^! ridF .sWSK ^£"^r-; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram : Hon'ble Shri T.P.Sharma and Hon^ble^hri Raieshwar Lal Jhanwar^JJ. Appellant Accused (in iail) Respondent Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2004 Surit Ram, ,S/o. Ramcharan, Village Pathari, P.S. Shrinagar, Dist: Surguja. Versys The State of Chhattisgarh CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 374 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Present : Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, counsel forthe appellant. Shri Akhil Mishra, Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Sate/respondent. ORAL JUDGMENT (Passed on 25th March, 2010) The following oral Judgment of the Court was passed by T.P.Sharma, J. !-sjiiitej Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.12.2003 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Surguja in Session Trial No.426/2003, whereby and whereunder learned Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty of commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of one year aged child Baldev convicted the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and fine Rs.500/- in default additional R.l for two months. Il<»gg3 "'• uBt" 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any evidence, the additional sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that on the fateful day i.e. 18.09.2002, at about 7.00 p.m. the mother of the deceased Kousalya was present at village Lenga alongwith her one year old child. The accused snatched the child from Kousalya and thrown him on the floor which resulted into his death. Mohd. Iqbal (PW/4) lodged merg intimation vide Ex.P/2 and First Information Report vide Ex.P/3. The investigation Officer left for the scene and prepared Panchnama vide Ex.P/5 and the dead body was sent to autopsy to Government Hospital, Surguja. Dr. S.L. Jaiswal (PW/3) conducted autopsy and vide Ex.P/1 found the following injuries: (1) Swelling overthe back ofthe head. (2) slight reddish swelling over the face. (3) blood clot was present on the occipital region. (4) multiple fracture over occipital region. (5) membrane of brain were damaged. (6) occipital bone was damaged. Mode of death was shock. 4. Patwari prepared spot map vide Ex.P/11. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C were recorded and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur who in turn committed the case to ''•'- ^^s'&i^'s''^ '^•^•'^'•1-^ '":^\ r^. ^^Sis ^l^ ff" W-fi ^sissss-ss- the Court of Sessions, Ambikapur. Learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C,. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleased innocence and false implication. 6. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant in the aforesaid manner. 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 appellant has committed the offence without any motive and on sudden provocation. Therefore, his act may be put under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellantfurther argued that Manmet Bai (PW/1) and Kousalya (PW/2), mother of the deceased are interested witnesses and therefore, their evidences are not reliable. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the prosecution has proved its case on the basis of the witnesses of Manmet Bai (PW/1 ) and Kousalya (PW/2). j ••!,...: ..;-^' ^?ti-^i^<: j?Jigs'H^'F^fTW'i? 10. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. 11. In the present case, death resulted by the fatal injury to the one year old child Baldev has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant, otherwisealso established by the evidence of Dr. S.L. Jaiswal, (PW/3),autopsy report (Ex.P/1) reveals that the death was homicidal in nature. The present conviction is based on the evidence of Manmet Bai (PW/1) and Kousalya (PW/2). 12. Kosalya (PW/2), the mother of the deceased child Baldev has deposed in her evidence that the appellant is her husband and she met him in the way while she was coming with her one year old child. The appellant snatched the child from her and thrown him on the floor. On seeing this, she shouted, then the appellant thrown the child thrice on the floor, which resulted the death of the child. The appellant fled away from the spot. Manmet Bai (PW/1) has substantially corroborated the evidence of Kosalya (PW/2). The defence has also cross examined at length but has not been able to elicit anything in her evidence to discredit her testimony. Mohd. Tqbal (PW/4) lodged the report on the basis of the statement of Manmet Bai (PW/1) and Kousalya (PW/2). 13. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant under section 302 I.P.C. and imposed sentence provided under the law. -L- ^•ffv "». '-Si&Sy""-^, 3 A' 14. On close scrutiny of the evidence, in our considered view, the conviction of the appellant is based on credible and clinching and also legal evidence and sustainable under the law. We do not find any substance in this appeal which is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. ^l..l.t;.5^;%^.^^ SBSS'saWSSfci Sd/- T-p-Snarma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge