: .:1»!.",:IJIEJ!1U!U11.1'1^';':""''1 HIGH COURTOF CHHATriSGARH. BILASPUR t'93S9as fl?'' APPELLANT: (InJail) RESPQNDEJMT: Criminal Appeal No.537 of 2003 Bhagirathi Yadav, S/o Indraman Yadav, aged about 40 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Talapara Jamgala, Police Station Lakhanpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Lakhanpur, Distt. Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) •[Appeal under Section 374 (2) ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr. Prateek Sinha, counselfor the appellant. Mr.Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate forthe State/respondent. Division Bench: - Hon'bleMr. T.P. Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. R.L. Jhanwar, J3 ORAL3UDGMENT (27-8-2010) T.P.Sharma, J: - 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 17-2-2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur) in Sessions Trial No.290/2002, whereby & whereunder learned Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty for commission of murder of his wife Mu!lapati withspade and for concealing the evidence of criminal case, convicted the appellant under Sections 302 & 201 of the I.P.C. and sentenced hjm to undergo imprisonmentfor life & R.I. for three years, respectively, 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of' evidence, the trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appellant and thereby committed illegality. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant & his wife Mullapati (since deceased) were residing in same house at Village Jamgala, Talapara, Police Station Lakhanpur and on 28-3-2002 the appellant caused fatalinjury to hiswife with spade and caused her death. Thereafter, the appellant burnt his household articles and climbed over the tiled roofof his house with axe and was threatening F-^ / /-. people that if any body comes he will kill either himself or that person. Birendra Kumar Yadav (PW-1) lodged F.I.R. vide Ex.P-1 and merg vide Ex.P-14. After summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P-6, inquest over the dead body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex.P- 7. Burnt piece of wood and clothes were seized from the spot vide Ex.P-8. Spade was seized from the appellant vide Ex.P-9. Dead' body of the deceased was sent for autopsy to Community Health Centre, Lakhanpur vide Ex.P-12. Autopsy was conducted by team of doctors namely,Dr. P.S. Kerketta (PW-6) & Dr.V.R. Singh vide Ex.P- 13 who found burn injury over the body of the deceased, bones were visual, multiple fracture of ocdpital bone was found, cause of death was fatal injury over head and death was homicidal in nature. Sppt mapwas prepared by the Patwari vide Ex.P-10. Spot map was also prepared by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.P-16. The accused was taken into custody, he made discloser statement ofspadevide Ex.P- 19 and same wasrecovered at the instance ofthe accused vide Ex.P- 9. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Surguja (Ambikapur). 5. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false' implication. e.After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Sessions Judge convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record ofthe trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that in the present case, the prosecutionwitnesses have not supported the case ofthe prosecution and the accused has been convicted & sentenced Only on assumption, surmises and conjectures, which is not sustainable under the law. '^ f€ fc&i^;|SsseE. 9. On the other hand, learnedState counsel opposed the appeal and submitted that the prosecution witnesses have fully corroborated the case of the prosecution and conviction is based on cogent and reliable evidence not liable to be disturbed. l0.in order to appredate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, wehave examined the material available on record. ll.In the present case, homicidal death of deceased Mullapati as a resultoffatal injury and ppst-mortem burn injury found on the body of wife of the appellant has not been- substantially disputed, otherwise established by the evidence of Dr. P.S. Kerketta (PW-6) & autopsy report Ex.P-13 which reveal that multiple fracture of occipital bone was found, deep burn injury was found over the body ofthe deceased and death was homiddal in nature. IZ.As regards complicityof the appellant in the crime in question, as per the evidence of hostile witnesses Birendra Kumar Yadav (PW-1), Brispatia Bai (PW-2), Kamalbhan Singh (PW-4) & Bhim Singh (PW- 5), dead body of the deceased was found badly burnt in the house of the appellant, householdarticles of the appellant were burnt, fumes were coming out from the house, the appellant dimbed over the tiled' roof of his house holding axe and was challenging the persons for quarrel. The appellant is not insaneor not mentally disturbed. Statements of the above witngsses clearly reveal that atthetime of causingfatal injury to Mullapati, only fche appellant was present in his house and he had climbed on the tiled roof of his house, he was holding axe and challenging the persons. Thisshows his post- incident conduct relevant in terms of Sections 6 & 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. This evidence is sufficient for drawing inference that the appellant was the person who has caused fatal injury resulting in the death of Mullapati, wife ofthe appellant. l3.After appreciating the evidenceavailable on record, learned Sessions Judge convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. The facts proved against the appellant clearly revealthat the appellant has caused fatalinjuries to the deceased resultingin the death of deceased Mullapati and that the appellant has burnt the dead body alongwith household articles with a view to conceal the evidence of criminal case. The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 302 & 201 of the I.P.C. '••^"i ^ '[l;i'- *' 14.0n close scrutiny of evidence, we do not find any illegatity in cohvicting&Sentencingthecippellant.The appeal is deyoid of merit, same is liable to be dismissed-andLitJshereby dismissed. Soma Sd/- ^^anua ige Sd/- R-L. Jhanwar Judge .f- • •,^-.