A. CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNSL KUMARSINHA, J. Criminal Apeeal No.933 of 2002 Tutei Ram Son of Sukul Yadao, aged 22 years, resident of Village Renga Kathera, P.S. Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon, C.G. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dongargarh, District Rainandaaon (C.G.) Procedure,1973 Shri Sandeep Dubey, eounsel forthe appellant. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Government Advocatefor the State. tth The following Judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant Tulsi Ram stands convicted undsr Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for- short 'l.P.C.') with sentence of imprisonment for life vide impugned judgment dated 9-4-2002, passed by the Sessions Juyge, Rajnandgaon in Sessions Triat No.148/2001. f -? --\'<?-' '^' i Ij .. Jl <-- 2. Appellant Tulsl Ram has been found guilty of commission of murder of one Dev Singh Lodhi in the noon of 13-8-2001 by causing multiple injuries on him by means of Tangia, resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. | 3. The appeliant's conviction is founded on the eyewitness '-^ account of PW-5 Tumman @ Chumman and PW-6 Ashv/ini, whose evidence wasfound corroborated by thetrial Court by the ; medlcalevidenceofPW-13Dr.N.Sachdev. i 4. The Autopsy Surgeon PW-13 Dr. N. Sachdev on postmortem examination found as many as six incised wounds on the body of deceased Dev Singh with corresponding fractures of hisskull bones as detailed in the postmortem report Ex. P-19. In the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon, the deceased diedlon account ofthe shock resulting from the multiple fractures ofihis : skull bones. " 5. At the trial, the capital charge of murder was sought to; be proved against accused Tulsi Ram on the evidence of PW-1 Bhav Singh, PW-2 Hariram, PW-3 Nakul Singh, PW-4 Angaram, PW-5 Chumman @ Tumman, PW-6 Ashwini, R/V-7 Mukelsh, PYV-8 Kirti Bai, PW-9 Sukhdev, PW-10 S.R. Diwan, PW Virendra Kumar, PW-12 Roopial Thakur & PW-T3 Dr. Sachdev;'-'- - 6. Accused Tulsi Ram abjured his guilt and pleaded fi i implication on account of enmity. The aecused, however, did examine any witness in his defence.''' - .11 N. ^lse hot !:il It' »•! 'i- 1\' luetULunijo g-Md eou^pjAa jeinoo 94) 'yedB ^eyi • I.OOZ-S-EI. j juo kui4 Aq pauiefsns ssunfu! SLJ} p tunoooe uo q}BSp lepiOiLuoq e Ipaip qBuis ASQ psseeosp leqisn sjojsq e^ndsip ui pu si }| 'oi. •O'd'ISMUO |ZO£uoipsgjepunAtiine tuey isini }ue|iedde Buipioq uiynoQ IEU} |9i|}Aq p9A3!|aq A|iL|6u uaeq seq IUIM^SV 9-AAd PUB ueLUiunj. @ ueLUUjnqo g-AAd i° souspiAe 34} ysu^ pspustuoo pue uoipiAuoo s,tue||8ddB p lusLuBpnf peuBndiui 8t<} psyoddns 'pueti jsqp 84} UO '3}EOOApV.}U9LUUJ9AO£) p8UJB9| 'OeQ 'g'N'n WS 'Q 'uoiioiAUoo s,)ue||3ddB eq} SuipjooBj ui psjjs seytjnoo IBUl 34} '30U9piA8 |B31p9LU 9lj} \W }U3}S!SU03U! Sl S8SS8U}IM8A3 OMistj} ^o eouepiAe aq} se }BL|} panBje AiiusLueqsA sfrcg 03 966E. yw u| pspodsj 'ueyqjns "SA MsapeJd BAypByd ^o 3^5 jo sseo sqi ui ynoo xedy SMI P ujnioip eq} uo eouei|sj Buioeid (ueijsdde 34} joj issunoo peujeai 'Asqna deepues uqg '9 •3J!| JtOi )U3UJUOSUdLU! 0} LUILj psousjues pue 'o'd'l 84)jo S0£ uoipag jspun iiiey isjni tue||9dde psioiAuoo ynoo IBp} sqi 's6uipuy SAoqe aq} UQ 'ijieap siy asneo 0} p9pu3}ui pey 46013 A9Q pesesoep uo seunfui SSOL)} Buisneo 3i!L|m tueiiedde eq) pq} puno^ jsi^jn^ ynoo |BU} sqi •qtesp sno3UB}UB}sui siq ui pstfnsej LjOtljM 'BIDUBi p SUB3LU Aq qSuis ASQ pasBSOSp uo saunfu! 8soL|) Buisneo p A}|in6 tuey isini }UB||3ddB pisq 'jeinoiyed ui AspqoBg 'N '-IQ £i-AAd '8 luiMqsv 9-AAd 'UBtuujni @ ueLUiunijo S-AAd P 41 PUB |BJ8us6 ui |BU} 94} )e uoi}noesojd 94} Aq p3| souepiAa sq} jo Auiimos eso|o e uo ynoQ |eu} sqi •^ Tumman & PW-6 Ashwini and the medical evidence of PW-13 Dr. N. Sachdev amply establish the above fact that deceased Dev Singh died a homicida! death on account of the injuries sustained by him on 1 3-8-2001. 11. R/V-5 Chumman @ Tumman who was aged about 12 years on the date of the incident was grazing goats along with PW-6 Ashwini and appellant Tulsi Ram. He has deposed that in the noon at about 1.00 when he was cutting some branches of a mango tree, deceased Dev Singh came from his village to his agricuitural field at a nearby place. Dev Singh found that some goats had strayed into hrs field. This led to exchange of abuses between accused Tulsi Ram and deceased Dev Singh. Accused Tulsi Ram thereupon dealt Tangia biow on the head regionj of Dev Singh. This witness thereafter fled away from the place; of occurrence. NoShing coutd be elicited by the defence in his cross-examination which may render his evidence unworthy|of credence. In fact, there is virtually no cross-examination of this witness about the main Incident of assault on the deceased. . 12. Other eyewitness PW-6 Ashwini deposing in line with|the evidence PW-5 Chumman @ Tumman, stated that on the fatefui day when deceased Dev Singh came to his field, exchange iof abuses took-place between Dev Singh and accused Tulsi Ram. Accused Tulsi Ram thereupon, dealt a Tangia blow on itlne deceased, as a result whereof the deceased fel! on the grouna. Thereafter, this witness fled away from-the place of occtirrerjc^. in para 3 of his cross-examination, he categorically stated that he witnessed dealing of one blow by the accused by means of Tangia on the deceased and thereafter, he ran away from the place of occurrenee. 13. On a ciose scrutiny of the evidence of these two eyewitnesses, namely, PW-5 Chumman @ Tumman and PW-6 Ashwini, we are satisfled that both thesewitnesses are truthful and reliable witnesses and their evidence can safely be acted upon. There is not even a suggestion to these witnesses that they are in any manner related to the deceased or are inimical to accused Tulsi Ram. We, therefore, do not find any earth|ly reason for these two eyewitnesses to depose falsely against the appellant- I 14. The ocular evidence of PW-5 Chumman @ Tumman and RA/-6 Ashwini. stands amply corroborated by the medical evidence of PW-13 Dr. N. Sachdev, who on postmortem examination found incised wouhds on the body of the deceased, which could have been caused by means of a sharp edgeid weapon like Tangia. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that tMe evidence of PW-5 Chumman @ Tumman and PW-6 Ashwinj js belied by tbe-medical evidenceof PW-13 Dr. N. Sachdevisjs these eyewitnesses have deposed about dealing of one Tane blow by the accused, whereas the Autopsy Surgeon found |ejs many as six incised wounds on the body-of the deceased. i:.( iit 1 iilp ! ! ti! f 1 [:1 16. In view of the categoric evidence of the two eyewitnesses that both ofthem had run away from the place ofoccurrence after dealing of first blow by the accused on the deceased, the above submission deserves an outright rejection. In this fact situation j'^ the two eyewitnesses obviously could not have seen the further '< assault of the deceased by the accused. !n our opinion, these two eyewitnesses in not deposing about the further assault have on!y proved that they are truthful and innocent eyewitnesses as they have deposed only about that part ofthe incident which they actuatly witnessed. ' ! 17. The dictum of the Apex Court in the Case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Surbhan (Supra), in the fact situatian of the present case is of no help to the appellant. 18. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in : theflnding recorded by the trial Court holding appellant Tulsi Ram guilty of causing those injuries on deceased Dev Singh, which resulted in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. 19. The number and natyre of the injuries found onithe deceased and the corresponding multiple fractures of his| skuil bones coupied with the fact that the injuriessustained by|the deceased resulted in his instantaneous death on the spot|i^elf and that frrelnjuries were caused by means of a sharp ejj^ed 1 'j weapon Tangia, do not leave any room for doubt that appellant Tulsi Ram while causing those injuries on deceased Dev Siftgh had intended to cause his death. -y. "" ~ .=*: y subbu 20. The proved act of appellant Tulsi Ram of causing as many as six incised wounds by means of a Tangia on deceased Dev Singh, in our opinion, therefore, would not amount to anythlng short of 'Murder'and v/ould be punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. only. 21. The appeal filed by appellant Tulsi Ram against his conviction under Section 302 of the t.P.C. and sentenceiof imprisonment for life, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. r SdA Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge i,(