HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE.MR. T.P. SHARMA & HON'BLE MR. RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, JJ. Cr. A, N0^87/2004 APPELLANT (IN JAIL) VERSUS RESPONDENT Litti @ Mangdu, S/o Bhumka Gond, Aged about 40 years, Occupation Kuli/Labrourer R/o Village Parpa, P.S. Parpa, District Bastar (C.G.). The State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Parpa, District Bastar (C.G.). CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 374(2) OF CODE OF CRIMITJAL PROCEDURE. Present:- Ms. Usha Chandrakar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.A. Lohani, P.L. for the State/respondent. JUDGEMENT (Passedon 09/09/2011) The followine: juclgment of the Court was passed by _T.F. Shafrna, J:- 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23/2/2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 501/2002 whereby and where under after holding the appellant guilty for .the commission of offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder of Sukhdev, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for iife. ^ »,>l-a.fl» 1< g ^.. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence sufficient for conviction of appellant Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed an illegality. 3. As per case of the prosecution on fateful day of 11/9/2002 at about 4.30 P.M. on account of dispute of money, present appellant after giving threat to Sukhdev (since deceased) caused two blow by axe over the head of Sukhdev, he fell down and died. PW1 Suklal, son of deceased Sukhdev present near the place of incident had witnessed the incident. He went to the Police Station, Parpa and lodged Pirst Information Report vide Ex. P-1. Marg intimation was recorded vide Ex. P-2. Investigating Officer left for scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex. P-4, inquest over the dead body of Sukhdev was prepared vide Ex. P-3. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-5. Blood stained & plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex. P-10. Blood stained Lungi was seized from the spot vide Ex. P-9. Dead body of Sukhdev was sent for autopsy to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur vide Ex. P-14'A. PW4 Dr. Govind Singh conducted autopsy vide Ex. P-14 and found following injuries:- (i) Incised wound over back of the head of 3 I/a"x 1" xbone deep. -\ -••^'•-^•^A ^fEa":;,;' (ii) Incised wound over back side of the head beside injury No. 1 of 4 c.m. x I'/a c.m. x bone deep comprising depressed fracture ofoccipital bone. (iii) Brain membrane was ruptured.. (iv) Subdural haemotoma was found incised brain. Mode of death was shock and death was homicidal in nature. During course of investigation, appellant was taken into custody, he made discloser statement of axe vide Ex. P-8, same was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P- 7. Blood stained cloths of appellant was seized vide Ex. P-11. Sealed cloths of deceased Sukhdev was seized vide Ex. P-12. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'). After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Bastar at Jagdalpur. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. Accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code where he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. r< ? 7. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned-Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 8. Ms. Usha Chandrakar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. J.A. Lohani, P.L. for the State/respondent are heard. Judgment impugned and record of the Court below perused. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of relative & inimical witness PW1 Suklal, son of deceased Sukhdev which does not inspire confidence, trustworthy and same is not safe to rely without further corroboration from independent sources. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that ocular evidence and medical evidence are self- contradictory and no definite conclusion vyould be possible. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that even as per evidence of prosecution witnesses, incident took place on spur of moment on the ground of dispute of money without premeditation and intention therefore, if the evidence of prosecution is considered in its face value then even act of appellant does not travel beyond the scope of under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal-Code. 12. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposed the criminal appeal and argued that on account of dispute of money'which was motive for commission of offence, present appellant has caused repeated injury by axe over the head of Sukhdev resulting into his instantaneous death with intent to cause his death. After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 13. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 14. In the present case, homicidal death as a result of fatal injury found over the head of deceased Sukhdev has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant on the other hand, otherwise also established by the evidence of PW4 Dr. Goving Singh & autopsy report Ex. P-14 and death of Sukhdev was homicidal in nature. 15. As regards the complicity of appellant in crime in question, conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of PW1 Suklal, son of deceased 16. Sukhdev. As per his evidence, on account of previous dispute of money, appellant caused injury by axe over the head of his father i.e. Sukhdev thereafter Sukhdev fell down and died then he went to the Police Station and lodged First Information Report Ex. P-1 and he has also witnessed to other document. Defence has cross- examined this witness at length, in his detail cross- examination he has specifically deposed that present appellant has caused injury by axe to his father. In Para-12 of his cross-examination, he has deposed that appellant has used blunt part of axe at the time of causing injury. As per his evidence, he has seen the incident from quite considerable distance. PW8 Suduram whom prosecution has declared hostile has corroborated the evidence of PW1 Suklal to the extent that present appellant was present in front of the house of Sukhdev, he was holding axe thereafter persons informed that appellant has killed Sukhdev. His evidence is admissible just before the incident appellant was present in front of the house of deceased Sukhdev i.e. place of incident.and was holding axe. As per autopsy report Ex. P-14 and evidence of PW4 Dr. Govind Singh, both the injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon. Evidence ofPWl Suklal, son of deceased Sukhdev reveals that he has seen the incident from 17. quite considerable distance. In these circumstances, discrepancy relating to part of weapon used is of no serious nature. Evidence of PW1 Suklal, son of deceased Sukhdev lost person to spare real culprit and falsely implicated innocence person is partially corroborated by the evidence of PW8 Suduram and medical evidence of PW4 Dr. Govind Singh. Aforesaid evidence are sufficient to establish that present appellant has caused homicidal death of Sukhdev by causing repeated injury over vital part of the body i.e. head ' which is sufficient to establish that present appellant has caused homicidal death with intent to cause death of Sukhdev. After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. On close scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Consequently, criminal appeal js devoid of merits, same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge sd/- r R.N. Chandrakar Judge r" ?