;ftiil!I.B,.*-;:-i»*^"' DIVISION BBNCH (IN JAILJ HON'BLB MR. T.P. SHARMA & HQN'BLB MR. RAKGNATH CHANDRAKAR. JJ. Cr. A^peal Np^657/2005 S^OG SINGH Aged 29 Years, S/o RAM SINGH resident of ViU. Gidhori, Poiice Station Urga, Distt. Korba (C.G.) The State of C.G. through In- charge Police Station Kotwali, Korba, Chouki Urga, Distt. Korba (C.G.) CRIMINAL APPBAL UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CRIMINAL Presenfc- Mr. S.V. Purohit, Advocate for the appellaiit. Mr. Neeraj Mehta, P.L. for the State/respondent. JUDGEMEm' (Passedon 07/09/2011) The foUowmg tudgment of fhe Coiirt was passed bv Challenge ia fhis appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29/7/2005 passed bv Additional Session Judge, Korba (C.G.) in \; Session Trial No. 96/2004 whereby and where under after holding the appeUant guUty for fhe commission of offence of culpable homicide amounttng to murder of his keep Lachchhan Bai 85 conceallng the evidence of cnminal case, convicted the appeUant under Sections Y A 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced imprisonment for Ufe and fine ofRs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine aiaount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 6 monfhs & rigorous imprisorunent for 3 years and fme ofRs. 500/-, ui default ofpayment of flne amount, additional rjgorous imprisonment for 3 ,.(: monfhs. Conviction is rmpugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence suflicient for conviction of appeUant Court below has convicted and sentenced fhe appeUants as aforementioned and thereby committed an Ulegality. As per case of the prosecution, Lachchhan Bai (since deceased) was residing with present appellant as his keep. On 19/7/2004 appeUant caused injury over her neck and ofher oarts of bodv and caused her deafh thereafter he diged Bendu Nala and buried dead body of Lachchhan Bai. He made extrajudicial confession before his fafher-in-law PW4 Ramayan Singh which he has adruitted murder of Lachchhan Bai and buried the \. dead body in the Bendu Nala. Appellant has also made extrajudicial confession and discloser of facts to other witnesses then PW3 Paltandas went to fhe Police Gutpost Urga aad lodeed Ftrst Information Report vide Ex. P-5 in zero number. On 20/7/2004 at about 10:00 A.M. second numbeiy Ftrst Information Report was lodged at PoUce Station Korba on 20/7/2004 as Ex. P- 5. Investigatine Officer- detained fhe aupellant and interrogated him, he made discloser statement of dead bodv that dead bodv of Lachchhan Bal is in hidden position iinder sand in the;,'Bendu Ncda vide Ex. P-1. :t'. Investigating OfEicer took. the appellant along with witnesses to Bendu Ncda from where dead. bodv of Lachchhan Bai was recovered at the instance of appellant, Inquest over fhe dead t>ody of Lachchhan Bai was prepared. Dead body of Lachchhan Bai was sent for autopsy to Primaiy Health Center, Bhaisma vide Ex. P-18 where PW10 Dr. Rudrapal Singh conducted autopsy and found incised wound over her moufh of 3 x 1 c.m., abrasion over front part of fhe neck aad injuries were ante-mortem in natiire. Mode of death was asphyxia as a result of throttltng and deafh was homicidal in natiire. Blood stained Baniyan was seized from the appellant vide Ex. P-2. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-3. Pat^vari prepared spot map vide Ex. P-4. Sealed clofhs of deceased Lachchhan Bai, articles- & sealed Baniyan of appellant were seized vide Ex. P-14. Seized articles were sent for chemical exam.ination and presence of blood over Banivan of appeUant was coniirmed vide Ex. C-01. 9 11 \ B: 4. Statements of the witaesses were recorded under Section 161 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (tn short the Code'). After completion of the tnvestigation charge sheet was. filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba who in tum committed the case to the Court of Sessions,; BUaspur from where learned Additional Sessions Judge, Korba (C.G.) has received the case on transfer for trial. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the appeUant prosecution exainined as many as 22 witnesses. Accused/appeUant was examtned under Section 313 ofthe Code where he denied the circumstances appearing against htm and pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime ia question. 6. After aEfording an opportunity of hearing to fhe parties, leamed Additional Sessions Judge, Korba (C.G.) has convicted and sentenced fhe appellant as aforementioned. 7. Mr. S.V. Purohit, leamed counsel for fhe appeUant and Mr. Neeraj Mehta, P.L. for the State/respondent ai~e heard. Judgment impugned and record of the Court below perused. 8. LeaiTied counsel for fhe appellant vehemently argued that evidence of prosecution witnesses is fuU of contradiction and omission does not inspire confidence 1-11 and trustsyorfhy, factum of aUeged discloser statement and recoveiy are not reliable. Prosecution has not proved the complete "chain of circumstances pointing ;uilt of fhe appellant and none else other. In ftiese circum.stances, m. absence of any cogent and credible evldence, appeUant is enMtled for acquittal. 9. On fhe other hand, learned Panel La\wer for fhe respondent/St&te opposed fhe appeal and argued that conviction of fhe appellant is substanti&Ily based on the discloser statement of tfae appellant and recovery subsequent to fhe statement of fhe corpus delicti from Bendu Nala buried under fhe sand. AppeUant was under obligation to offer explanation how he cam.e to know about such dead bodv buried, who has buried such dead body, who has caused such mjury and who has caused deafh of Lachchhan Bai. In absence of such explaaation, only inference woiild be possible that appeUant was a person who has caused homicidal death ofLachchhan Bai and has biiried dead body. 10. In order to appreciate^ the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined fhe evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 11. In the present case, homicidal death as a result of uijuries found over fhe body of deceased Lachchhan Bai has not been substantially disputed on behatf of b the appeUant on the other hand, othenvise also established by the evidence of PW 10 Dr. Rudrapal Singh and autopsy report Ex. P-9 and death of Lachchhan Bai was hoitticidal in nature. 12. As regards the complicity of appellant in crmie in question, conviction of th&iappellant is substantially based on the circumstaQtial evidence in case of conviction based on cu'cumstantial evidence, as held bv the Supreme Coiirt in fhe case of C. Changa Reddy v. Itate of A.P. , the prosecution is required to adduce evidence and such evidence must satisfying fhe foUowina tests: - i. fhe circurusta&ces fi-oin which aa iaference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogenfly aad finnly estabUshed; ii. fhose circuinstances shoidd of a defmite tendency unerringly pointing towards Uie guflt offtie accused; iri. fhe circuinstances taken cumiulatively should fonn a chaia so coiaplete that fliere is no escape froia the conclusion that wifhin all huruau probabiUty the crime was coininitted by tbe accused and none else; aad iv. fhe circunistaatial evidence ui oider to sustaia conviction must bg complete and incapable of explanation of any ofher hypothesis fhan fhat of fhe guflt of the accused and such evidence should not rA!R .1996 SC 3390 ; (1996) 10 SCC 193 1"!<1: 1 onbr be consistent wifh the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. 13. In fhe present case, -prosecution has tried to prove the foUowmg tests:- (i) Lachchhan Bai was keep of appeUant and was residiaR wifh him. (ii) Lachchlian Bai died'ias uniiatural aad death of Lachchhaa Bai was hoiiiicidal in nature. (iii) AppeUaat inade extrajudicial confession before wito^esses that he has kiUed Lachchhan Bai aad has buried the dead bodv in fhe Bendu Nala. (iv) AppeUaiit has also niade discloser stateiaent of dead body of I.-achchhan Bai to Police Ex. p-1. (v) Dead body of Lachchhan Bai has been recovered at the instance of appellaat. (n) AppeUant has not ofFered aiiy explanation fhat how he canie to kn^ow about fhe dead bodv aad same is hidden under fhe sand in Benidu Nala. 14. As per evidence of PW1 Jagsingh, PW2 Sagunsingh, PW3 Paltandas & PW4 Ramayan Stngh, appellant is son-in-law of PW4 Ramavan Singh who is resident of vHlage Gidhori went to yiUage Karainara to his father- in-law Ramayan Stngh and has made extrajudicial confession fhat he has 'committed murder of Lachchhan Bai wKo has also made statement that he has buried dead body of Lachchhan Bai in the Bendu Nala then fhey produced him. before Police Outpost Bis g-a . .:•',. i;.^;>l^ ^/^"4^\ Ksf "^ 'r !,l. 9 y: %sKj)a,, | -';L.aii| | Si.J .^ "^/ .}••-- '^.-,v^f u M!l Birl Vrgsi and lodged First Infonnation Report Ex. P-5 and Urga Police interrogated appellant. 15. As per evldence of PW-2 Sagunsingh, Police took the appellant to the Bendv. Nala from where appellant has exhuraed the dead bodv of Lachchhan Bai from Bendu Nala, which was buried T.tpder fhe sand. Evidence of ^: PW2 Sagunsm.gh is corroborated by fhe evidence of PW1 Jagstngh, especiaUy in Para-3 of his evidence, evidence of PW3 Paltandas partially and by fhe evidence of PW4 Ramayan Sineh. As per evidence of PW5 Leeladas, Police took appellant to Bendu Nala from where appeUant exhumed fhe dead body. PW6 Babulal & PW14 Chamar Singh has also corroborated fhe aforesaid facts. As per evidence of PW13 Sonauram 85 PW16 Padumlal , Lachchhan Bai was keep of present appeUant and she is pregnant fhrough appeUant which also supports from fhe autopsy report Ex. P-9. Defence has cross-examtned theses witaesses at length but have not been able to elicit anything in their evidence to discredit their testunony to the extent that appellant has not made discloser statement and the statement before them fhat he has buried fhe dead bodv of Lachchhan Bai in Bendu Nala under the sand and dead bodv of Lachclihan Bai has not been recovered at fhe instance ofappeUant. 1 \ •; As per evidence of aforesaid witnesses and fhe evidence of PW10 Dr. Rudrapal Singh and autopsy report Ex. P-9, death of.Lachchhan Bai was homicidal in nature only on Q\e basis of recovery of dead body/corpus delicti at fhe instance of appeUant no inference can be drawn that appellant has cominitted ,^^ homicidal death wifh mtent to cause death of Lachchhan Bai, tf kaowledge of aforesald fact is explatned by the appeUant. Appellant was under obUgation to offer an explanation fhat how he came to know ttiat dead body has been buried under the sand in the Bendu Nala but appellant has not offered any explanation. In absence of any explanation, only tnference would be possible fhat only appellant has caused homicidal deatfa and has biiried the dead body of Lachchhan Bai and has concealed the evidence of crunmal case. Aforesaid evidence are sufficient to establish foUowing ctrcumstances that:- (i) Lachchhan Bai was keep of appeUant. (ii) Appellaat was residuig ^vith Lachchhan Bai. (iu) Lachchhan Bai died anA.deafh of Lachchhau Bai was hoiuicidal ui nature. (iv) Dead body of Lachchhan Bai was found -- buried ui fhe.Bendu ATaZct under the sand. (v) AppeUant informed the persons and Police relating to aforesaid facts of burring the dead body. l^i::::; 10 <c/ (vi) Dead body of Lachchhan Bai was recovered at the 'instance of appeUant and place shown by the appeUant. (viQ AppeUant has " made extrajudicial confession that Iie has killed Lachchhan Bai/one women. 17. If fhese ctrcumstances ai-e considered together then only inference would be ^ossible fhat only appeUant Bhog Singh has committed culpable homicide amounting to murder of Lachchhan Bai and except appeUant none else has commltted homicidal death of Lachchhan Bai. Moresaid evidence also exclude fhe possibility of innocency of appeUant and also proved the fact fhat appellant has concealed fhe evidence of crtminal case by biirring the dead body. 18. After appreciattng the evidence avaUable on record, leamed Additional Sessions Judge, Korba (C.G.) has rightly convicted and sentenced fhe appeUant as aforementioned. 19. On close scrutiny of tfae evidence, we do not Gnd any Ulegality or infirmity tn the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Conseduently, crmiinal appeal is devoid of merits, same is Uable to be dismissed and is herebv disuiissed. SdA T.P. Sharma Judse Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge :.r'i