‘. ,_ @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: Coram: HON’BLE MR.T.P.SHARMA & HON’BLE MR.R.N. CHANDRAKAR, JJ. Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 2006 Manohar, aged about 60 years, sonof Shri Dukalu Ram Nirmalkar, aged about 60 years, resident of village Nawagaon, PS. Somni, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Appellant (In Jail) ’ Versus ‘ Respondent State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate — Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ‘ (CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF t CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973) Present:- Mr. Abhishek Sharma, counsel for the appellant. Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Govt. Advocate for the State. JUDGMENT (Passed on 07‘“ September, 201 1) Per T.P.Sharma, J.'.- 1‘ Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 06.10.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, in Sessions Trial No.31/2006, whereby & whereunder '3 learned Sessions Judge after holding appellant guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of his vvife Gouri Bai (since deceased) and for concealing the evidence of crime, convicted the appellant under Sections 302 & 201 of the l.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, R.l. for seven years and fine of Rs.500/—, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.l. awrrffor 3-3 months. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being any iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appeiiant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 3. As per case of prosecution, appeiiant and deceased Gouri Bai, wife of appeiiant, were residing together in one house. On 01.02.2006 between 2:00 to 6:00 pm deceased died in her house as a result of injuries. On being asked, appeiiant expiained that she fell down from cot and received the injuries. PW/1-Ramadhar, Kotwar, Iodged merg vide Ex.P/1. Investigating officer left for scene of occurrence, after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P/2, inquest over the dead body of deceased was prepared vide Ex.P/3. Dead body of deceased was sent for autopsy to District Hospital, Rajnandgaon vide Ex.P/5. Autopsy was conducted by Dr. Sanjay Bakshi (PW-10) vide Ex.P/5A and found following injuries: (i) Abrasion over neck, 3-4 in numbers. (ii) Haematoma cut and bruise on right side of face. (iii) Lacerated wound of 3 1/2" X‘1 1/2” in scalp deep over head with fracture. (iv) Lacerated wound of 2 1/2” x 1/2“ in scalp deep over back side of head. 4. Mode of death is sudden neurogenic shock and death was homicidal in nature. During the course of investigation, appellant was taken into custody. He made disclosure statement of blood stained wooden plank, newad, saree and clothes vide Ex.P/1O and same were recovered at his instance vide Ex.P/9 and Ex.P/11. Blood stained clothes of appellant was seized vide Ex.P/8. Blood stained soil and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P/6. Nazri naksha was prepared by~ Patwari vide Ex.P/7. Investigating Officer prepared spot map vide Ex.P/13. Finally F.l.R. was lodged vide Ex.P/14. 5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the ‘Code’). After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon. Learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon received the case on transfer for trial. r ‘ £ w ' i ‘ rh § i EXP/1. Prosecution has examined 10 witnesses but they have deposed nothing against the appellant. Autopsy report Ex.P/5—A reveals that fatal injury has been noticed over the head of deceased which does not appear to be caused/received by falling down from a cot that too from the height of 1 1/2 foot (height of cot). As per evidence of PW/1-Ramadhar, present appellant has made explanation that deceased fell down from the cot and received injury which appears false explanation from the accused. 14.There is inconsistency between medical evidence, initial explanation offered on behalf of appellant and explanation of injuries offered by appellant by examining his son-in-law. Explanation offered on behalf of appellant to the witnesses and explanation offered by examining his son-in-Iaw clearly appears to be false explanation. Autopsy report and evidence of autopsy surgeon is sufficient to establish the fact that death of deceased was homicidal in nature. False explanation relating to death of deceased cannot be treated as strong circumstance against the appellant and only this circumstance is not sufficient for drawing inference that only appellant has committed homicidal death of deceased even otherwise Court below was under obligation to put the aforesaid adverse circumstance to appellant under Section 313 of the Code for seeking explanation but trial Court has not asked any question relating to this adverse circumstance. Prosecution has also not established the fact that at the time of such incident’appellant was present in his house. In the present case, one circumstance i.e. giving false explanation is not sufficient to complete the chain of circumstance. ln absence of other circumstance conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC is not sustainable under the law. 15.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the l.P.C. is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. Appellant is in jail. He be set at liberty and be released forthwith, if not required in any other Vijay case. Sdl- l r Sdl- Chandrakar j T.P.Sharrna L ‘ Judge Rangnath ’ Judge