-HC—78 371^1 ^T°^j^ 'TOT3??^T^^NT L •S^Sf ^||<qi0<q, ^Tf1^1|(o, i<)01<r1^< 'QTOCTT ..&.,A:..^....1.1.^,.?-.<?oj- "^ 200 3ff^ XPR? (4ci[^^r) ^RnW 'yf^a 3TT^T APPELLANT: (In Jail) -Versil RESPONDENT: (Criminal Appeal under S Divjsion Bench: - Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha. 1-11-2007:- Shri C.R. Sahu, counsel for tflie Shri Ashish Shukla, Additiohal respondent. Oral judgment dictated on Dslfs. Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. This appeal is directed again of sentence dated 5-10-2001 pas Judge, Baloda Bazar in S.T. No.K holding the accused/appellant gui Section 302 of the IPC, sentenced and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in undergo R.l. fpr 3 months. cbl^id^l'1 "RTH^f ^f fel3t <R(it$'< I? 3fRP:T 3TT^T Manghi Lal Sahu aljas Jatgo, aged about 28 years, S/o Dallu Ram Sahu, R/o Subhash Ward, Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara (City), Distt. Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur, (CG) 'ction 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C.) J. appellant. Public Prosecutor for the State/ ^t the judgment of conviction and order >^ed by ttie 2nd Additional Sessions ]|4/2001 whereby the said Court after il^y of the offence punishable under |him to undergo imprisonment for life flefault of payment of fine to further 75ST •^I^II^'M, ^xfl^4!^, f^<7SI^^< _.....^v.-..^.......ll7..^... WTOT ^^f^ ••"""•"-""""-•••"••••-•••""""""•""iH^200 3^?r ^q? (^1^<^) 371^1 ??TT^W WT ^^l ^RT^ L "^. ^Rnw^n^n^T The case of the prosecutjorji hours the accused/appellant chase<jl hand and when the deceased fell cfc gali, after dashing with stool, the hairs and after throwing him on th^ gave repeated blows to the deceas^ Santoshi (PW-3), PW-1 Smt. Shanfi information report Ex.P/13 wa,s l^ investigating officer after giving inquest Ex.P/4 on the body of the 4 soil were seized from the place of offence j..e knife, shirt and full par possession of the appellant. Site under Ex.P/12. Another site plan w^ under Ex.D/2. The body of the examioatjon to the Primary Health Ex.P/10-A. The postmortem Joshi (PW-11), who prepared his following jnjuries on the body ofthe (i) Incised wound on the wri; cm obliquely placed; (H) Jndsed woundon the left x 2 cm; ^iii) Incised wound on the left ckl^fd^T1 'RFI^f ^'f^t <PntSr'< ^3?TRm3TT^T is that on 16-1-2001 at about 15.00 deceased Maniram with a knife in his wn in front of the grocery shop in the ajtpellant caught hold of him through his ground assaulted him with knife. He id. The incident was witnessed by Ku. Baj and PW-2 Smt. Sonai Bai. First ^dged by Bhagirathi (RA/-13). The rtiejtice Ex.P/3 to the Panchas prepared leceased. Plain soil and blood stained >ccurrence under Ex.P/5. Weapon of (t were seized under Ex.P/6 from the Iplan was prepared by Halka Patwari ^s prepared by the investigating ofRcer (deceased was sent for postmortem ^entre, Baloda Bazar under requisition exar|iination was conducted by Dr. R.S. report Ex.P/10. The doctor noticed leceased:- 1 of left hand, size 3 cms x1 cm x 1% OTist near elbow, size 1 .5 cms x 1 cm ^rist, size 2 cms x1 cm x 1 cm; 371^1 ^FF'^IW '(TO arr^T ^ti^ ^ ^s-^ ^i^i0<4, «»Tfi^li<s,isi^i'uy 'WER^" ^w^ .C'y...A......ll.^.....^ ^ 3H^?T XRISF ( 4ct^^) ^^<ll^R <yf^a 3TI^T cni<i(<n<ili ^H<?if ^fe^ Tf^R^R ^3TRW3TT^T ^o (iv) Incised wound on the Jeft ?:orearm, size 2 cms x 1 cmx 1 cm; (v) Incised wound at the frc|nt side of left hand obliquely placed, size 2 cms x 1 cm x1 cml (vi) Incised wound on the sto| jntestine had come out fr<! (vii) Incised wound obliquely ^nach, size 2 cms x 1 cm, about 5 cms |m the said wound; ^laced cn the right side of the chest near right nipple, size 2 c(ns x 1 cm x chest deep; <ns (viiJ) Incised wound on the left chest deep; All the injuries were caused L^present m all the injuries. They side of the chest, size 2 cms x 1 cm x (ix) Incised wound, size 2 crjfis x1 cmx1 cm on the left lumbar region; (x) Incised wound on the ba^k at the scapuiar region, size 2 cms x 1 cm x 1 cm; (xi) {ncised wound at the ba4k below injury No.10, size 2 cms x 1 cm x 2 cm; . (xii) Incised wound at the left ^ide of the back, size 2 cms x 1 cm x2 cms vertically placed; by hard and sharp object. Blood was were ante mortem in nature. Huge Tv^ -^11<410<1, ^Tfl^1!^, fc)<r>l^^< vi 3n^r^rft?iN' Tr^T^H^I^^W t :A L •m-q^r te--^A..;.-..u2^-..^ 2001 3n^?r'qsro (4f(F^^T) ^RTTW ^rf^r ^TT^T 3(JO amount of blood i.e. 200 mj. - Corresponding intercastle muscle 1 cm. Intercastle muscle under inji cut corresponding to external inju|y lung was congested. Right cham| chamber was empty. Membranes| injury No.6. Clotted blood was pre|sent was also present inside stomach| injured. According to his opjr^i|c?n, haemorrhage caused by injuries| wounds. Death was homicidal in nt Seized knife and clothes w^re under Ex.P/11-A. The doctor gav^ that injuries caused to the body of article (knife). Articles were sent f4 Science Laboratory, Raipur undef received. After completion of the usu^ in the Court of Judicial Magistrat^ committed the matter to the Ses^ received on transfer by the 2nd Adtlitional who conducted the trial and cohvicted appellant as aforementioned. CM<<f<n<fli TTO^f ^fe^t <Fn^i< ^'3fRm3TT^T ml. was present in the chest cavity. »finjury No.7 was cut, size was 1 cmx ury No.8 was also cut. Right lung was No.7. Right Jung was shrunk. Left ^er of the heart was full of blood. Left of intestine were cut corresponding to in the buckle cavity. Clotted blood Lateral part of the spleen was also cause of death was shock and to lung, spleen, intestine and other rture. sent for examjnation to the hospital his report under Ex.P/11 and opined |he deceased were possible by the said \r chemical examination to the Forensic Ex.P/14 but the report could not be ^l jnvestigation, charge sheet was filed 1 Class, Baloda Bazar, who in turn ^jons Court, Raipur from where it was Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, and sentenced the accused/ 'S^ •^1-M10<1, ^>Tf1<H<l€, fs|<^|<1^< TTS^W ^^^"•••^^•••••^•••••••••••^•^^••••••••'^ 200^ 31T^?T X13R7 (4^F^^?) ^IT^T^T'f^i 'cT8?! 37T^T W:?N? L ^Rnw^if^T ^n^r Learned counsel for the homicidal death of the deceased. of PW-3 Ku. Santoshi, who is chil<j the appellant had assaulted the knife injuries to the deceased. Th^ by the evidence of Dr. R.S. Joshi the body of fhe deceased and the said witness, he noticed as m^i internal organs like lung, spleen opined that cause of death was sf' ihjuries sustajned by the decease<|l intestine ete. Therefore, in view it is estabtished that death of the Learned counsel for the Santoshi is a child witness aged circumstances of this case, expli evidence. To appreciate thjs argumenll So far as credibility of the evidenc^ is that evjdence of chlld witness caution and with circumspection to on his/her evidence or not. If afterl of such witness inspires conlldenc^ place reliance on the evidence of steted that she knows accused Majr <t»l<lf<!l<ill'RTR^f ^'feT3t <t^l^l< ^ 3TRP7 3TI^T jaccused/appellant has not disputed Moreover, it has come in the evidence witness, that she had witnessed that de<j;eased with knife and he gave multiple evidence of this witness is supported (FfW-11), who conducted postmortem on preriared his report Ex.P/10. According to m^ny as 12 external injuries and various sjnd intestine etc. were damaged. He sfiock and haemorrhage due to above |, particularly, injuries to lung, spleen, ofthe above ocular and medical evidence, debeased was homicidal in nature. ac4used/appellant argued that PW-3 Ku. |about 12 years and in the facts and i<|;it reliance cannot be placed on her we have perused record of the case. of-child witness is concerned, the law has to be scrutinized with care and find out whether reliance can be placed careful scrutiny of the witness, version ^ of the Court, then, there is no bar to ^uch witness. PW-3 Ku. Santoshi has nghi Lal. He used to sell pea (Mutur). '^^^^^ 3TT^T??5TfoT^ 'TOT'S^H^T^R^ -^- € •yssf ^)|A|t<>ii-4, ^»T{1yic, is|<'l>l^^< 6 'WR^IT ^flra?,....CY;A........(.(.Z.^.............^^) 31T^RT XlSra? (yifys^T) '^nW^rf^T 3?TT^?T The inddent took place at about 3 (j>. of her house. Sonai and Shanti mother had gone out to work. Shej unde (deceased Maniram). He w^ her uncle was running, he dashed| grocery shop and he fell down. S| tried to enter the grocery shop but the shop and kept him outside. there, caught hold of the decease<p thrown him on the ground. Thereaf|er deceased. The deceased tried to ^ cross-examination, she has admilted inside the house but she was pres^nt the suggestion that she could not She herself has deposed that s^\e chasing her unde having knife in has further stated that she went ins already assaulted the deceased. On appreciation, we find thal of thjs witness, in fact, the defenc< circumstance on which credibility of|hjs witness Learned counsel for the acc(ised/appellant of this witness Bhagjrathi has been| cross-examination, he has stated th^t il^ijs house place of occurrence woul ct)l^{d^'1 *tH<yff ^'fe^ <P»1^K i73tRiH3?n^r .m., at that time she was sitting in front fyere also sitting along with her. Her saw that the accused was chasing her as holding a knife in his hand. When with a stool which was lyjng in front of ie has further deposed that her unde >hop keeper did not allow him to enter M the same time, the accused came by his hairs, assaulted himand had |er he gave repeated knife blows to the ^ave himself but he could not do so. In ted that Sonai and Shanti had gone outside the house. She has denied ^ee as to who was chasing Maniram. |e had seen that the appellant was lis hand. On the other question, she |ide the house when the appellant had even after lengthy cross-examination » has not been able to elicit any such can be doubted. also argued that fether |examined as PW-13. In para-4 of his it is true to say that from the door of P not be visible. He argued that when 3=5ST^|A||0q, ^^1(0, Rl^W^ 'W:^T 'gpff^ ..CY.A:......U2±:. 3TT^T 1C[3W ( 4C*^^) W^ 200 ^T^r?Fi'R[^? 'cm ^??^T ^ir^ _-/.. ^RTTW ^lfeT 3TI^T Santoshi was sittjng in front of her witness, she would not be able to jiouse, then in light of evidence of this the place of occurrence. s^e occufrence To appreciate this argumerlt produced by the prosecution. It h^ shop and house of PW-3 Ku. Sarlt According to Ex.D/2, place of Santoshj was sitting at spot No.3. that spot Nos.3 and 2 were in ?a^ would be able to see occurrence t^t account of this casual admission b^ of his house place of occurrence light of contents of map Ex.D/2, and evidence of PW-3 Ku. Santoslli and rellable, cannot be disbeljevedl the accused/ appellant cannot be ac|c As far as other eyewitnesse^ PW-2 Smt. Sonai Bai are concernt cross-examination of PW-2 Smt. that she had narrated the story, as the police about the assault made b^ the jf we discard the evidence of theseltwo Santoshi is jntact and her evidelice jevidence of Dr. R.S. Joshi (PW-11t On appreciatipn of evidence of evidence of PW-3 Ku. Santoshi insp|i <=M<<I<n<iii *iH<?ff ^fss^ <R»i^i< ^^iRm^n^T erjt, we have seen map and site plan is come jn the site plan (Ex.D/2) that arltoshi are situated on the same road. was at spot No.2 and RA/-3 Ku. (pareful perusal of the map would show line and persons sitting at spot No.3 t^king place at spot No.2, therefore, on PW-13 Bhagirathi that from the door v^ould not be visibJe, particularly in the wt>uld be of no help to the prosecution slli, which otherwise appears to be true The argument of leamed counsel for ac|cepted. Q^ namely, PW-1 Smt. Shanti Bai and ifed, both have turned hostile. But in S|onaj Bai, she has admitted the facts rtientioned in para-2 of her evidence, to appellant to the deceased. Even witnesses, evidence of PW-3 Ku. is corroborated by the medical l^ as also postmortem report Ex.P/10. Ku. Santoshi, we find that such ires futl confidence of the Court. P^V-3 ^ 3^T;:2TFTT^T, ^Tfi^Ko, Rl<r!>l-(-l^< 'WT^T •^^•••••'•••^•"••^•••••-^•^•••••••-•••••••^ 200 3n^?r XR^ (4^1^^) 3iTT^?r^?^^T 'OTT 3?TT?^T ^TRT Barve '^RITW^feT^n^T -Forthe'foregojng discussionl in the judgment of conviction pasj upon testimony of PW-3 Ku. Santo|shi , of Dr. R.S. Joshi (PW-11). The co^ cogent, reliable and dinching e\| interference bythis Court. In the result, the appe^l t| dismissed and jt is hereby dismjssejd Sd/- L.C, Bhadoo Judge <=M<<f<vt<flt1 ^W^ ^fe^ <Pq^K ^3FfRFT3TT^T [ we do not find any illegality or infirmity ^ed by the trial Court which is based ^hi supported by the medical evidence hviction of the appeltant is based upon idence, which does not requjre any eing devoid of merit deserves to be Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge