H EQUkT OF CHHATTISEARH AT BILA$PU 6 R DIVI5ION BENLIH: GQRAM; HON’BLE ME.T.?.$HARM£ & HON’BLE mRRLJHANWAR. JJ. (Erimina! Appaai Na.953 cf 2603 Hansla! and mofhgr Versus The State of Chha‘h’isgarh JUDéMENT FCIR CQNSEDERATICIN u Sdl- T.P. Sharma Judge Han'bie. Mr.R.L.Jhanwar, J. WV“ J U D é E 35/2016 P95? for Judgment an 1 3f512$19 Sdl- T. P. Sharma Judge "?"'/§i ’“‘#3i2013 w EEH CQUR F €HHATT§$§££H A ILA$§ rimi heal Na.9 f 20 DEVI$IGE BENCH:- Comm: HGN‘BLE .IEAQ.T.P.5HARMA é HON’ELE iiiR.R LIHANWAR: EJ. QESPQNDENT° The 5mm 9f Chhamsgarh Through as. {CRMINAL APPEAL UNDER 5EC1IQN 374 (2} 5F THE CODE OF CQIMENAL , @Rccgwiza 1973) - Qamanujganj DisfTSar-guju (C.6.) Presenth Mr. Abhay Tiwaré, counsei far fine appzkms. MrRakesh Kumar Jha, by. Govt Advocate for 1Jne Sfafefrespondenf. JUDQIIAENT (iia’ivereé on 3’: iimy! 2§i§§ x The Judgment 9f ‘rhe Cour? was deiiveraci by T,?.Sharma. 3.:- . Chaiigngg in This appeai is f9 1’he judgmen? 9f com/icfien é order of senteysce. dafed 30.6.3303 passgci by fhe Acidifionni SgssionsJudge, Link Court Rammujgan‘j‘ in SeS§i9ns Trini _ No.2§2!2000f whereby & wi‘sereunder iearned Addificm! 5essians Judge affer heiding ‘the appeiiams guii‘ry for ccmmissinn of cuipaisie homicide gmounfing to murder of husband of apgeiian? N92 Ramavamr in sharing camman §nfenfian and canceagina .. the eyirjence of criminal casz convicted the > gr: "neiianfs under Sad-5am 302/34 é 2G§/34 9f 1112 indicnn Fermi Code. and senfenced Mam H ? O T EUR Cnai A 53 a 03 ‘ APPELLANTS (En iaii) i“ Hansiai, 510. Jethu La? .éged abou? years, occupa?io‘n Agricuii‘umi 2V Fir-amiia: W/G. Late Rainaygfar Aged a f years, occupm‘ion House wife, ‘ Bafh We. Maha§irgmj, R5. Ramnnu‘ggangi 0isTf.Sar-9uja {Chhaffisga‘r’w ' l vy X' i x 1 x r m imdergo imprisonmen‘r for iéfe & m pay fine of Rs.10Cv’-, in defauh' 9f paymem' of fine m fur'i'her unézrga rigomus imprisonmeni‘ for one month and rigorous imprisonmen‘r far- one year- ég 1’0 pay fine of Rs.1€!0,l'—, in defanif Qf paymem 9f fine it) fgrfher underga rigomus imprisonmem' for j Lang yaw, respecrweiy.“ 2. Conwcfian is impugned on thg ground' 1+:m: wifhou‘? any credibie, giinc'hin‘ an§ reiiabie avia‘ema, Thg Cgur‘r beiaw has convicted t3: szntenced The pg‘ziianw as aferemenfianed and t'hereby cammi‘h'ed Eliegaiity. .asé‘egf the pmsecufidn, Ea brief, is ‘r‘aa’t appellant No.2 Pmmiia, wife 9f deceased Ramava‘mr, was residing Mir?! Hm under fhe same mof. Agpeliam Hansias‘i bro?her~én-iew of deceased Rcmcvamri was eisc gresem in The inause of Qamavafer. in the imervening nigh? of 15!1é.6.2m0, bo‘rh ‘rhei. agpeiian‘ts asscui‘red deceased Ramcva-rar- by means of cxe and chopped his headi After chopping The head. agpeiian'? iviansiai hidden 'rhe heed by fhmwing the same in i’ine weii. 0n “the secand day morning chapped trunk of deceased Remeve'ier was fwnd in The heuse of eggeiien‘i’ Pmmiie. His cousin bre'iher {Envind iedged The FIR vide Ex.P,/1_4. Merg was recorded vide EXP/28. Invesiiga'iing officer grocecded for The scene of occurrence end efTer summoning The wiTnesses vide ExPii, inquesT over The deed bo ‘yJTrunk of The deceased Removomr was preoared vide ExP/2. Seo‘!’ ma? was prepared'by The invesTigoTing officer vide ExPj-i gloodsmined & pioin soii were recoveresé fram The spoT vide ExiPM. Dne “bloodsmined hiouse of accused Pmmiie‘iying in The courTyerd of Premiie :was seized viée ExPl'i Deed body of deceased Rama/Tor was senT for TeuToosy To 6overnmenT HosgiTei, Romenaiggenj vide Ex PH. EinBR'RoTrev 1. (A) ‘ P) \ 7"” 1 (PW-4) conducTerj ouTopsy vide Ex.F./7A and feiiowing injuries:- v i) Incised wound chopping Trunk from The head; end ii) Incised wound over iefT scepuio region of 4" x 2"; DeoTh was homicidei in neTure. During The course of invesTigoTion, accused Premiic was Taken inTo cusTady’ she made disciosure sTaTemenT of ‘ e _ “v...“ iv) Inrivd wound 0n The beck s§de eecigi‘m! regien 9f 5" lehgfh, heme Mp biendsmined axe Vida EXP!22 and the same was seized at her instmce ‘ vide Ev W13 Accuseri Hensia! was fake?! inte cusfody, he niso matje éiéciesure statemem of chopped 'head of deceased Qemavamr‘ and his bimdsmined ciathes and bioedsmined cia‘rhes were recovered from accused Honskai Ex.?!23. He wok ‘rhe gaiice f9 we?! of Say-31v Menzi from wiviere chopped head 9f Remem‘mr was recover-ed at The insmnce of accueed Hehsiei vide ExPIZE. Heed of Qemavamr was sent far- examinatieh f0 Dr.BRRuTre (PW-4) whs has‘examined 1he head vide Ex.P,/8A. Heed was identified by Ramlai and Kameshwa? as ‘the head (31" Ramavatar. He found fnhgwing injuries:- i) Inckeri weund beside the left eye ef Z” x %”; ii) incised wound of ieft cheek of 4"; iii) Indeed wound an the mandible bane 0f 5" comFrisin§ cu? in‘urv J f 9f bone; a.-.p was cut; and v) Indeed weund en 'l‘he beck of‘neck of 4", heed was eomgie‘l’eiy chopped from Trunk; Paheari prepared s90? map vide ExPfé. §iaadsmined axe and clefhes were sent fer exemihefigh. DnBLRa‘l‘re (PW-4) has examined the ar‘ticies yide EXP/MA. Query was made fa DnBLRm're vide EXP/'9 where he gained vide EXP/9A the? injury found ever “the bee‘y of Remevetor may be c ..... by axe which he has examined. Accused Premiia was eiso sent for examine-rich vide ExP/ii. She was examined by Dr. 8.L.Re1'i~e (Nil-4) vide ExPiliA and no visibie injury was founci over her body. , Accused Honsioi was oiso sent for medioo! exomino‘i'ion vide ExPfiz. Tenderness was found by him yide ExPfi2A. gioodstoined lecei bed-sheer (kofhori) ond dhofi ‘ ¥ were seized vide ExPfié. 5eoled ciofhes of fhe deceased offer autopsy were seized vide EXP/21. Seized arficles were senf for ahemicoi examination vide EXP/3G and presence of biood was confirmed over cicfhas and axe seized from accu5zd gerwns Vida EXP/33. Phmagmghs of chewed Trunk af the desensed were mken. 4. 5Ta1’ements 0f the wi‘messes were regarded under &cf!on 161 9f The Cade 9f Cr§minai Procedure,5_973 ihereimf‘mr referred tons ‘the Cenie’) and after cemgietion 91? investiga'rion, charge sheet was fiied in ‘rhe Court of Judicini Magistrate Firs? Ciess, Ramonujgm}, who in tum committed the case i’o the Cour? of fhe Siessiofss, fourgujn Ambikapur from where the Adaif‘zonoi Sessions Judge, Link Cour-1r, Remonujganj received fhe case on fron§fer for 1’rial. 5. In order 1’9 grove f'he guii‘r of the accusedleppellcmts, the prosecution has A examined as many es 19 witnesseso $tetements of tine eceusedfeppelients were also recorded under 5estien 313 of the Code where they denied the» eireumstonces agipeoring against them and pieeded innocence and foise impiieotion in the crime, it! question. Agpeiient ?romiie hos token the defence in her examination under Section 31.3 of the Code that on the date of incident s'ne was sleeping inside the room, her husband was sleeping in courtyard and he was under drunken condition. When she woke up at é din. at morning she saw dead body of her husband on cot, then she embraced the dead body and started weeping and she oaiied her brother- in-iaw Chotu. In the intervening night she was sleening with her sister-in- iaw and brother in-iaw. On the second day, the poiice came whom she Joid' that somebody has kiiied her husband. She has aiso taken defence that the notice took her to the poiice station but did not seize blouse stained with biood. 5he is not having any reiation with Hansia! and he has not chopped the head of her husband. C’n the date of ineildent' her tnother—in- law was not oresent in her house, she was at Paiamu. Appeiiant Hansiai has i;ii» taken defence that he was present in his house at Maharajganj and the oolioe took him from his house, He has not made any disclosure statement. After providing oooortunity of hearing to the parties, Additionai 5essions Judge has convicted di sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. .- ”I pr ; 5 g g? ". We have hear-d MnAbhay Tiwari, cgunsei far 'rhe appeiiams and MrRakesiw Kumnr Jha, Dyftovf. Advocate for the ~51ufe, gar-used Th9 indgmen? 9d- ,1 impugned and racord 9f the Cour? beiaw. 8. Learned caunsei far ‘rhe appeiian'rs vehemea‘riy argued fha‘r in tha presem' case convic‘rion is subsmntiaiw bn<9d gm discbsure sm'remenfs‘ recavery 9f axe, biondsmined cie'thes and ch9ppad haad of fhe deceased m' five instance a1? The agpeiian'rs which ifseif is m? incriminating evidence against The appeihnk and are m? sufficient? far- canvia‘rior‘i' without further caragéam‘tion from the maferiai saurce. Learned caunsei further argued That §ndependehf wifnesses including file marker 9f me deceased Le. MaifriAéPW-rJ) has not? supiaarted The case 9f ‘ihe prasecu‘rian. Suspician, hawever s‘rreng it“may be, cannot “rake The aiaee of legal praof. Therefare [a canvicfion r34 semence 9f The appeiiams are no? sastaiaabie under The iaw. O‘ ‘\. r . 0n ‘ihe other hand, iearned STa‘i'e eounse! supported the Judgment impugned and argued fha‘i' conviction a: sentence of The appellants are based on recovery of ar‘ticies on fhe basis 9f disciosure sta'remenfs made by the accused which are sufficient ta cannect the appeiiants in the crime in question. 10.31 order to anpreciate the arguments advanced an behaif of the parties, we have examined the material avaiiabie an record. In the present case, homicidai death as a result af chapping at head of the deceased has not been substantiaiiy disputed on behalf of the apeeiiants, on the other hand, diso established by the evidence of 3P..Ratre (PW-4), autopsy report EXP/’8 and e.amination of chooped head report Ex.P./7A which rereai that ioody of Ramavatar was chopged and firstiy he has examined trunk vide ExR/B and secondiy, he has examined the head of‘Ramavatar after its identification by the witnesses vide ExPi8A and death was homicidai in VJ i nature. \ \ \ 11. E‘n the present case, Te‘ibaii (PW-2), Ramkuniar (Pia/.3), Govind Ram (PW- \/ d) who has iodged the report, Keshavram (PWJ'), Jethanram (PW—8), \ i \ \ e— \ Mahmwd Ala"! (PW-11) have depgased fhm' choppzd bady i3. trunk of .Qgmavamr was faund 5n the house of W'Qmiia cm the date 0f incident but ‘l'hey have n9? subs‘mminiiy deposed against fhe presen'r aggeiianfs. Conviction is subsmnfiaiiy based cm the disciosure smfements 9f the aggeiiants and recovery 9f grficies. Paiica inspector MKTiwari (PW-19), who has conducted investigafion, has depnszd in his evidence the? he has seized biause having smaii dofs 9f bioed 9f Pramile vide Ex.P!5. He has faker! Pmmiia info custody and‘inwrmgafed her. She made disciosure \ l sfaTemen‘l' of axe vide ExEIZZ 5he teak out the 0322 from her roam staineti with bieod whkh he has seized vide ExPfi9v He has eisg deposed the? in peres‘ i4 and 15 9f his cross-examinatian The? he cieseiy infermgated Pramila relei'ing 1'0 commissian of the affenee on fhe gmund the? she was presenf in ‘r’ne hause on The date of incident Firstly, she Toid~ ubouf some seven persans Wham he inmrroga‘red. He again iratermgated closeiy on 17.6.2000 and she mid The name 9f Hanslnl, fhen she narrated The ine§denf of love affair wi'rh neighbour of his maternal village, 'I'hen he s intermgafed the father af appeiian‘r Pramiia abau? fhe persen 1mm when! she was having inve affair. Her father ioid ‘rhe name 9f Hansiaii then he ciasely imerraga‘red Hansial. Finaiiy, Hansla! admits iliicit relation with Pmrniia and disclosure statement af head, underwear and clothes vide EXP/23. He has further degased that he went with Hanslal near weii fram where chapped head of Ramavatar was recovered at the instance Eof appeiiant Hansla! yide EXP/25. He has aisa seized clothes of the Hansiai :vide Ex.P,/24a He has denied the suggestian that Pramiia has toid hlrn that she was weeping after embracing the body of the'deeeased, therefare, her blouse was stained with biood. He has expiained that some-”smaii dots of the hiood were present in her blouse and in case of'embracing ahopped body of the deceased, blouse must be completely stained with hiood, but he did not find sueh stained, His yersion is substantially corroborated by Bhannt Prasad Tiwari (PW-14) and Assistant Revenue Ensoector Kanhai Ram l (PW-E), who haye substantiaily deposed that the appellants have -3- chapped haad. Ramkumar (PW-3‘\ has depaszd trim? on ‘rhe direcfim 9f ma palice he has taken 'the head 9f Ramava‘mr from weii by puffing basket T cormbgr‘nt . The gvidence of MKTivmri, Maifri (PW-5), mother-in-law V of oppailan‘t Pramiia, has daposed that on ‘rhe date of incidgn‘r she was ne‘r §resen+ in har hause and anly agpeiiant ?mmi!a and her husband were giresent and fhere was only ong mum. éavindmm (PW-6) has deposed in his eyidenae fhm‘ he dong wi‘rh Sarpanch Jefhan and his wife wen? ‘i'o the ErsQse bf Pmmile and asked 1'9 her- ebou‘!‘ the incident but she did net ieii anything bu? ‘df-i-erwards mid the‘i‘ she was sgeeping inside the mom and Ramqyemr was sieeiging in t.e courtyard. Jefhnnsam (PW-3) has also depesed in his evidence that when he reached fa ‘l'he house 9f Prdmiin a? {hat time, she did n9? teii that how The incident teak niece and some biood dots were nresent in the blouse of Premiie which she was wearing which the noiice has seized vide EXP/’5. in his cross-examination, he has specificaily dehosed that when he went t9 the house of Pmmiia, at that time she was net weeping and he has denied the suggestion that she was weeping and embraeihg chonped body 9f her husband Momtaj Ansari (PW-9) has depased that after- two days of the incident, the paiice teak Pramiia and Hansiai to the paiiae statian. eeutian witnesses, biause with some smad dats was seized by the paiice from Pramila an the same day. The paiice took her to the poiice station and detained for 2-3 days, thereafter her, confessional statement was recorded and axe was recovered at her instance. During this time, nobody was present in her' memo-”The witnesses were not said anything that axe was iyina near the piece of inaident or was visible. They have deposed that room was closed and when Pramiia came aiong with the poiice then she took out axe which was seized. »:a 14.The evidences of the aforesaid witnesses are aiso sufficient to establish the fact that chonped head of Ramavatar was hidden in weii and was recovered at the instance of anoeiiant Hansial. It was not within the 13. As per evidence of the pros knowledge 9f viliager‘s 9r inves’rigating officer befare. regarding her- cqnfgssionai staremenzr. This sm‘mmen? ciaarly establishas :rha'f before recording confassiom! smtemenf af ggpailnn'r ?mmi!a, investiga‘riw efficzr was not having thz knowledge of bloadsmined axe hidden in fine roam and before recording confessional smtemen‘r of appellant Henslel, chapped heed of Remaveimr was hidden in fhe well. Bleedsmined ele'l'hes of oppellént Honslol have also been recovered. On chemical examination, pres‘enoe of blood over- clolhes of l—lonslol & Pramila and axe was confirmed v'de 3x Phe, olfhough blood group hos no? been menfioned'in the report. .Thls $idence oleorly establishes that bloodstoined clothes and axe were recovered of the instance of opoeilont Promllo who was present in 'ner house on the dote‘ of incident. Chopped head was recovered of the instance of angellont Hanslol and bloodstained clothes were olso recovered at the instance of Hanslal. § a i.“ U1 u 1o. Both the appellants have not offered any explanation that how the blood was found in clothes and axe, on the other hand, explanation relating to presence of blood in the blouse of Promila was found patiently false. M.K_Tiwari (PW-19) has explained the circumstances in which he was closely interrogated Pramila Le. when he found blood dots on her blouse and- story of previous relation of Pramila with Hansiai. 17.If these circumstances are considered together then no other hypothesis excegot hypothesis that the appellants have killed Ramavatar would be 1E Atter apnreciatinn the ewdence available on record learned ddditional Sessions Jadge Link Court RamanLJganl has convirted d sentenced the appellants as aforementioned including conviction & sentence of the ahnellonts under $ection 2011.34 of the Indian Penal Code for concealing the‘ evidence of criminal case Le. chopped head. Conviction of the ahoeilmts is-based on credible, clinching and legal evidence sustainable i uhder the law. w MA, g we dc no? find any iiiegaiity or infirmify . (3n dose scrufiny of fhe evidence, in The judgment impugned warmming any inhrference. The appeal being devaid of meri'r is liable to be dismisszd and it is hereby dismissed. The agape-Ennis arz an baii, They shaii surrender fhzmseives forfhwiih before the Addifianai Sessixms Judge, Link Caurt, Rammujgonj fer serving remaining gar? of sentence imgosed upen fhem in 5essions Trici N52é712000. ‘ ' a w Sd/- A 7\ Sd/— “ELI; r - i " ”‘f Tirpsharma ‘V R._L. Jhanwg Judge‘ E ‘ ' \ Judge ‘ V 7,,e e e, i 7/ V§i§i26i§ ’7 \