^.^/ iS. HIGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha_8B Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shyain Sharnia, J J. Crimjnal Apneal Np. 684^>f 1995 Teejoo Ram Vs. ' State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) -y JUDGMENT For consideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHE SHYAM SHARMA -3 w-^ Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge Post for Judgment : 5^/07/2011 -- / ' -'»«-. Sd/- Suaii Kuniar Sinha Judge '...s. ;! '. •'- A.^^ S-.7 •'2-0 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble^ShrLSuml Kiimar Sinha^& Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharnna, J J. APPELLANT RESPONDENT CriminalAppeaLNo.^84 of^l'995 Teejoo Ram alias Tiharu Son of Sanau Ram' Sahu, Resident of Village. Jangleshwar Police Station Lalbagh Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) !y (Criminal Appeal undsr Section 374 (2) of The Code of Crlminal Pxocedure^ 1973) Appearance: r Mr. Rakesh Sahu, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Sinha, Advocate for the appeUant. Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State. JUDGMENT (O5'.07.2011) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kunaar Sinha, J. ~~\. . /' (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30th of •'>.»> • March, 1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 121/94 by the First Additipnal Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon. By the imp]-igned judgment, the appellant has been convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. .1- .^._f ^, Criminal Apueal No. 684 of 1995 (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- . On 11.1.94 at about 5.00 p.m. Nokheram (PW-11), Omprakash (PW-12) and Niranjan (not examined) were playing pasa. Deceased- Narayan was also sitting there. The allegations are that fhe appellant came there with a tangia and gave repeate^. tangia blows to the deceased. The deceased sustained miiltiple injuries and succumbed to those injuries. Kotwar- NoKfcieram (PW-10) lodged the First Information Report (Ex.-P/lS). The F.I.R. contains the name of the appellant. The Investigation Officer reached to the place of occurrence, gave notice (Ex.-P/l) to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.-P/2) on the dead body of the deceased. Site plan (Ex.-P/S) was also prepared. Plain soil and blood stained soil were seized vide seizure memo Ex.- P/4. The appellant^ was taken into custody and his memorandum statement u/s 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.- P/6) was recorded and tangia & bicycle were seized at the instance of the appellant vide seizure memo Ex.-P/S. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem to District Hospital, Rajnandgaon, where the post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Vinod Lohiya (PW-9). He noticed following injuFies on the dead body of the deceased:- (i) Lacerated wound 4 inch x 2 inch x bone deep beneath left ear-pinna having ruptured blood vessels; (ii) Lacerated wound 1 inch x 'i/t inch on the left cheek; , (iii) -Lacerated woiind 1 inch x l/2 x bone deep on the -. / left portion of the skull 85 .(iv) Fracturejwas visible on cervical vertebrae at C-l, C-2. ^ On intemal examination, he noticed that gdl other organs were pale and chainbers of the heart were empty. There was adso injury on the left side of parietal bone. The Aufbpsy Surgeon opined that the cause of death was •^ r lltfMT7hll;-|, i;i •rf^'iv.^-y Crunmal Aoceal No. 684 of 1995 '^ haemorrhagic shock due to injury to brain, and the death was homicidal in nature. The post-mortem report is Ex.- P/11. The seized articles were sent for their chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, from where, a report (Ex.-P/lS) was received. According to F.S.L. report(Ex.-P/15), blood stains were found on all articles including tangia except the plain soil seized from the place of occurrence. Though the above articles were sent for Serologist examination on 9.2,94, but Serologist report could not be filed. After completion of usual investigation, the charge- sheet was filed in the Coi.irt of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, who in ti-trn committed the matter to the concerned Sessions Court, from where, it was received on transfer by the- First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, who conducted the trial and convicted 85 sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. r (3) The convietion of the appellant is based on eye-witness account ofNokheram (PW-11) and Om Prakash (PW-12). I" (4) Mr. Rakesh Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that Nokheram. (PW-11) and Om Prakash (PW-12) are not reliable witnesses, therefore, the conviction based OH.fEieir testimonies cannotbe sustained. * ^ / "- (5) Oh the other hand, Mr, Ravindra Agrawal, leamed Panel ->». •• Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. "'a., "./•• i.,-'--l- Criminal Appeal No. 684 of 1995 ''<: (6) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records ofthe sessions case. (7) Nokheram (PW-11) deposed that on 11.1.94 at about 5.00 p.m., he was playing pasa along with Om Prakash (PW-12), Niranjan and Piram. Deceased- Narayan was also sitting there and was watching their game. Appellant- Teejoo came there and started assaulting the deceased by one tangia (small axe). He tried to stop him, but the appellant did not take care of his request. Deceased- Narayan fell down and died on the spot. ^ (8) Om Prakash (PW-12) also deposed in similar fashion. He deposed that he was playing pasa along with Nokheram (PW-ll), Niranjan and Piram. Narayan was sitting there and he was watching their game. Appellant- Teejoo came there, assaulted Narayan by an axe from the back side. Narayan fell down and thereafter he died on the spot. (9) Though the above eye-witnesses have been put to lengthy cross-examination by the defence, but the defence has not been able to eUcit any such circumstance on which either their evidence may be discarded or it may be said that they are falsely ~i. implicatirtgAKe appellant in crime in question. Nokheram (PW-11) was school teacher and OiS'Prakash (PW-12) was an agriculturist. They were playing pasq at a place in the village at about 5.00 p.m. Keeping in mind the entire facts and circumstances, their pre.sence, at the place of occurrence, cannot be doubted. The & Criminal Aooeal No. 684 of 1995 defence has also not brought any such circumstances on which it can be said that either they were inimical to the appellant and they had reason to falsely implicate the appellant in the present crime. It was almost day tiine and the appellant was well known to them being nephew of the deceased, therefore, there was no question of mistaken identity also. (10) Mr. Rakesh Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that the eye-witnesses are saying that tangia was used, but the deceased did not received any incised wound, therefore, there was discrepancy in the eye-witness account and the medical evidence. We do not find force in the above argument advanced by leamed counsel for.th^; appellant. The eye-witnesses have not deposed as to which portion of tangia was used. They have simply said that the appellant gave tangia blows to the deceased. In fact, there is no cross-exam.inatiori from the above witnesses as to which portion of tangia yfa.s used by the appellant. Unless it comes in the cross-examination that sharp portion of the tangia was used by the appellant, there cannot be any discrepancy in the ocular version and the medical version. In fact, the above argument has been advanced by leamed counsel for the appellant presum,iAg/that the sharp portion of tangia was used, for which y~ there is no material on r'eeord. On the contrary, the prosecution itself came with the case that the deceased had used blimt portion of tangia which is clear from the contents of the F.I.R. (Ex.-P/13) Iddged by village-Kotwar- Nokheram (PW-10) who mentioned in ^ -\ / vatti. Criminal Appeal No. 684 of 1995 the F.I.R. that the appellant had assaulted the deceased by the back portion of tangia due to which he received injuries and succumbed to those injuries. (11) On due consideration of the submissionsma.de by learned counsel of the appeUant, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment and finding recorded by. the Sessions Court that it was the appellant who assaulted the deceased by tangia causing raultiple serious injuries to him. for which he was liable for punishment u/s 302 IPC. (12) For the foregoing reasons, there is no substance in the appeal. The appeal is.-liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.S. Sltarma Judge ,/ - / ~ 'tt-