<iidaa ^ y>\v lr:i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: Coram: HON'BLE MR.T.P.SHARMA & HON'BLE-MR.R.N. CHANDRAKAR, JJ. Criminal Appeal No. 279 of 2005 AppellanU (in jail) Siyaram son of Gadaram, aged 35 years^resident of viltage Khat Kachhar, P.S.' Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G^ Respondent Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through : Police Station - Kapoo, District Raigarh (C.G.) (CR1MINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973) : Present:- Mr. Suryakant Mishra, counsel for the appellant. Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Govt. Advocate forthe State. JUDGMENT (Delivered on 09th December;2011) Per T.P.Sharma, A:- 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 19.03.2004 passed by the Itlrd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raigarh in Sessions Trial No.15/2004, whereby & whereunder learned lllrd Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of his wifeSumitra Bai (since deceased), convicted under Sections 302 ofthe I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. ^•vyvi^ ^•^ w s: :tl: ?^ •^..is^^^aa^s \.,:!^ ^^ss. ^ 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being any iotaof evidence, the trial Court^has convicted & sentenced theappetlant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 3. As per the case of prosecution, wife of appellant unfortunate deceased Sumitra Bai was residing with her mother at village Bhojpur, Thana Kapoo, District Raigarh. Appellant who was resident of village Khat <jf Kachhar, police station Dharafnjaigarh went to the house of mother of deceased at Bhojpur, he stayed in the house of his mother-in-law. Appellant along with his wife Sushila went to field for cutting and collecting crops. During course of collecting crops, appellantwho was holding axe mshed towards his wife and caused repeated injuries over her neck, as a result ofwhich she felt do\wn and died on the spot. Piyaso Bai (PW/1), mother-in-law of appeltant rushed towards the village and informed other witnesses. She went to the police station on second day morning and lodged merg vide Ex.P/11 and FIR vide Ex.P/10. Investigating officer left forscene of occurrence, after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P/1, inquest over the dead body of deceased was prepared vide Ex.P/2. Bloodstained and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P/3. Spot map was prepared by investigating officer vide Ex.P/4. Appellant fled from the spot and went to village Khamhar. After commission of this incid^it he fell down and sustained fracture of the hand. .Sukhdas (PW/5), Kotwar of the village Khamhar saw the appellant in suspicious condition;' he brought the appetlant before Sarpanch Ishwar Prasad Rathia (R/V/8). Present appellant made extra judicial confession before Sukhdas (PW/5) and Ishwar Prasad Rathia (PW/8) that he is resident of Khal Kachhar and tiis in-laws'are resident /.: -^" of village Bhojpur, he has committed murder of his wife. Thereafter, Ishwar (PW/8) telephoned to police station Kapoo by that time they \ detained the appellant police came, whom they handed over the appellant. Appeltant was-holding axe, which was seized by police vide Ex.P/9 at village Khamhar along with bloodstained shirt and lungi. Dead body of deceased was sent for autopsy to Primary Health Centre, Dharamjaigarh vide Ex.P/6-^. DrA.S. Thakur, (PW/7) conducted ^ autopsy vide Ex.P/6 and found following injuries: i) Incised wound of4 x 1 cm into bony deep over left scapular. ii) Incised wound of9 x 2 cm over left scapular. Shoufder joint was separated as a result of injury. iii) Incised wound 7 x 2 cm into bony deep over left side of chest below shoulder. iv) Both the jaw and cervical bone were found cut. v) Incised wound of 4 x 1 cm over left jaw. vi) Incised wound of 2 x .5 cm into bone deep over chin. vii) Incised wound of 2 x .5 cm over right temporal region. viii) Incised wound of 5 x3 cm over right scapular region. Mode of death was coma and homicidat in nature 6. Sealed clothes of deceased were seized vide Ex.P/13. Statements ofthe witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code'). After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Court of Judlcial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Raigarh from where the learned lllrd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raigarh received the case on (tensfer fbr trial. 4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, prosecution examined as many as9 witnesses. Statement ofthe accused/appellant was reeorded under Section 313 of the Code where he denied the cireumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. ^ 5. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Juyge, convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appell^nt vehemently argued that conviction is A . ._...... based on evidenee of Piyaso Bai (PW/1), mother ofdeceased who is interested and relative witness and evidence of Sukhdas (PW/5),Kotwar of the village Khamhar and Ishwar Prasad Rathia (PW/8), who are stranger to the appellant before whom appellant has made extra judicial confession is not safe .to rely without further corroboration from the independent sources. He further submits that as per case of prosecution witnesses, appellant was residing at house of Piyaso Bai (PW/1), mother of deceased. Appellant went to field for cutting andcollasting crops along with his wife at that time there was no quarrel or dispute; even there was no propriety for causing injury to his wife. As per ewdence of Piyaso Bai (PW/1), motherof deceased appetlant demanded 'Gudakhu' from deceased when she refused then appellant said her to accompany him to his house which she also refused thereafter, on sudden provocation without premeditation appellant chased her and caused such injuries. Therefore, if the act attriButed to the appellant is considered in its face value then act of the appellant does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 Part-1 of.thelPC. 8. On the other hand, leamed Govt. Advocate for the State opposed the appeat and submits that after leaving the house of appellant deceaised was living with her mother. Appellant neither maintaining her nor ii a providing her maintenance. On the date of incident, appellant assaulted the deceased by axe ^nd caused as many as 8 injuries, which shows grave intention of the appellant. After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 9. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we haveexamined the evidence available on record. 10.1n the present case, homicidat death as a result of fatal injuries found over the vital parts of the deceased Sumitrabai has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant; even otherwise same is also established by the evidence of DrA.S. Thakur, (FW/7) and autopsy report Ex.P/6 that death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 11.As regard complicity ofthe appellant in thecrime in question, conviction is based on evidence of eye witness Piyaso Bai (PW/1) and extra jydicial confession made bythe appellant before Sukhdas (PW/5), Kotwarofthe viltage Khamhar and Ishwar Prasad Rathia (PW/8). As per evidence of Piyaso Bai (PW/1), mother of deceased, her daughter was residingwith her at village Bhojpur. Appellant was staying in her house. They were working in the field and coltecting crops, appellant was standing nearby field. Appellant demanded Gudakhu from deceased which she refused thereafter, he directed the deceased to accompany him to hls house then she also refused him and said that- if appellant will p'ay maintenance then she will come, thereafter he rushed towards deceased, assaulted and caused injuries over her neck five times by axe, as a resultof which she fell down. Appellant was also chasing Piyaso Bai (PW/1); she rashed from the spot towards herhouse. She'went to police stetion and lodged <- -fS3K». report. Defence has eros&-examined this witness at length. Plyaso Bai (RA//1) has specificall^<leposed that appellant has caused injuries to her daughter Sumitrabai and she has seen the incident. As per evidence of Sukhdas (PW/5), appellant was resident of village Khal Kaehhar and Bhpjpur is his in-laws' village. Appellant was produced by villager Shivnarayan & Mithun and informed that appellant is not resident of i! village Khamhar thereafter,'Re took appellantbefore Sarpanch Ishwar Prasad Rathia (PW/8). Being asked appellant disclosed his address and also disclosed that his in-laws' house is situated at village Bhojpur. He made extra-judicial confession that he has murdered his wife thereafter, they detained him and telephoned police station Kapoo. Next day morning police came, appellant was holding axe. After commission of offence appellant he fell down from electric poll andsustained fracture of hand. Evidence of Ishwar Prasad Rathia (PW/8) is corroborated by the evidence of Sukhdas (PW/5), who has atso deposed that clothes which appellant was woreand axe which he was holding were seized by the police vide Ex.P/9. Defence has cross-examined these witnesses at length. In their cross-examination they have specificatly depreed that previously they were not knowing the appellant. Appellant was not resident of viltage Khamhar in fact he was resident of Khal Kachaar. He was interrogated by them th^i he made extra judlcial confession before them. Evidence of these witnesses clearly reveals that there is no whisper of any interestedness. Evidence clearly reveals that appellant has made extra-judictal confession. Extra-judiciat confession is also Itind of evidence and if it is proved to be true, the same would be suffident for conviction of the accused/appellant. Evidence of Sukhdas (PW/5) anet •i^' ^' : '^^ !?:'5?-, -. 'l '* Ishwar Prasad Rathia (PW/8) well corroborated by the evidence of Piyaso Bai (PW/1), are sufficient for drawing inference that appellant committed homicidal d^ath by causing eight injuries to his wife Sumitrabai. 12.As regards the question of motive, in case of direct evidence motive losses its importance, even otherwise, motive is only aids in criminality and ean be inferred on the basi^ of nature of injury, kind of weapon used, part of the body effected and other slmilar circumstances. 13.1n the present case, wife of appellantwas not living witti him, she was residing with her mother. Appellant went to his mother-in-laws house and caused eight injuries by axe, which shows grave intention for causing homieidaldeath amounting to murder of deceased Sumitrabai. 14. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the lllrd Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 15.Conviction of the appellant is based on credibte, clinching and reliable evidence and same is sustainable under law. On close scrutiny ofthe evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in convicting and sentencing the appellant. 16. Conseqyently, the appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismiSsed. Sd/- TJ.Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge