HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARHATBILASPUR DIVIS10NBENGH: Coram:HON'BLE MR.T.P.SHARMA& HON'BLE MR.R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. Appellant/ Accused (In Jail) Respondent Criminal Appeal No. 915 of2806 Dhaneshwar @ Dhammu S/o Ram Singar^aged about SOyears. Rfe CNkr^ Thaha^amkola, DistrietSai^qa(C.G.) ; Versus * State of Chhattisgarti Through Ramkola P.S. (CRMINALAPPEAL UNDER SECTION374(2) OF THEGODE : CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; 1973) Present:- " Mr. Abhay Tiwari, counsel for the appeBant. ' ^4F MadhuNishaSlngh;PanelLawyerft>rtheSNC ORALJUDGMENT (Passed on 14thJuly,2011)< PerT.P.Sharma,J.:- 1. Challenge insthis appeal is to the judgment of con^ictton & order of sentence; dated 12.10.2006 passed by theltnd Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C^ Suiajpur • Sarguja.in Sessions Trial No.51/2006, whereby & whereunder leamed Sessions Judge after holdlng the appellant guilty fbr commissionof offence of homteidal death amounting to murder of Bhagat Ram (sinee deceased) convicted the appellant under Seetioni302 Of the I.P.t. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10^-. In default of payment furtheF toundergo R.l.for fiv6 days. ^ s , 2. Conviction is impugned onthegroundthatwithouttherebeing any i<Aa of evidence, the trlal Court has convicted & senteneed the appellant as "aafbrementioned and thereby committed itlegallty. 3. As-per case of prosecution, on fateful day of 28.10.2(X)5 at 3.00 p.m. appellant and his brother Anant Kumar Inwted deceased Bhs®atRam for < ??®^!L;^f£:--'..;-ii^*iE EESSR.g^l WWiS eyi oi SSBO sqi p9H!iuuiQO ujrii ui OIJM 'jnddeifiud '^eio ^l. siBJtsiSei^ IBiapnp jo yfioo 3t|t aitysq psiy SBM psiis sBjeqo 'uotteBiissAU! p uojis|diuoo j^v '(.sp03>34) Voys Jpj) sjnpsocucl ^euiiuuQ 1° spoo aytp 1,91, uojioss Jspun pepjoosj SJSM sssssutiMsyi p siusuietets -9 « ^1,/d-xg epiA uoitBuiiuexs iBoiiueqo jcy tuss aj9MS3t3!iJB pazisg "S/d'X3 9p!A(Ue||addE84ip3oyB}SU|34}tB psztss 8JSM siuesfr/d-xg apiA axe puBsxe isisq ^o lusiueieis sjnsopsip epetu a|-l •Apoisno o^ur US>|EI SBM lUBiisddei'uoiiBSisaAui 10 s&inoo Buuna •^ •ainiBU ui lepioiiuoq sem iflesQ 'punom pssjoui 0} enp seeqjjou.iSU 8J8A8S 41»isaue Ajoiejidsai oipjeo SBM inesp jo ssneo ; •{pu aiBia/wc|B)uoj6sj )|OBquo4CU! 9 P punoMpssioui (AI^ Y •^no Biqi®t||d8p t^ou!% zp ssu)) iqBu JSAO puno/ftpssiaui (!!! t •>|08U ; J9AO i|ytep iiaui % g io pooiq psflop iitun pun0 pasioui" ^t » •ME( :!3",s:"y1 JSAol.iout % fr joaiqipuBui p ajnpay q^ punoM pssioui Q<!^^^ s -:sa!.iFt{ui6uGw3||(y punoi pue z/d"X3 spiA Asdovie psionpuoo (g/AAd) 46015 dBiejcj ejpusjBN •JQ •.iridde}BJcj 'ja^iso 4][|E8H^}iuniuiuot)oi^sdoinB j(y }uas SBMApoq "pesa s'ayxg spp\ paziss s.iem HOS uieid pue PSUIBIS pooia "6l/d'x3 spiA ^jedsjd SBM deuj iods •Z/d"xg spiA psjedejd SBM pesesosp ^»"Apoq pesp j3Ao tssnbui 'i./d'xa SPIA SBssau^/uv 941 Buiuoiuiuns .isye 'aouaunooo ^o 8U33S JQJ ys| jsoyio 6u!}E6|}ssAU| • (, t/d-xs apiA papjoos.1 SBM •yTd 'Sjsui siseqsiB UQ •g/d'xa 9P!A "oiteiUBUi Bjstu geifsp pue 6/d"X3 spiA isiieu !}Bi|8p pa6po| sqs jsyesjsiit jis&isq psftes sqs asnoif jsy 6} iods sqi LUCUJ p94sru (t/AAd) eAiueuux^ " •iflBapsnoeuiBtUBisu! at) oiui Buiiinsai IsuodEsm piesajcye Aq tuey « leBeqg psyiBsse Asqi •sxe Bu\pm •is'fl^q siypue sxe pisq 6up|0tt» J» -' .. - • :• . • '. SBWttUBuedde lussajd ssnoy Jieid IUQJI sijbteo tueiiscMe 94} qioq^sppui , piesejpi&jsye asnoi) Jisijt 01 SuioB aiaM (t^Ad) eAreteiuxBq a^iM siy t)U»6uo|B^asB308p 8|jiyvv '>|0|}S I|IIM luB||8d(fe paiinessBiSey pssesosp ^ssuiittaABSQiMSjAB qtun 'jsyeejs^ 'uiey tB6eqa psseaoap p9}|nBsse f jemnx }UBUV JStiyuq 314 y^M Buoie tueiisddie uay} aoiB|d )|oo} |9jjenb HOjlBOJSfle jo ssinoo 6uunQ •SjnTO urpieu ewABino 0} }ou tuey iBBeiig pasesoap P|O| jsqvxiq siq t)i!M 6uo|B iue||8dde yissejd '[BSUJ 6up|ei jgye^ueijsddBsiftpssnoqatfliuay BuiujniejstiqAA'uoou te|esiu6u!)(Bt < >;l>tn: ^. ^ S .'^lfts 1 "^, ._„.-"''" \' '».^ W^J' .1-' ill fe- ii'-i -^: ,/ fW Court of Sessions, Surguja (Ambikapur), llnd Additional Sessions Judge receivedthecase ontransferfortrial. „ 6. In order to prove the guitt of the aeeused/appellant, prosecution has examined as many as nine witn^ses. Stateinert of the accusecteppellant was r«;6rdedunder Section 313 of theGode. where he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implteatiqg inthecrime inquestion. ' ,^ ' 7. After providing opportunlty of hearing to the parties, leamed llnd Additional Sessionjs Jydge, convicted & sentenced the appeltant as aforementioned. s • • . - ^ .,^ ••^^•.•w 8. We have heard leamed counsel fortheparties, perused thejudgment impugned and record of the trlal Court. 9. Leamed eounsel Tor the appellant vehemenUy ai^ued that as per spot map Ex.P/19 incldent took place in front of Irouse of a^eUanl. Ppesent appellant and his brother had exonerated dece^ffid andd»seasetfhad caused injury by stick to the appellant and his brother, thereefter they tried to save themselves and in exeroise of right of piw^e ^leTence appellant and his brother eaused miriimum injury to the deceasedt As per statement of Laxmaniya (PW/1) recorded underSeetion 161 ofthe Code. vide Ex.D/1 ,<ieceased has caused irquiy by stiGkto appellant and l his brother, thereafter tncident took place. Leacned eounsel forftie» appellant further submits that appellant tried to save himself and has not exceeded his rightof pr'ivate defenee. Therefore, the act of theappellant does not travel beyond the scope of 304 part II of the I.P.C. 10. On theothef hand, teamed panel tawyer for the Stde oppi^ed the petitlon and submifs that co-accused isjuvenile and charge sheet has been flted against him before the.^'Juvenile Justice Board. Evidence adduced 6n behalf of prosecutipn fe suffteient for drswtfing Inferencethat appellant has eaused homicidal death amountingtp murder of deeeased Bh^at Ram. After appreciatlr^ the evldence availabl&on reGord; the trial Court has rightly eonvicted & sentenced tbes appellant ?as ^aforementioned; Learned Panel Lawyer further subnaits th^ ©rideneeof •^. eye wttness Laxmaniya (PW/4) and statement recorded videEx.Eyi are .:^^^,^;tf "^^•S.si,S-iE'Sg®;s::a3a;'.^idBHS^-Ti'^i) 1l.In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of theparties, we-haveexaminedtheevtdenceavailabteonrecord. 12.1n the presentcase, homicidal death of Bhagat Ram as»resultoffatal in|ury_f6und over the vital part of body of the deceased tos flot been substantlatlydisputed on behalf of the appellant, even^^therwise same is also established by the evidence of Dr. Narendra Pratap Singh (PVW-8) and autopsy report Ex.P/7 that death of deceased Bhagat Ram was homlcidal in nature. V, ,-H l3.As regards complicity of the appellantin crime in question is concemed, conviction ofthe present appellantjssubstantially b^edon evidenee of Laxmaniya (PW/1) and Ishwar (PW/2), eye witnesses. As per evidence «®f Laxmaniya (PVW1) wife of deceased, her husband along wth Ws sons went to the house of appellant for taklng meal. After taking meal when deceased along with his sons and herwifewere coming from house of the appetlant then appellant and his brother threatened her husband not tocultivate field, after some attercrtion incident took plape thenshe vras s getting her husband to her house, in the meanwhile mother of the appellant dragged deceased in front of house of the appellant where appellant and hisbrother went inside the house, took oul tetelaxe, & axe, appellant and his brother chopped her husband. Brother of the appellant also assaulted her by blynt part of axe. Her husband di«las a resultof injury caused by the presentappellant by betel axe, she lodged dehati nalisi vide Ex.P/9. Her version teateo corroborated from the evidence of tshwar (PWQ). As per para 4 of deposition of Ishwar (PVW2), appellant and his brother had (^used injury to deeeasedBhagat Ram. Defence hascross-exarained these witnesses at length but has not beenable to elicit anything iri their cross-examinatton todiseaKMheip testimony speciatly relating to faet thatfpresent appeljant has not caused 'fatat injury to dece^ed Btiagat Ramf These evidences are sufftelent to ' establish the fact that present appetlant has caused homicidal death of deceased Bhagat Ram. 14.As regardsthe question of motive, in case of direct eviderwe m^ive losses its importance, even otherwise, motive only aids in eriminalityand K. can be inferred on the basisofnature ofinjury, kindofweaponused, part ofthe body effected and othersimilardreumstances. < 15. In the present case, aspersubmlssion made by^eamedcounsel for e a appellant firstly deceased has caused injury to the appellant by stjck." Ex.D/1 statemerrt ofthe Laxmaniya (PW/1) reeorded wider'Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. reveals that present appellant along wtth.his brolher started assaulting deceaseeland witha view tosavehimselfhehadalso assaulted appellant by stick. T^K evidence cteariyshowsthatdecrased hact not caused injury bystiolicwithout any propriety.He had caused injury witha view to save himself. Thereafter, whlle they were coming back to their house then present appellant along with his brother went insicle the house and^took betel axe& axe and thereafia-caused repeated injury. As per evidence of Laxmaniya (PW/1) quarrel took plaee near the house of appellant, thereafter aecused/appellant-along^ w'rth his brother went inside the house, took out betel axeaml thereafter caused repeated injuries to deceasect Bhagat Ram, whteh shows intention of the appellant fbr causing homicklal death amounting to ?murderofdeceased. » 16. After appreciating the evidence availabte on record, the teamed aAddttionalSessiorreJudgehasconvictedand^ntencedthe^wdl^ afbremention«l. 17. On close scrutiny ofthe evtelence adduced on behalfoftheproseeution, we do Rot find any illegality or infirmtty in convicting andseFrtencing ttw appellant. 18;Consequently, the appeal being devokl of merits is Itable to be ~ dismi^ed and is hereby dismjssed. ___—— > i Sd/-, i RJS. Chandrakar i Vijet/ Sd/- TP.Sharma Judge .< Judge