3^T-^n^^ftm?,f^TOTp WTOT •snidh 3"^T «°R; (ij^gqg sB^r.^r wrsn^r TOnwoftnsn^i wfera^ -qiTOf •?fe^'riSR^i '^aifwan^i Rohit Kumar, S/o PunSri agedabout33years, R/o Ghasidas Nagar, Poiice Station: Jamul, Tehsil & Distt.: Durg (C.G.) APPELLANT: (in Custody) RESPONDENT: State of Chhattisgarh, Through Poiice Station: Jamui, Distt.: Durg (C.G.) {Appeal under Section 37^ (2)0fthe Code ofCriminal Procedure} Division Bench: Hon'ble Mr. L.C. Bhadoo and Hon'bts Mr. Dhirendra Mishral, JJ. 19.7-2007 Mr. S.K. Dadsena, coun^el for the appellant. Mr. Akhil Mishra, Panet (.awyer for the State/respondent. Ora! judgment dictated (sn Dais. S..C, Bhadoo. J: - This appeal is directed|against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23-4-2001, tiassed by the 5th Additionai Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No.3f!4/2000, whereby learned Addifionat Sessions Judaeafter holding the acci|ised.'appeliant guitty for commission of offence under Section 302 of the (.P.C. for committing the murder of his father Poonaram Lodhi, sentenced fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default years. GRPRJ— FS/24&- 2/2007—50,UU( |him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a |of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two ,h,K •••y-' I •r'S iBsmiHiiin SII^.'TO 1?:ii?? 'asii 3n^r"ait)w 3:E^'"ill<<lrt<, ®Tf)iM'l<S,R|<?)l^y VWvll "*t<JcK-"••"•••• 3"'t?T''ISR; (''pfg^iT) 2W( TCIRR^fTO3?l^T Case of the prosecution ^Rfa^ WRff ^r ft^T^R i;3lfOT 311^1 s that on 8-8-2000 Ajayram Sahu (PW-1) returned from schoo! at about 5^.m. thereafter, hs went for evening vralk, he returned to his house within halflan hour and saw that accused Rohit Kumar was attacking hte father Poonsjram Lodhi (since deceased) with a Lathi. Poonaram Lodhi was a para'yticj person, therefore, he used to walk with the heip of a stick, accused Rohit fCumar snatehed that stiek from Poonaram Lodh'i, that is why Poonaram Locjhi was not abSe to stand up and he was Syins on the ground. In the mean fme, Ajayram Sahu's friend nameiy, Vinod Kumar came, Sherefore, Ajayra^n Sahu along with Vinod Kumar separated Rohit Kumar. After pushing th^m, the accused again brought another Lathi and started attacking Poonaraml Lodhi with the Lathi on his head, mouth and other parts of the body. The acjcused was saying that "today ! witl not leave a'ive Poonaram,! wi!l commit h|s murder". He was a!so saying that what his father as done for him. Ther^after, again Ajayram Sahu & Vinod K.umar separated the accused, they sfiatched the Lathi and took him towards the tempie. But the accused agafn came and started dragging his father, he brought his father in the str4et by dragging him. Villagers came and inten/ened, thereafter, the Po|ice reached o:n the spot and arrested the accused. Peopie of the vicinit^ took injured Poonaram to the Police Station and the matter was reported bl? Ajayram Sahu on which the first information report Ex.P-1 vyas registersd. The Investigating Office^- left for the scene of occurrence. The Halka Patw'ari prepared site plan Ex.If-2. The Invastigating Officer seized plain soil, biood stained soi!, one Sees^n c\ub and dns torn blood stained shirtfrom the place of occurrence un.derj GRPRJ—FS/246—2/: Ex.P-3. One Lathi was seized form accused ^ |,uoo. iiiA a3I^.??^:iW '°isii3iis?r 3OTh :^EET -^W^ S'iffeTTC, f^ray VWv{[ g7qfg;"----—-..............l...y............. SB^T 1RW (^pf^gqtT) 'reiiwaf^i SD^T ^ 200 [ Wrfa^'qWif if fe^ TftR^R ^wfwan^r Rohit Kumar under Ex.P-4. Onejterricot full pant stained with blood and one full shirt stained with blood of acstused Rohit Kumar wsre seized under Ex.P- 5. One bamboo stick was seiz^d under Ex.P-6 from Ajayram Sahu. Blood stained 'ungi of Poonaram Lodhij was seized under Ex.P-7. Site plan Ex.P-8 was prepared by the Snvestigatiijig Officer. After giving notice Ex.P-9 to the Panchas, inquest Ex.P-10 Vi/as|prepared on the body of Poonaram Lodhi. Poongram Lodhi was hospitali^ed where Medicai Officer Dr. P. Balkishore (PW-6) examined the injuries ^nd prepared injury report Ex.P-14. Post- mortem on the body of Poonarahi Lodhi was conducted by Dr. P. Balkishore, he prepared report Ex.P-15 an^i opined that cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mort^m injuries. After completion of inve^tigation, charge sheet was fiied in the Court of Judicia! Magisfrate, First Ci^ss, Durg, who in tum committed ths case to the Sessions Judge, Durg, ffom where iearned 5 Additionai Sessions Judge, Durg received the case fon transfer for trial. • Prosecution in order |to estabiish charge against the accused examined 11 witnesses. SNtement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in vjfhich he denied the material appearing against 'nim sn the prosecution eviden; Learned Additional ^essions Judge after hearing counse! for respective parties, convicted ^nd sentenced the accused as aforementioned. We have heard Mr. S.H. Dadsena; learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Akhil Mishra, Isarhed Panei Lawyer oh behalf of the State/ respondent: GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007 - sii sifSw.w^iHr ''m sn^i'giiiR? ^IW^I ^Hitff d-cc) '<ll<11<7)<^,E9^f|^<|<s^ Rj^iyy c^. .G..A. Wl 200 f sn^r T^% (ijcit^i^) wwdftff'sn^r ^raferi^ •wrcifi fezt-CT3R3R ^affiwan^i Mr. Dadsena has not di|sputed the homicidai death of Poonaram Lodhi. Moreover, Ajayram Sajiu (PW-1), eyewitness, has stated in his evldence that on the fatefui day ^vhen he returned from school, at about 5.30 p.m. he savi? that the accusec} was attacking his father with Lathi, he snatehed the Lathi, She accuse|d again brought another Lathi and started attacking his father, he along ^ith Vinod Kumar ssparated him, but again second time, the accused came|and dragged his father in the street. Dr. P. Balkishore (PW-6) has stated in|his evidence that he conducted post-mortem on the body of Poonaram, ther^ wers as many as seven !acerated wounds two contusrons on his bod^. Lacerated wounds on forehead !.n the size of 5 cms. x '/z. cm. x % cm., 2 cn|is. x % cm. x % cm., on left ey®in the size f % cm. x Vz cm., on right cheek )n the size of ^ sms.x % cm. x % cm., above the rig'nt eye '-, the size of 2 cm^. x % cm. x % cm., on the nose in the sizs of 2 cms. x Vs cm. x % cm., ribht hand bone was fractured from mld'die, 'acerated wound on the base of right hand at the root of thumb in the size of 2 cms. x % cm. x % cm., c^ntusion in ths lower part of !eft hand, and contusion on the right elbow. | Nasal bone was fractured and there were compound fractures on right h^id bone & facia! bone. 1-lis reports are Exs.P- 14 & 15. Sniuries were ante-mit>rtem in naturs. Cause of death of Poonaram was shock and haemorrhage. (Therefore, from the above ocular and medical evidence, it is estabiished th^t the death of Poonaram was homiclda! in nature. As far as Involvementl of the accused in the crime in question is concerned, Mr. Dadsena, tearijied counsei for the appeliant, argued that both the eyewitriegses namsiv;^ GRPRJ— FS/24&—2/2007 ayram Sahu (PW-1) & Vinod Kumar (PW-9) ./-^ -i K II III fl i.BiiII ffl'"]ji .'Br'WjSTTC'? im 3^? ^|<<|rt<<, S'rfltl'KS, iqci.iyy 'EalW'Sre ^; st^nsn^i have not supported the prosecutionjcase. Even though, Umendra (PW-2) in examination-in-chief has stated tNat hs saw the accused attacking the deceased, but in cross-examinatiorj Marpeet as at that tims, he was insi connecting the accused with the crirfie in question. On the other hand, tearned Spanei Lawyer supported the judgment of the trial Court. .nft !t is true that Umsndra (PW-( that the accused attacked his fatherl 4, he has stated that he did not see| Kumar (PW-9) has turned hostile. case. Ajayram Sahu (PW-1), wh4 fathsr, has stated in his evidencel returned from schooi at about 5 p.t returned, he saw that the accusedl Poonaram was a paralytte person, Poonaram was !ying on the groun|d again brought anothsr Lathi and aiong with Vinod Kumar separated father to the street. Thereafter, vil He !odged report Ex.P-1. !n this incidsnt, he never saw ths ac( know the cause of beating as to w| He cioes not remember date and mt thathe does not^nything aboyt'tKS he has stated that he has not seen the de hte house. There is no other material P) has stated in his examination-in-chief iwith Lathi, but in cross-examination para the accused attacking his father. Vinod He has not supported the prosecution in fact saw the. accused attacklng his that he is a studsnt of Ciass-X!i,' he i,, thereafter, he went for stroli, when he ;was attacking his father with Lathi. As he used to stand with the heip of Lathi. i, when he separated the accused, he attacking his father. Thereafter, he hiim, but he again came and dragged his jerscame and separated the accused. i, he has stated that before [sused attacking anybody. He does not [iy the accused was attacking his father. bnth of the incldent. It is incorrect to say sldrted "to crosst-examination, B t i I ^ 'i GRPRJ—FS/246—2/20 BO. 'fllNriF ifitOcb j-ccl "i<l<ll<<'i<<, ^y<|(i^ [s|o6|yij< .(^..^.^[l ^ 2Wf wi^r'raa? (.'ySyiyt) wwdte? an^ ^Pfei^ WRtf ^fe^ Tfe5T ^STfiPT.OT^ From the above evidenc^, it cannot be said that this witness (PW-2) has not supported the prosectjtion case. In ctear words he said that the accused was attacking his Tatjier not only once, when heseparated, the accused again came and broi|ght another Lathi and started attacking his father. The evidence of this wl|ness stands corroborated by the fact that the Lathi which he snatehed fton-j the accused was seized from him by the Investigating Officer under Exp-6 and another Lathi 'Aras seized from the accused. Seizure memo of shirt & oant of the accused shows that there were blood stains on those clothes. There were blood stains on the clothes ofthe deceased. Moreover, ir(cross-examination of Ajayram Sahu (PW-1), defence has not been able Vp eSscit any cireumstance or any fact which discredits his evidence. Hs is| a neighbour of the accused and a student of Ctass-Xit, there was no reasoji for him to implicate the.accused faisely that too in a case of murder of his ffether, Therefore, from the evi^lence of Ajayram Sahu (PW-1) and recoyeries of blood stained clothes & Lafris, it is estabisshed that the accused was the author ofthe crime in a.uestiorl, In spite ofthe efforts made by Ajayram Sahu (PW-1) & Vinod Kumar (PW-^),the accused attaeked his father and he did not stop. When Ajayram $ahu separated, the accused again brought another Lathi and attacked t1is father. Thereafter, Ajayram Sahu & Vinod Kumar again separated the ticcused and then, he came and dragged h's father to the street. The ma with which the accused att^ nner in which the accussd aSacked his father and the nature of injuries sus|ained by thedeceased show the determinatlon GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007 ;ked his father saying that his father has not done anything for him,.the.c$^ore, he wiil not leave him aiive. On account of f^-( j. i i^. RB^®~- -p i-Vt?lw; i-<-P^- i^aass^'y'p' si'iCT.wfriN' VS •3WW •5SW 1<<C ioma vi-cd r<<l<lh?i<), yrfl^'Ko, R|<'il^ vwvii gnira? ri® ff\- "^ 29Q( SIltWTR^ (^pfy^T) 'roiw ^ifw aii^r the mereiless beating given by the deceased were fractured. Mfireover the deceased was a helpless person being a paralytic patient, he was merciless beating. In the circumstances, w4 same is iiable to be dismissed at Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge ^)*i^<n4lT tTTO^f tf'f^i- Ttf^^ ^aifiman^i ;he accused, facia! bone and nasal bone of lying on the ground and the accused gave do not find any substance in this appeal, d it is hereby dismissed- •,;.;4,;;^,;. 3RPR.) — FS/246—2/2007— 50.UOO. ;1!BI •>u :sX ^ :.!H il: