?'!S^3~'TTrTT (3^'} :3!';i® LW^' s^ APPELLANT: (In Jail) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.673 of2006 Hemla Sukhram S/o Sannu, aged about 22 years, R/o Village Palnar, Tungalpara, Cherpal Police Station Gangaloor, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) RESPONDENT: Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Bijapur, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) {Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr. S.K. Dadsena, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Akhil Mishra, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent. Division Bench: - Hon'ble Mr. T.P, Sharma and Hon^le Mr. R.N. Chandrakar. JJ ORAL JUDGh/IENT (27-7-2011) T.P. Sharma.J: - 1. Challenge in this appeal :s ty the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 30-6-2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada, in Sessions Trial No.35/2006, whereby & whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting five other accused persons, after holding the appellant guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of Paskul Linga, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 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. As per case of the prosecution, on 3-10-2005 at about 3 p.m. the appeilant along with other five persons came to the house of Paskul Linga (since deceased) and called him, they took him along with them near the pond where they caused fatal injuries by axe resulting in instantaneous death of Paskul Linga. Paskul Kanni (PW-1) - wife of the deceased witnessed the incident, she went to the police station and & ) >]p's^ffBt'.S'S^E'i;?^^^. lodged FIR vide Ex.P-1. The Investigating Officer left for the scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P-4, prepared inquest over the dead body of the deceased vide Ex. P-3. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Government Hospital, Bijapur. Dr. Sujit Vishwas, Block Medical Officer, Bijapur, conducted autopsy vide Ex.P-6 and found following injuries: - (1) Incised wound over neck of 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 3 c.m. (2) Lacerated wound over side of occipital area of 15 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 4 c.m. rf* Cause of death was coma and death was homicidal in nature. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded underSection 161 of the CrPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantewada who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Dantewada from where learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. 6. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge, while acquitting five accused persons, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the trial Court haS acquitted five persons on the basis of same set of evidence, but has convicted the appellant on the basis of same set of evidence which is not permissible under the law and the appellant is also entitled for equal treatment. Learned counsel further argued that evidence of Paskul Kanni (PW-1) & Ramaiyya Paskul (PW-2) are full of contradictions and omissions and are not safe to rely for conviction of any of the accused. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the appeal and submitted that on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, the trial Court has rightly acquitted five accused persons, but has convicted the fc (^) ^ ^l^^-fes^l^^ appellant on the basis of credible and clinching evidence of Paskul Kanni (PW-1) & Ramaiyya Paskul (PW-2). While convicting & sentencing the appellant, the trial Court has not committed any illegality warranting any interference. 10.1n order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 11.1n the present case, homicidal death of deceased Paskul Linga as a result of fatal. injuries found over the body of the deceased has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appetlant. The appellant himself has admitted the autopsy report Ex.P-6 which shows that fatal injuries were found over the body of the deceased and that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. It is, therefore, established that death of deceased Paskul Linga was homicidal in nature. 12.As regards complicity of the appellant in the crime in question, initially FIR has been lodged by Paskul Kanni (PW-1) - wife of the deceased, against six accused persons, but in the court she has deposed only against the appellant herein namely Hemla Sukhram. She has specifically deposed in her evidence that on the fateful day Hemla Sukhram came to her house, he called her husband deceased Paskul Linga, her husband accompanied the appellant, thereafter, she also followed them and the appellant caused injuries by axe over the head of Paskul Linga, other accused persons were not present on the spot. Ramaiyya Paskul (PW-2) - son of the deceased has deposed in his evidence that on the fateful day his father was called by appellant Hemla Sukhram and near Mahuva tree, accused Bhadru, Anga & Sukhram assaulted his father by axe and caused death of his father. 13.There are contradictions and omissions in the evidence of Paskul Kanni (PW-1) & Ramaiyya Paskul (PW-2) with their statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and with the FIR lodged by Paskul,Kanni (PW- 1) especially relating to other co-accused persons. Paskul Kanni (PW-1) has said nothing against other accused persons except against the appellant herein. On the basis of insufficiency of evidence, the trial Court has acquitted other accused persons. Evidence of Paskul Kanni (PW-1) & Ramaiyya Paskul (PW-2) are reliable to the extent of the appellant herein and are well corroborated by the FIR. Aforesaid evidence is •^-^. Soma sufficient to estab!ish the fact that appellant Hemla Sukhram has committed homicidal death ofthe deceased. 14.As regards the question of intention, on the fateful day the appellant called deceased Paskul Linga from his house and thereafter, caused his homicidal death by dangerous weapon axe which shows grave intention of the appellant of causing homicidal death amounting to murder. 15.After appreciating evidence available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted &sentenced the appellant in the aforesaid manner. Conviction of the appellant is based on clinching and credible evidence sustainable under the law. On close scrutiny of evidence, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 16.Consequently, the appeal is devoid of merit, same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismisse(; ~- - ~~ s^i ——— R.N. CHANDRAKAR. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Judge