&i<B?l 44, s'- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CQRAM: APPBLLANT RESPONDENT HON'BLBMR. T.P.SHARMA& HON'BLB MR. R.L. JHANWAR. JJ. CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 809/94 Raghunath S/o Bodro Mahkul, aged 45 years, R/o Bedepani, Police Statlon Kansabel, District Raigarh (M.P.) Versus State of Madhya Pradesh ttu-ough Police Station Kansabel. CRIMmAL APPBAL UNDBR SBCTION 374 OF THE CODB 03 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. Presenfc- Ms. Saageeta Mishia, Advocate for fhe appeUant, Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, Dy. G.A, forthe State/respondent, ORAL-JUDGBMENT (Passedon 05/05/2010) The following iudgment of the Coiirt was T.P. Sharma, J:- 1. Challenge in this appeal is to fhe judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11/10/93 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpumagar ia Sessions Trial No. 50/93 whereby and where under after holdin^ the appeUant guilty for fhe commission of culpable homicide amoiinting to murder of Ms wife deceased Uma convicted the appellant iinder Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced imprisomnent for life. ^??». y"".K ">>. a t*^ •:^ff Conviction is unpugned on the ground fhat wifhout any iota of evidence sufiicient for conviction, Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioued and fhereby committed an Ulegality. As per case of the persecution, on fateful day of 31/8/92 between 3:00 to 8:00 P.M. deceased Uma (wlfe of fhe appeUaat) went to fhe field wifh umbrella and bag but she did not come back m.eanwhlle appeUant also went to the field; he was holdmg axe, he came back to his house wifh axe, umbreUa and bag of the deceased Uina. Being asked appellant offered false explanation fhat deceased Uma had gone to her matemal house. On second day injured dead body of the deceased Uma was found in the field of accused. Fu-st Inforaiation Report was lodged vlde Ex. P- 2. Marg was recorded vide Ex. P-1. After siumnoning fhe witnesses, inquest over the dead body of fhe deceased Uma was prepared vide Ex. P-3. Tobacco paste (^l<^ and blood stained hairs were seized from the spot vide Ex. P- 4. Blood stained and plain soil, one blood stained necklace of the deceased were seized from fhe spot vide Ex. P-5. Bag, umbrella and axe were seized fix>m the accused vide Ex. P-6. Bag and umbrefla were identt&ed as a bag and iimbrella ofthe deceased vide Ex. P-6. Cloths of fhe deceased were seized vide Ex. P-11. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Primary Health Centa-e, Kansabel. PW8 ^! Dr. Y.K. Toppo conducted the autopsy vide Ex. P-8 and found following injuries:- (i) Incised wound on the neck of 7" x 2" x 4". Intemal vessels of fhe neck, trachea and cervical vertebra were found cut. (u) tncised woiind over face of 2" x %" x %". Mode of death was shock and deafh was homicidal in nature. 4. Statements of fhe witnesses were recorded under Section 161 ofthe Code of Crimmal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code'). After completlon of the investigation charge sheet was filed before fhe Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jashpumagar who in tum committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Raigarh. Leamed Additional Sesslons Judge received the case on transfer for trial. 5. In order to prove fhe guilt of the appellant/accused prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code where he denled fhe cu-cumstances appearu^ against him, mnocency and false implication is clauned. 6. After aSSording an opportunity of hearing to the parties leamed Additional Sessions Judge, has convicted and sentenced fhe appellant as aforementioned. 7. Leamed coiinsel for the appeUant Ms. Sangeeta Mishra and leamed counsel for fhe State/respondent Mr. Sudhir 4 ^/ Bajpai, Dy. G.A. are heard. Judgment impu^ied aad record of Court below perused. 8. In the present case, leamed counsel for the respondent/State franldy submits fhat after @%mting of special reprieve and completion of the sentence appellant has been released on 18/ 12/06. 9. Leamed counsel for fhe appellant submits fhat conviction is based on circumstantial evidence mainty on the last seen fheory but prosecution has not proved fhe circumstances suffident for convicting fhe appellant 10. On the ofher hand, leamed counsel for fhe State/respondent opposed fhe appeal and submits that evidence ofPWl Baleshwar, PW3 Parvatibal, PW4 Panobai and PW12 Kurso are Suf&cient for drawing an inference that appellant was a person who has caused injury to fhe deceased. 11. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of fhe parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 12. In the present case homicidal death of the deceased Uma, as a result of ante-mortem fatal injury has not been substantially disputed by the appeUant, on fhe other hand, also established by the evidence of PW8 Dr. Y.K. Toppo and autopsy report vide Ex. P-8 who reveals ffaat ante-mortem fatal injury was found over the neck, ^"'"'a > '^ '-.^ '^ i -^J'-"-*^ ,'y --v f^ trachea and cervical vertebra of ftie deceased. Cause of death was shock and deafh was homicidal in natiire. 13. As regard fhe complicity of the appellant in crime in question, conviction is substantially based on fhe evidence ofPWl Baleshwar, PW3 Parvatibal, PW4 Panobal and PW12 Kurso who have deposed in their evidence that on the date of incident deceased Uma went to field for work with umbrella and bag. After some time appellant went to the fleld with axe, at fhe tune of eveiiiag deceased did not come back to her house but appeUant come back to his house, he was holding his axe, umbrella and ba^ of the deceased. Bag was stalned with blood, being asked he has ofiFered false explanation that deceased had gone to her fafher's house. Appellant has not tried for search of deceased. Second day vUlagers searched and the dead body of the deceased was foiind in the field of fhe appellant then appellant absconded fl'om fhe viBage, virtuaUy fhese evidence are sufiScient for drawing an inference ftiat onty appeUant iione other has caused fatal injury resulting into death has caused by fhe appellant and none else. 14. After appreciatir^ the evidence avallable on record, leamed Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced fhe appellant as aforementioned. •^ ^ .—?^^^ Conviction of fhe appellant is based on credible, clinchui( and legal evidence sustainable under the law. 15. On close scrutiny of fhe evidence, we do not find any Ulegality or infirmily in fhe judgment impugned. Consequently, this crimmal appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dlsmissed. Sd7-~~ r p- Sharma Judge R.L. Jhanwar Judge