (FW/1) who conducted autopsy on 10/03/1991 aad post mortein report i.e., Ex.P/1, it laaa been established fhat deceased D.S. Najk teceived ante inortem, stab wound over head by fhe teft side of left eye 2 % x 1 Vz cm., directed inedialty, slightiy upwards entering iu fhe bnun substance causing fi-acture of underlymg skuB bone aad lacerated wound of underfying brain substance, aad deceaaed died as a result ofthat injuiy which was caused by heavy sharp pointed weapoa. Dr. Haryed Nirelwar (FW/1) also exanuned fhe spade and opined that the injuiy caused to fhe dece^ed could have been caused by fhis weapon. It was provcd 4 ^ fhat D.S. Naik died hoiuicidal death as a result of uyuiy caused to him on his head by heayy sharp pointed weapon. 9) Learaed tnal Court relying on fhe foUowuig circumstances held fhc appcllant guiMy for comnuttuig fhe ofience ofiaurder. a) On the date of inddervt m the forenoon smne hot talks took ptace between appettant and deceased b) On hearing fhe alcam raised by Jugo Bcd tuitness Hariram, and Ainarsingh rushed to the spo( where they saw ihe appelkatt and dead body of D.S.Na.ik. c) Extrajudiaal oor^'ession. To provc guitt on a case based on circuinstantial evidence, it is uecessaiy to prove each ofthe ciicuaistances and to draw conclusk>n of guflt, thc ciicunistances tuust be conclusive in nature and niust be consistent with the hypofhesis of the guUt of the accused aad totaUy inconsistent with his uinocence. So far as extra judicial coiifession is concemed, if clear cogent confession has been niade ia fhe normal course wifhout any pressure, it can be reUed on and conviction can. be recorded. 11) Gajanand (PW/17) in his stateinent deposed that he aloug wifh fhe dcccased aml fhe appeUant took their incals iu forenoon. Wlien they were taldng meals a quarrel erupted beto-een -*'. ?3; appeUant aud deceased with re^id to sonie repayiaent of aiuount At that tiine on his iatervention that qiiancl was endcd. Thereaftcr, he left fhe place. Neither he has any interest with fhe appeUant or deceased nor he has aay ininucal tenns with bofh tfae parties. Even in his cross examination nothing is fhere to show his stateiacut unreUable. 12) Lakhanlal Sonkar (FW/11) in. his statennent has deposed fhat when he was in his field, he heard noise that "Jllinrd4fu*' so he rushed to fhe spot aad saw D.S Naik, who was lying dead having pierced spade inside his head. AppeUaut was there who was saying "Mnrd^a Sedako" Chintarain told tiim fhat Chaadnka Prasad by wieMiag iajury with spade kitted driver Naik. Taldng iuto consideratiou fhe omission in his stateiacnt niade before the PoUce which is Ex.D/1, it cannot bc believed beyond doubt that appcUaat on fhe spot was sayiag "Mardiya Salako" but so far ofher part of his evidence is conceraed, that is cicdible. 13) Amar Singh (PW/12) in his statemcnt has deposcd that the wife of Gajanand rateed a noise ''Xardeuris rogn" and on hearing the noise, he reached fhe spot aud saw fhat D.S. Naik K dead and appeUant is staading nearby the dead body. In cross examiaation the defence confinnted hiin with his stateincnt (Ex.D/2) recorded by fhe Police at portk>n A to A. From. reading fhe said portton, it appears that whatever the witness has narrated in the Court is virtuaBy fhe same what is recorded in fhat portion. Only the way ofnarratkin is different. 'Q 6 14) Takmg together thc statement of Lakhanlal (PW/11), aad Amarsingh (PW/12), it was establishcd that the wife of Gajanand i.e., Jugo Bai raised noise "JMinrdarts*'and on hearing fhat noise witnesses rushed to the spot and saw the dead bcNly of D.S. Naik haviug iajury on his head and fhe appeUant was standing nearby fhe dead body. 15) Chintaiam (PW/13) and Kashlal (PW/14) have becn exaimned by the prosecution to prove the extea judicial confession inade by the appcUant. Cliintaram in his statenient has dcposed fhat he accoxnpanymg Lalchaalal cam.e to fhe spot, he saw D.S. Naik fying dead and appellant was standiag nearby thc dead body with a spade. He enquired fboin fhe appeBant, who confesscd fhat he has IdBed D.S. Naik. Kashlal (PW/14) in his statement deposed that he came to the spot and saw D.S.Naik was tying dead and appeUant was sitting fhere. He euquired wifh the appeUaut who coufessed fhat he has IdUed D.S. Naik. On further enquiry he also adnutted that due to dispute re^rding payinent, he kitled him. 16) Bofh fhe witnesscs (PW (13) & (14) ) have uo emnily with appellaiit. They are iadepcndent witnesses and soon after fhe iucident, they reachcd the spot and fouud fhe appcllant wifh spade stauding nearby dead body and in natuial course fhcy enquired with the appeUant and ia natural way appeUant gave detells of the incident coxifessing his guUfc ,^^ 17) Kaanaliam (PW/5) is thc person who eu^ged appcBant aud deceased for leveling his field. He received infonnation at about 3.00 p.xn. and after arriving at his field, he tied fhe appeflant with rope and fhereafter went to Policc Station and lodged first information report (Ex.P/6) which has also been pioved by the witness S.R. Yuwane (PW/18) Kamah-am in his report (Ex.P/6) has reported that driver Chandnka Prasad inflicted injuries by an iion spade on the head ofdeceased D.S. Naik who succumbed to fhose injuries. '^ 18) From. the aforesaid proved cnctunstences, it is established fhat on fhe datc of incident appeUant and deceased were ploTighing and lcveling the fieM. of Kamalram. Dzulng luach time when they were taking incals a quarrel took placc regarding payinent of nioney between them, but at fhat time fhe quarrel was ended on iatervention. After soiae tiine, Jugo Bai raised a noise and on hearing her notee witnesscs rushed to fhe spot and saw D.S Naik who was dead who had injuiy on fhe head on his temple region and appeBaat was standing fh.ere by the said of dead body wifh spade. On enquny appcUaat coiifessed that he has kflled D.S, Naik. Thc aiedical ofEicer gave opinion that iajury found on fhe body of the deceased D.S. Nalk coxild havc been causcd by the spade. 19) In fhe result, we are of fhe opuuon fhat leamed trial Court evaluating fhe evideiicc pioperly and correctly held fhe appeBaat guilly for cominittmg fhe offence of miuder of D.S. Naik and also rightty sentenced fhc appellant No intcrferencc iu fhc f/-' judgment of conviction and order of scntence passcd by the trial Court is caUed for, fherefore, fhe inapugned judgnaent of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court are inaiataincd and fhe appcal is disinissed. Sd/- in Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge •2-•2^09/asudS