HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BiLAsPUR Criminal Ayyeal No.31512005 APPELLANT (In Jain Suresh s/o Naru Ram Gond aged about 23 years, R/o Netamtola, PS Ambagarh Chowki District Rajnandgaon CG VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ambagarh Chowld, District Rajnandgaon (CG) ' CRIMINAL APPEAL UIS 374 [2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL - PROCUDERE Appearance: Shri S.C. Verma, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sanjesv Kumar Agrawal, Pansl Lawyér for the State. Division Bench:- Hon’ble Shri T.P. Shanna & Hon’ble Shri R.L.Jhanwar,JJ ORAL JUDGMENT (8.2.201 1) Per T.P.Sharma, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of ccmviction and ordar of sentcnce damd 17.2.2005, passed by the 1‘“ Additional Sessions Judge Rajnandgaon (CG) in S.’I‘.No. 172/2004, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after holding the appellant guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of his stepmother ~ Kachaxi Bai, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the [PC and sentenced for life imprisonment and nne of Rs.2000/ —, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 6 months, w« m’g, 2. The conviction is impugned on the ground that without thcre being any iota of evidence sufEcient for conviction of the appellant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid mentioned and thereby committed illegality. 3. As per case of prosecution, on fateful day of 8.7.2004, at about 6.00 pm, Kachan' Bai (since deceased) went to the house of Radhia Bai (PW—2) to return the dour, 'which had taken earlier and (n after returning the dour she was sitting in the Varandah of Radhia Bai on a stool; this appellant came with stick and assaulted Kachari Bai, his step mother. Kachari Bai shouted ‘ae dai o’ and fell down. Radhia Bai (PW—2) objected the appellant, but the appellant again assaulted Kachan’ Bai, who was lying on the floor; - when she shouted for help, Harishchandra (PW- 1) came and saw the incident. He went to Police Station and lodged merg intimation . vide Ex. P/ 1 and FIR Vide Ex. P/ 2. The Investigating Onicer left for the scene of occurrence and after summoning witnesses vide Ex. P] 7, inquest over the dead body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex. P/ 8. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P/3. Plain soil and blood- stained soil, broken pieces of bangles, one 'supa was recovered from the spot vide EX. P/ 4. Dead body of Kachari Bai was sent for autopsy to C.H.C. Ambagarh Chowki vide Ex. P/ 11, where Dr. M.P. Maheshwar (PW~7) conducted autopsy vide Ex. P/ 11A and found following injuries : i. one contusion over left forearm n one contusion over forearm of 6 x 4 cm lacerated wound of 6 x 2 cm up to bone deep over'left parietal region and fracture of parietal bone was found iv. lacerated wound of 4 X 2cm over right parietal region and fracture of parietal bone was also found brain matter was coming out l vi. contusion of 4 X 2 cm ovcr right mutal region Mode of death was shock and death was homicidal i nature. During the course of investigation accused was taken into custody; he made disclosure statement of wooden plank] stick Vide EX. P/6; same was recovered at the instance of appellant vide Ex. P/5. Sealed clothes of the deceased were seized vide Ex. P/ 13. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination vide Ex.P/ 1‘4. Presence of blood on stick was coniixmed vide Ex. P/ 16. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedme, 1973 (in short the Code). 4. After completion of investigan'on, charge sheet was 1iled before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambagarh Chowki, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Rajnandgaon from where the learned Additional Sessions judge received the case on transfer for trial. 5, In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. Accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code, in which, he denied the circumstances appealing against him, innocence and false implication in crime in question was ciaimed. 6. After anording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid mentioned. 7. We have heard Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer for the State, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court. 8. Learned counsel or the appellant vehemently argued that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sumcient for proving the fact that the appellant has cased culpable homicide n f amounting to murder of Kachari Bai. Pms€cution has not proved motive for commission of such o§ence. Conviction of the appellant is substanu'ally based on the evidence of Radhia Bai (PW-2). Evidence of Radhia Bai does not inspire coniidence and trustworthy and it is not safe to rely. He mrther argued the appellant has not caused the injury to the deceased with intent to cause her death, therefore, if the case of the prosecution is considered to be true then also the act of the appellant does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 Part ll of the IPC. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed these arguments and submitted that the deceased Kachari Bai was sitting in the Varandah of Radhia Bai (PW—2) and there was no occasion to assault or cause any injury to her in the house of Radhia Bai that too after she fell down, which shows grave intention of the appellant for causing murder of Kachari Bai. Evidence of Radhia Bai (PW—2) is su$cient for drawing an inference that only the appellant has caused culpable homicide amounting to murder of Kachari Bai, his step mother. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid mentioned. 10. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 11. In the present case, homicidal death as a result of fatal injury found over the body of the deceased Kachari Bai has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant, on the other hand, it is established by the evidence of Dr. M.P. Maheshwar (PW—7) and autopsy report EX. P/ 11A and death was homicidal in nature. sunita 4:, including 2 fxactures of scalp. At ths tim€ of such incident, deccased was not quarreling with the appellant; there was no occasion for causing such injury that too in the house of Radhiaw Bai (PW—2). The appellant caused injury even after Kachari Bai fell down on the tloor. This shows his grave intention for causing death of the deceased. After appreciating the evidence, available on record, leaxned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid menh’oned. 15. On close scrutiny of the evidence, we do not nnd any illegality or infirmity in the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. sci/- l Sdl- R.L. Jhanwar Judge 1‘, 1 mksHARMAJ-L/iw— Judge