1m (^ MIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR APPELLANTS: (InJail) RESPONDENT: CriminalADpeal No.123 of 2006 1. Raghubeer alias Teedu S/o Jangu Pando, age 30 years, Occupation Agriculture 2. SunderSai S/o Jangu Pando, age 25 years, Occupation Labour -Both residents of Village Nanbhan, Police Station Patna, District Koriya (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Patna, District Koriya (C.G.) {Criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) Criminal Procedure Code1973} Present: • Mr.Abhay Tiwari, courisel forthe appellants. Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Depufy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent. i . ' ' Division Bench: - Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. R.L. Jhanwar. JJ ORAL JUDGMENT (4-3-2011) T.P. Sharma, J: - 1. Challerige in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 5-3-2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur 'in Sessions Trial No.197/2004, whereby & whereunder learned Additional S&ssions Judgeafter holding the appellants guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of Shiv Balak in sharing common intention, convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life & pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rl for three months. 2 Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appellants, and thereby committed illegality. 3. As per case of the prosecution, both the parties are relatives and previously they have decided to marry Indirawati (PW-10^ with appellant Sunder Sai. On 8-1-2004 at about 2 a.m. while after celebrating the ;v •-.....—;—;:_ "-J •JQ Aq psuiLuexe semaq 'iuapioui eL|} 6uunp ssunfui psuieisns os|e jasqn^Bey tue||sddv '6-d'x3 SP'A psjedajd SBM deiu }odg 'l~d'x3 3P!A SOUE)SU! S|L| \e psjSAOosj SEM atues pue Z-cl'xg spiA exe i0 tueijue^eis J9So|osip speiu sq 'Apoisno oiui us>|ei OS|B SBM J9sqnq6ey luE||8ddv 'fr-di'x3 aP!A soueisui SIL| ie psjeAooej seM eaiBS pue g-d'xg 3piA 'exe |9ieqj ||BIUS - BAn|eq ^o IUSLUSIBIS jssopsip spELU aq 'Apbisno o\u\ us^ei se/w (psseeosp soujs) IES jepung iue||edde 'uoBe6!issAU! jo asjnoo 341 Buuna 'z-d'xg apiA Luejeirs LUOJ^, psjeAoosj SBM piifs spueM lini 3UQ '£-d'x3 sp'A lods 941 U10J1 P9J8A039J 8J9M |IOS pSUIGlS p00|q pue |ios uieid 'sjniBU ui lepioiiuoii sem iiieap pue Ajnfui pesy 0} anp euioo sem ijieap p apoi/y 'punoj ejaM uoiBsj leieued tL|Bu p sjnpe^ pue uoi68J |e}8ued ys| ui sejnpe^ SSJLII 'UOIIEUIUUBXS leujsiui uo ',2 x «frP ®z!s84l u! Pue4 y31 -i8ACI uoisejqe 'g esinjq suo pue/saunfui leujepo piesejoie punoj pue S).-d'x3 epiA Asdoine pepripuoo(ei.-Md) eiujeqg 'x-y '-IQ 'VSI.-d'x3 3P!A eu}Bd 'uoaBjng }UB)S!SSV 0} Asdoine joi luss sem Apoq peea "oi-d'xg spiA psjedsjd se )|e|eg ML|S 10 Apoq pe9p8L|} J9AO tSSnbUI 'l.l.-d'XB SP'A S8SS8UIJM aL|i Buiuouiuuns jeyv •Zl.-d'xg epi/vpspjooej SEM 6j3|/\| 'psip aL| jsuesjeiii puEsnoiosuooun A|ei9|duioo SB 94 'AEJ-X JO^ pssiApe SEM )|B|Eg AIIIS pejnfu) ',,Z x ,ZA £szis 'uoi6aj oeipjeo odAi) ^o epis ue) JSAO ss!njg(s) -,,S x ^ ezis 'issqo^o epis ys| JSAO ssimg (i?) •d89peuoq x ,,ytx i.91 S sz!s 'd|eos ^0 uoi63j |e}eued y9| JSAO punoM pasiou|(e) ',,yi.x fA x .,S 'az]S 'enbiiqo 'UOI.BSJ leisyed y3| jeAOpunom psspui (z) •,ZA x ,,Yt x ,,Yt z szis 'd|eos ^o uoiDsj leieued yei J9AO punom pssioui (i.) - :uosjed SJL| uo puno^ ejam ssynfu! 6ui o||oi pue ^l.-d'xa spiA (ei.-Md) euujELis •X'V 'JQ Aq pauiLuexe A|8ieip9LUiU! SGM >iB|eg Aiys 'El.-d'xg spiA yij pa6po| (6-AAd) i.eg ueiipns A|8Lueu >|ejeg Mqg ps-infu! 10 ejiM pue uoiieis aoi|od 3L|i o\ ^e|eg Aiyg psjnfui M6nojq Aetit Aep SLUBS ^o 6uiujoai syi ui 'ejoiajsLii 'pue ijodsueji 10 sueeiu Aue BUIAEL) iou sjem ^B|eg ML|S jo sjaquiaaiAiiiuej -snopsuooun suueoeq )|B|eg Aiqg -ssunfu! |e}ej pssneo pue sxe |9ieq '§ sxe Aq )|e|eg AILIS psunesse AaL|i 'jayeejSLii '..Luejev.s Mlim (ol.-AAd) !ieMejipu| paujeu) aAeq noA At|m,, p|oi pue esnoy JISLII QI aiueo siue||9dde 941 'sjy 341 jBeu BUIUIS sjem sjeqaiSLU A|iiuei JSLIIO '§ SII.M 314 '(psseeoap eouis) »|B|eg ML|S 'epeLio 10 IBAIISSJ ^w. Rameshwar Sharma (PW-18) vide Ex.P-23A and following injuries were found on his persori: - (1) Injury of 4 c.m. x 4 c.m. on side of left toe. (2) Injury of 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. on rightleg. tnjuries found on the person of appellant Raghubeer were simple in nature. Sealed clothes ofthe deceased were seized vide Ex.P-20, Spot mapwasprepared bythe Patwari vide Ex.P-21. Spot map was prepared by the Investigating Officer "vide Ex.P-22. Seized articles were sentfor chemical examination and presence of blood was found over betel axe and axe recovered from the appellants. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur who committed the case to the Court of Sessioris, Ambikapur, from where learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. 5. In order to prove the guiltof the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as eighteenwitnesses. The accused wereexamined under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. Appellant Raghubeer has taken defence that he was assaulted by Sitaram on which in order to save himself he has also caused injury to Sitaram. Rest of the accused have taken defence that they were not present at the time of incident, on the spot and they have been fatsely implicated. 6. After affordingopportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge, while acquitting co-accused Jangu Pando, convicted & sentenced theappellants as aforementioned. 7. During the pendency of appeal, appellant No.2 Sunder Sai died in jail on 13-4-2006. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the triat Court. 9, Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that as per case 6f the prosecution, especially the evidence of Sudhari Bai (PW-9), -Indirawa.ti (PW-10), Sitaram (PW-11) & Moharlal (PW-12), the appellants were present on the spot at the time.of incident. Evidenceof these •^^ -(6-Md) !ea ueqpngp souapiA^ Aq paqsiiqeiss.si eiues tnq '>|B|eg Aiys o} lusif} Aq pssneo seunfui aq) petndsip )ou SAey s}ue||sdde sq} L|6noi(}|vei. •ajn}Bu ui lepioiLUoy SBM >|e|eg AILIS psseaosp p L|)eap )B4i s l.-d'x3 * yodsj Asdoinepue ^i.-d'xg yodsj Ainfui '(ei.-Md) BIUJBLIS 'X'V 'JQ ^o souepiAS Aq p?qs[]qe)ss si }i 'osie 9siMjet|}o 's)ue||edde ayt jo ^Bqaq uo peindsip A||ejiue}sqns uesq \ou sey Apoq SIL| jaAO puno^ seunlui |B}E^ ;o }|ns8j e se )|B|eg AIIIS psseeoep jo L|}ESP leppituoq 'sseo tuessjd 84} ui'zi. •uonnoesojd 941 ^o i|ei<eq uo psonppe souspiAe aqi psuiaiexsaAeii 8 'ssiyed eq^ p ^eqoq uo p30ueApesiU9Lun6je 3i\} aiepejdde 01 japjo ur 1.1. •siueiisdde sqi ^o pe 9413in|ip }ou ||!Msiue||9dde 941 p ioe luenbssqns si41 '|ei!dsoL|94i Q} pssesoap syi BuiBuuq ui paseeosp eqi 10 ssAiieiaj 841 ped|9i< SAEL) siue||adde SL|I 'uoipiAuoo 0104 saA|9siu3i;ii SABS o\ meiA e qi|M uaLji '>|e|eg ML|S jo japjnuj ^o UOISSILUUUOO jo^ 9|qei| pieq eq ABLU ASL|IIBL|I 6UJUJOLU Aep puooss uo siue||adde 9i)l P|OI lueuieidLuoo 81)1 io s9Aiie|8j '§ sjs6e||!A SL|I U8L|M pue iltesp siq ssneo o\ lueiui 4}iM )|B|eg Myg 01 saunfui pesneo SAeq s)ue||9dde SL)} IEI)} soueja^ui 6ui ejp joj luspiyns SJB ^|E|Bg AILIS p Apoq sy} JSAO punoj seunfui le^e^ 8|d in|/\| ')|e|eg Mqg .>o jepjnLU 0} Buitunouue yieep lepioiLUoy 6uisneo jo s}ue||9dde sqi p uoitustui 8AejB 8qi swvotjs SILII •axe le^eq 'g axe q}iM 00} }e^} sjnoq ppo ui 'uj'e z }B lueuieidiuoo siji ^o esnoi) SL|I ^ISIA Q\ siue||9dde eq} jo^ uoiseoooou sem ajayt pue 'iqGiueiji Ui •LU-E z ie sjy JBSU BUIUIS eja/u\ Ayed lueuieiduuoo syi 'stue||edde eqt 01 Ajnfuj Aue pssneo IQU sey Ayed tueuieidaioo sw 'eseo lusssjd 34} ui IBL|} psuiaiqns pue (eedde 34} pssoddo (esunoo aietg p9ujee|.'pueii jaqio 9L|( UQOI. •Odt 9qi p ||-yed 1?0£ uoipsg jo sdoos 84^ puoAsq |9AEJt )ou ssop stue||9dde 34i o) p9}nqune pe 94} 'ejo^sjsqi •)|e|eg Aiijg 01 seunfui pesneo aAeq Stue||edde 3L|t 'Ayed i.ueureidLuoo eqt Aq pejnrui SEM j93qnL|Bey tue||9dde usywv uoitei.ipsuuejd Aue }noi)t! lueiuouu 94} j.o jnds eijt uo 'uojiejtsnjj ^o lunoooe uo pue L))eep gii) ssneo o} lusiui IJ}IM ^e|eg AIL|S 0} Ajnfui Aue pssneo }ou OAELI siue||9dde SLI} )ei)t s|B9Aej eouapiAS siqi •|etidsoq sq} 0} )je|eg AI^S SuiBuuq jo^ ^fB|eg Aiqs P s9M}B|ej 3t|} p9d|sq 9AB4 siue||adde eqi '(^-AAd) iWBJiGeqg ^o souspiAS .(o e ejed pue (Z-Md) -ieLun»qseiun ^o aouepiAa jo g ejed 'psseaosp aq) ^o ejim - (6-Md) 'eg uELipng 10 souapjAS jo fr'? g sejed jad sy '(pssesoQp aouis) >|B|eg ML|S 0} ssunfui pesneo SAeL| siue||edde 941 (641 S|E9A8J sssssutim : ^fr'-a. ^ n;i s :! -ft :i; SoHia wife of the deceased, Indirawati (PW-10) - daughter of the deceased, Sitaram (PW-11) - son-in-law ofthe deceased & Moharlal (PW-12), who have clearly deposed thaton firstoccasion, only appellant Raghubeer @ Teedu visited their house, thereafter, Raghubeer came with co-accused Sunder Sai (since deceased) & acquitted accused Jangu Pando, they were holding axe & betel axe and they have caused fatal injuries to Shiv Balak resulting in his death. 14.As regards the question of motfve, motive only aids in criminality and in case of direct evidence it loses its importance. Motive can be inferred on the basis of the weapon used, part of the body effected, nature of injury and other similar circumstances. 15.Definitely, as per evidence ofShrinath Kushwaha (PW-1), Umesh Kumar (PW-2), Raghunath (PW-3), Bhagirathi (PW-4) & Sudhari Bai (PW-9), the appellants, on being requested and directed by villagers,.have assisted the family members of deceased Shiv Balak in bringing Shiv Balak to the hospital. But the fact remains that the appellants have visited the house of the deceased second time at 2 a.m. i.e. on odd hours, they were holding betel axe & axe and have caused three fatal injuries over head of the deceased and caused four fractures of scalp which shows their grave intention of cause death of Shiv Balak. Shiv Balak became unconscious at the time of such injuries and ultimately, he died in the state of unconsciousness. This shows that appellant Raghubeer along with deceased appellant Sunder Sai hascommitted homicidal death of Shiv Balak with intent to cause his death. 16,After appreciating the evidence available on record, tearned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted & sentenced the appellants in the aforesaid manner. 17.0n close scrutiny of evidence, we do not find any illegality in conviction & sentences imposed upon appellant Raghubeer alias Teedu and deceased appgllant SunderSai. iS.Consequently, the appeal, being devoid ofmerit, is iiable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. . Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge le w/ '^e 7^ ^s^ssssf.ms