HlGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CORAM: ‘ Hon’ble Shri Ra'eev Gu ta C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha J N Ramkumar Dewangan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh JUDGMENT ' 1 Criminal Aggeal No. 4O of 2009 For consideratian Sl— d Judge HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA N Post for Judgment :§/05/20'0‘£ Sdl- sunil Kumar Sinha Judge j, gfSunil Kumar Sinha Chief Jus‘ice « HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Raieev Gupta, C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Criminal Apgeal No. 40 of 2009 APPELLANT Ramkumar Dewangan S/o Mahetru Dewangan, Aged about 24 years, (Now 31 years) R/o Vinage Tundra, Police Station Bilaigarh, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENT . State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Polic‘e Station : Bilaigarh, District : Raipur (C.G.) (Agpeal under Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure) Appearance: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Counsei for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Shukla, Govt. Advocate for the State. JUDGMENT (05.05.2009) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) Appellant Ramkumar Dewangan stands convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500I—, in default of payment of fine to further undergoR.l. for 6 months, by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazaar, District Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 352/2000 on 17.8.2001. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Deceased Bharatlal' was the brother—in-law (Sada-wife’s sister’s husband) of the appellant. Daughters of Gangaram were x ,,,,\WAR..Q“ 2 married to them. The appellant was not keeping good elations with the deceased as also Gangaram. The allegations are that on account of previous enmity, on 17.8.2000 bout 6-6.30 a.m., the appellant assaulted the deceased ith lathi near the house of Santram atnami (PW-2). The deceased received many injuries and succumbed to those injuries. Khusiram saw the dead body. h He immediately informed the brother of the deceased, namely Dayal Prasad Dwangan PW-1). Dayal Prasad Dewangan went to the scene of occurrence, sawthe dead body and the injuries sstained by the deceased. The ead body was lying on the road. Since the incident had taken place near the house of Santram Satnami (PW-2) and Santram had witnessed the occurrence, Dayal Prasad was duly briefed by him. Thereafter, Dayal Prasal (PW-1) lodged the First information Report (Ex.—P/2). The Investigating Officer reahed to the scene of occurrence, gave notice (Ex.-P/5) to th Panchas and prepared inuest (Ex.- 6) on the body of the deceased. The cloths of the appellant were seized under x.-P/9. Various articles, including blood stained soil and plain soil were seized from the place of occurrence under Ex.- P/12. The dead body of the decased as sent for its post-mortem e w to Primary Health Centre,‘ Bilaigarh, Raipur under Ex.-P/14-A, > where the post-mortem examination ws conducted by Dr. Narayan a Singh (PW-6), who repared his report Ex.—P/14. He noticed many 1 p external injuries on various parts of the body, includin the head of g the deeased. On internal examination, he found cltted blood c o \ present beneath te external injuries. The Autopsy Surgeon opined Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2009 r at a w S e ( u d c e q P/ E h 3V Criminal Apgeal No. 40 of 2009 that the deceased died on account of cerebral shock as a result of head injuries, due to which the vessels going to the brain were cut and the death was homicidal in nature. In further investigation, after taking the accused/appellant into custody his memorandum (Ex.-P/7), u/s 27 of the Evidence Act, was recorded, in pursuance of which, a danda was seized at the instance of the appellant under Ex.-P/8. The cloths of the deceased were also seized under Ex.-P/11. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur under Ex.—Pl16, from where, a report (Ex.-P/20) was rceived. Accordi to the F.S.L. report, blood stains were found on all the articles, including danda except the plain soil and the pieces of nails of the appellant. The articles were further sent for their serologist examination, but the serologist report could not be produced. (3) After completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of concerned Magistrate, ho in turn committed the matter to the Court of Sessions Judge, Raipur, from where, it was received on transfer by the Second Additional Sessions udge, Balodabazaar, Raipur, who conducted the trial and‘ convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant s aforementioned. (4) The conviction of the appeHant is based upon the testimonies o 3 eye witnesses, namely Santram (PW-2), Mahetru (PW—5 - father of the appellant) and Ghasnin Bai (PW—4) supported by the evidence of Dayal e ng w J a f 4 @ Criminal Aggeal No. 40 of 2009 Prasad Dewangan (PW-1) and the F.l.R. (Ex.-P/2) as also post-mortem report of Doctor Narayan Singh (PW-16). (5) Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has not disputed the homicidal death of the deceased. Moreover, it comes in the evidence of Dr. Narayan Singh (PW-16) and in the post-mortem report (Ex.-P/14) that the deceased received many external injuries and his death was on account of cerebral shock as a result of head injuries, due to which the vessels going to the brain were cut and the death was homicidal in nature, which remained unchallenged. Therefore, it was established that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. (6) Mr. Sharma argued that the 3 eye witnesses were not reliable and the conviction based on their testimonies cannot be sustained. (7) On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and ”A? (a- supported the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court. (8) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the sessions case. (9) PW—2, Santram, deposed that on the fateful day, in the morning, Mehatrin Bai came to his house. She was collecting cow—dung in front of his house. Mehatrin came there for taking him for labour work. He said that “today, he will not go for labour work in her house because he is \going to the house of Motichand". When they were on the way, he heard \ \ 5 Criminal Aypeal No. 40 of 2009 some noise and saw that a person was lying on the road and appellant Ramkumar was assaulting him with danda. Mehatrin asked him to see as to who is he. At that time, father of the appellant, Mahetru (PW-5), also reached there. Mahetru tried to intervene, on which, Ramkumar said him to go away from that place, othenlvise, he will assault him also. Whe'n the appellant left the scene of occurrence, they reached near the person lying on the ground and saw that he was deceased, Bharatlal, brother-in-law of the appellant. The version of Santram (PW-2) is duly corroborated by the M, contents of the F.l.R., which was lodged by brother of the deceased, namely Dayal Prasad Dewangan (PW-1 ) who was duly briefed by PW-2. (10) PW—5, Mahetru, is the father of the appellant. He deposed that on the fateful day he was working in his house. On hearing some noise, he saw that his son Ramkumar was assaulting deceased Bharatlal. He immediately rushed to the spot, by that time, Bharatlal had fell down on the ground and Ramkumar was assaulting him. He asked Ramkumar as to why he is assaulting, on which, Ramkumar said him to go away sis othenlvise he will assault him by danda. After sometime, Ramkumar left l‘ the scene of occurrence. (11) PW—4, Ghasnin Bai, also deposed in same fashion corroborating the evidence of Santram (PW-2) and Mahetru (PW—5). (12) Though these witnesses have been put to lengthy cross examination by the counsel for the defence but the defence has not been able to elicit any such circumstance, on which, either their testimonies \nay be discarded or it may be held that these witnesses were not present 6 on the scene of occurrence or they were faisely implicaing the ppeilant t a in crime in question. (13) PW—5, Mahetru, is the father of the appeilant. It is nobody’s case that he was inimical to the appellant. Why a father wiii faisely implicate his son and conceai the actual culprit in a heinous crime like murder ? No foundation has been Iaid down by the defence to impeach the’ credibility of these witnesses either on account of their interestedness or false implication or their plantation in the case. The incidet too place on a n k common road. It was a morning time and at that‘time, normally, the villagers go to their work. In appreciation of evidence of these witnesses, we do not find any reason to discard their testimonies and the argumnts e advanced by learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. (14) We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgmentand finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. (15) The appeal has no merits, the ae is liable to be dismissed and is sm . ... .. 3% Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2009 accordingly dismissed. Sdl- sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Chief Justice Judge vatti