HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon’ble Shri T.P. Sharma & Hon’ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar JJ. Criminal Aggeal No. 697 of 2005 Appellant (in jail) Ramesh alias Ballu Yadav, aged about 32 yearsx, r/o. Near Shivnagar Talab, P.S.' Azad Chowk, District Raipur (CG). Vs. Respondent. State Of Chhattisgarh through P.S Azad Chowk, District Raipur (CG). (Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C.) Present: Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, counsel for the appellant. Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL JUDGMENT (Delivered on'2—8—201 1) Per T.P. Sharma, J. 1. Challenge in ts appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order hi of sentence dated 15—2-2005 passed by Xl Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur, in Sessions Trial No. 384 of 2004, whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge; after holding the appellant guilty for causing culpable homicidal death amounting to murder of his mother, convicted the appellant under Sections 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/—, in default of payment of fine to undergo further Rl for six months. 2. Conviction of the appellant is impugned on the ground that without there being any iota of evidence, the court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 3. As per case of prosecution, on 27—7—2004 at about 11.00 pm, present appellant assaulted his own mother Ramhin Bai by wooden stick. When Shatrughan (PW/1), who is another son of deceased Ramhin Bai and brother of appellant shouted for help after causing repeated assaults, appellant fled away from the spot and Rahmin Bai fell down on the ground and became LlnCOnSClOUS. 4. Shatrughan (PW/1) along with other witnesses took her to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Hospitai, Raipur for treatment and lodged first information report (EXP/1) at police station Azad Chowk, Raipur. She was examined by Doctor Kiran Agrawal (PW/7) vide EXP/6 who found the injuries i) lacerated wound of 2 x1 cm over forehead with bleeding; ii) lacerated wound over right parietal region 7x1cm with bleeding; iii) lacerated wound over occipital region of 7x1cm with bleeding; iv) lacerated wound over right palm of 4.5 x 2 cm with bleeding. Teeth were broken. She was referred to Neurosurgical and Orthopedic Department and during the course of treatment she died. 5. On 27—7-2004 at 7.30 a.m. merg intimation was sent by hospital vide Ex.P/14 on the basis of which merg was recorded by Police Station, Azad Chowk Raipur, vide Ex.P/13, after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P/2, inquest over the body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex.P/3, dead body of deceased was sent for autopsy to Medical College, Raipur vide Ex.15 where Doctor R.K. Singh (PW/6) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P/5 and found following injuries; i) contusion over abrasion 3x1xcm over right knee; ii) . stitched wound over right side of head 7 x 7 cm; iii) stitched wound over head of 9x1.5 cm; iii) contusion over Iacerated wound of 1.5X0.5x0.3 cm over below the right eye; iv) two teeth were broken; v) sutural fracture of coronal _was found and subdural haematoma was found. During course of investigation accused was taken into custody and he made a disclosure statement of wooden stick vide Ex.P/8 and same was recovered at the instance of appellant vide Ex.P/9, blood stained soil and plain soil were seized vide Ex. P/10, blood stained clothes of appellant were seized vide Ex.P/11, blood stained clothes were seized vide Ex.P/12, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/16 and seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL, Raipur vide Ex.P/17. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Raipur. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, received the case on transfer, who framed charges under Section 302 of the lndian Penal Code against the appellant who abjured the guilt. 7. In order to establish the charge against the appeilant the prosecution examined nine witnesses. Statement of the accused \ was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded innocence and false implication. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid mentioned. ’ We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court as also the impugned judgment Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of Shatrughan (PW/1) and Durgesh Sahu (PW/8) to whom prosecution has examined as eye-witnesses and the evidence of Seetal Yadav (PW/2), Suresh Dhruv (PW/3), Gorakhnath Sharma (PW/4) and the evidence of aforesaid witnesses do not inspire confidence and trustworthy and the statement of eye-witnesses being chance witnesses is not safe to rely for convicting the appellant. 11. On the other hand, Mr. D.K. Gwalre, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State opposed the appeal and submits I that evidence of the aforesaid witnesses are sufficient for drawing inference that present appellant has caused homicidal death of deceased Rahmin Bai with intent to cause her death. The court below after considering all evidence and aspects of the case, has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant. 12. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behaif of the prosecution. in the present case, homicidal death of the deceased as a result of fatal injuries found over the vital part of deceased Rahmin Bai has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant. On the other hand, it is established by the evidence of Doctor Kiran Agrawal (PW/7), medical report Ex.P/6, Doctor R.K. Singh (PW/6) and autopsy report (EXP/5), death of deceased Rahmin Bai was homicidal in nature. 14. As regards complicity of the appellant in the crime in question, conviction'of the appellant is based on evidence of Shatrughan (PW/1) brother of the appellant and son of deceased and Durgesh Sahu (PW/8). As per evidence of Shatrughan (PW/1), at the time of incident he was present in his house. .Appellant assaulted his mother by wooden stick and when he tried to save his mother, the accused/appellantalsotried to assault him. After sometime he came along with Seetal Yadav (PW/2) and saw the injured body of Rahmin Bai to whom they took to Hospital at Raipur. As per evidence of Durgesh Sahu (PW/8), after hearing the sound of a woman he came out from his house where he saw the appellant assaulting his mother by stick. He also tried to assault Shatrughan (PW/1). When he came to intervene the incident, the appellant fled away from the spot and thereafter they took her to hospital. 15. Defence has cross examined these witnesses at length but has not been able to elicit anything in their cross objection to discredit their version, especially relating to the fact that these witnesses have not seen the incident. The evidence of these witnesses find corroboration from the independent witnesses of Seetal Yadav (PW/2), Suresh Dhruv (PW/3) and Gorakhnath Sharma (PW/4) and inspire confidence’and trustworthy. If the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses‘are considered together, then only inference would be possible that the‘appeilant has caused homicidal death of his mother Rahinin Bai. 16. As‘ regards question of motive is concerned, in case of direct evidence motive looses its importance, even‘ otherwise, motive only aids in criminality and can be inferred on the basis of nature of injury, kind of weapon used, part of the body effected and other similar Circumstances. 17. In the present case, the incident took place at night and the deceased Rahmin Bai, mother of appellant was helpless and 'even she was not in a position to save herself, in that position the appellant caused repeated blows by wooden stick over the head of the deceased which finds place in autopsy report which reveals that injuries caused by wooden stick were resulted in homicidal death which can only be possible as a result of repeated injuries on the same part of the body which shows clear intention of the appellant causing homicidal death of deceased. .sW.VIW ,. .. . . .-si,,.m.h M ,. ,. ., W c W mahmj 18. After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge, has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid mentioned. 19. On a close scrutiny of the evidence, we do not ’rind any illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned warranting any interference. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is i: l it a" rv: hereby dismissed. h _/—"’L'M “w“ sw- \ Sd/— "T.P.SHARMA it. Judge . RN. Chandrakar ’. y Ju&g€ V l,