^; 1!^ ^ ~-'a!!h' r'^;^^;^ ^^ STi^ •• HiGHCoxjitr or CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BBNCH CORAM: Ht»t'»LBMR.T.P.SHARBllAfc HCTI'Bl.BMR. R. L. JH^iWAR. J<t APPESU.ANT VERSXTO CSO. A. N0. 7»7/a003 KIRAT' LAL @ KOUNDHA S/0 PANCNHRAM MARAR AGED A80UT 25 YEARS R/0 TAHASPANI R/0 P.S. SARANQARH DISTT. RAIGARH. [00.]. RESPONDENT STATE OF CHHATnSGARH, THROUGH SARANGARH DISTF. RAIGARH. (C.Q.). CKUUNAL APPEAL UNDER 8ECTION 374 (21 CRUUNAL PROCEDURE CODB. 1973. Presenfc- ShriV.K. Punjabi, Advocate fiir the appellant Shri Vinod Shrivastava, G.A. for fhe State/respondent. ORAL-JODOEanaHT (Passedon 29/03/2014 The foUowine iudement of the Coiut was i«ssedtov T.P. Sharma. J:- 1. Challenge in fhis aiqieal is to fhe judgment <rf convirtlon and order of sentence dated 10/3/2003 passed by Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) to Sessions Trial No. 156/02 whereby and wherc iinder after holdin®fhe appellant guilty for fhe conEumssion of offence of culpabte hoiaicide amountir^ to murder of his mother Sudmati, convicted fhe appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and seatenced imprisonment for Ufe aad fine of Rs. 2000/- in dcfeult of paysaexit of flne amoiuit additioiial r^orous imprisonment ibr 6 months. 2. Convictioa is impugned on the ground that without aay iota of evidence suffiraent for convlction of the appeUant, Court below has coiwicted and sentenced the appeUant as •';. aforementioned and fherebyiconimitted Ulegalfty. 3. As per case of the prosecution, <MI fateful day of 23/4/2002 at about 7:00 A.M. present appellant sen of deceased Sudmati has assaulted Sudinati (siace deceased) by stick and caused feital injiuies. Ineident was witnessed by his brother PW2 Firtulal. WhUe tridng the tajwed Sudmati to hospital for treatmeat, she died durin®course ofjpuraey. PW2 Hrtulal lodged First Infonnation RepCTt vlde Ex. P- 4 and siarg intimation was recorded vide Ex. P-15. Investigatmg Offica- teft for soene of occurraace and after summoiui^ fbe witnesses vide Ex. P-2, inquestover the dead body of deceased Sudmatl was prepared vide Ex. P-3. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-5. Oae stick was recovered from Firtulal vlde Ex. P-6. Blood stained and plain soil were recovered fl'am fhe spot vide Ex. P-7. Dead body of Sudmati was sent for autopsy to Commuiiity Healfh Center, Sarangaiii vlde Ex. P-16 where PW4 Dr. S.K. TIwari conducted autopsy vide Ex. P-8 and found followiag injuries:- f3>2J. 6. (1) One lacerated wound of 3x % c.m. x bone deep over left side ofthe head. (ii) One lacerated wound of 3 % x % c.aa. x bone deep OVCT ri^it side of fhe head. (iii) Injuries were ante-mortem. (iv) FraAure ofright peuietal bone was found. Mode of deafh w^s shock and deatfawas hoimddal in nature,. Sealed clofhs of deceased Sudmati was jseized vide Ex. P- 17. Sealed articles were sent fac chemical exaiumation vlde Ex. P-18. Presence of blood was conflrmed ov®-stick vldeEx.P-20. Statements of fhe witoesses were recorded under Sectlon 161 offhe Code of Oriinmal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code^. After completlon of the investigatlon cliai^e sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate Pirst Glass, Sarangarh who in tum committed the case to the Goiut of Sessions,Raigaiti. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant prosecution examined as many as 8 witaesses. AppeUEBit was examiired under Sectton 313 offhe Code wtere he denied the drcumstances appearihg against him, tanocency and false implication in crime in question is cteime<L AppeUant has taken fhe defence fhat he was physically and naentalty m. 33 :*s;il!§ sSS 7. After affording an dpportunity <rf hearing to (he parties leamed Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.Q.) (X)nvfcted and sentenced the appeUant as aforementioned. •» 8. Leamed counsel for fhe appellaat Mr. V.K. Punjabi and leamed G.A. for fhe State/respondent Mr. Vmod •t'l. Shrivastava are heard. Juflgaent Impt^ied and re<x>rd of Court below perused. 9. Leamed counsel for the appellant vehemenfly ^^ued that as per initial ease of the prosecution and evidence <rf witnesses, appellant was insane and has commltted the offence during course of insanity therefore, his case falls under Section 84 of (he Indian Peiial Code is exception even otherwlse prosecution has not proved its case beyond atl shadow ofdoubts. On ftie other hand, leamed Oovt Advcwate for fhe State/respondeiit opposed the appeal and su^ued that conviction is substantially based on the evideaice of eyewitaess PW2 Firtulal, exte^udicial confesslon made before the PW3 Maheshram and dytng declaratiaa made before fhe PW6 Mayaram which are tospire confidence, trustworthy and same 1s siifficient for conviction of the appellant under Section 302 ofthe Indiaa Penal Code. 11. ta order to appreciate fhe ai^uments advaaced on behalT of fhe parties, we have examined fhe evldence addiiced on bebalf of the prosecution. 34 12. In the present case, homicidal deafh as a result af fatal injuries found over fhe body of Sudmati, mother of appellant has not been substantiaUy disputed on behalf of the appeUant on the ofher hand, ofherwise also established by the evideiKe of FW4 Dr. S.K. Tiwari and •'!. autopsy report EK. P-8 and (death was honuddal in natzn'e. 13. As regard the complicity of appellant in crime in question, convlction of the appellaat 1s substantiaUy based on the evidence of eyewitaess, evidence of extrajudidal confession and evldence of dying declaratioii. As per evidence of PW2 Firtulal, present appeBant has assaulted his mother Sudmati by stick, he has not fuSy supported the case of the prosecution, prosecutlon declared him hostile. In Para-3 of hls examtaation he h^ ^eciflcaBy deposed fhat he was catled by has daughter Durmati thea he saw fhat appeUant was assaultu^ his mother Sudmati when he tried to tntervene then appellant also chased luiu. In Para-5 of his cross-examtaation, he has specifically admitted fhat appellant has assaulted his mofhCT Sudnaati although he has deposed that he was iiaad and dumig course ofinsamty, he has caused such injiiries. 14. As per evidence of PW3 Maheshram, present appeflant has made extrajudicial confession before him that he has assaulted his mother Sudmati. Defence - has cross- examlaed fhis witness at lengfh but has not supported ^6. oi uoRBSiiqo japun SBA luensddB ssuuaqio uaAa ^uenaddB aip jo A|IUBSU{ jo Aiiiiqissod STR yno papu sno 'RBmpng jailiom siq jo 'faavaysax^ aqi joj vaaq papredmoooB osfa seq luenaddB teq^ ^irenaddB aqi jo Jieqsq uo miq o» u3Ai8 uottsaSSns 9i(t psnpnpB ^iieogpsds s^q aq 'aoCTBUpirexa-sso.D spt jo 9-vxed ui inq A^icresui jo a&inoo Suunp iiwnpng jsqioui siq paiinBsse swi ^irensddB yBSQ uopBararexa-sso.io siq jo g-^JBd ui pasodap s^q luenaddB jo jaioojq 'lBircuiil Zt&d "PV souapiAg aTp jo SOI uopoag jo siBuai in uopdaoxa aip joojd 01 sao&iad JSIRO jio j<xpop AIB paiiiurexa iou smi yiB{i9ddB 'paiuaouoa 8T ^UBRaddB JO AtIUBSUI 01 Sm^Biaj uottdaoxa SEQ pjegaj sv •ftBmpns jatRora siqjo iReap T^>pmioq pasnao SBI.I iuB[[3ddB 'yBEQ aouajsjui tt®SuiM&ip joj yiapBffns are uopB-reioap 8up(p 01 SucpsiM UIBIB^BN 9yttd pue uoissajaoa iBpipnfBXi.xa 01 Suiieiai iHRiqssqepI 8A\d 'ssaui^A^Aa l8intJ(jI. gA\d jo aouspiAg •nqq aiojsq uoRBaBioap 8uiAp spwn iou swi iiBuipng tBq^ VSK} aq) o»SupBiaj guppAre papoddns ^ou saq ^nq ipguai \'» 58 ssauina siq»psupiiBxa-sso.o saq aouapa •jat[ paiinrassB gsq ysByaddB yuasojd yevQ miq sjojaq uopBJBioap SuuSp apBin OSJB saq iiBuipng painfm 'mBjeABpi Q/&d jo aoaapfAS jsd sv "ami aiojsq uoisssjaoo {Bpipntej^xs apBm yaa ssq luenaddB luasaid WIR ^SBJ aq^ 01 Suiq^Cire •ei ISiNSSiBI B-!!s x'~i:- '5fe proof fhe exceptiom fa absence of such proof, we are unable to accept fhe defence of insanity. 16. After appreciating the endeaoe availabte on reeord, leamed Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) has rightly convicted and sentenced the appeHant as aforementioned. 17. On close sCTT-itmy of the/evidence, we do not find any iUegaIlty or mfirmity in the convtetion and seateace imposed upon the appellaat. Consequently, crinnind appeal 1s devoid of merits, same fe Uable to be (Msmissed ao.d is hereby dismlssed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma ffk Sd/- R.L. Jhaiswar Judge