31T^T^»Tl?;ri?T WIT 3?Tr^r }^Tii^ e c <$T7C| •^1<11 <>'>*), y>Tfl<1<|fi, Is|<yi>|^|^< TOW ^TO-^A.^-^^A:...-.. 3n^?r x^^ (1I?^5|^T) ^2001 ^wi^R iiRa ^n^r APPE-LLANT: (In JaU) Gr»i<<F<yi<ili *ii*l^*y ^fft^ <Fs{^|< IR'^rRpT 3T[^f -Vers EESPQNDENT: LIS- (Criniuiai Appeal uiider Divistoa Beriela: - Hoa^ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo & Hoa'ble Sliri Suail Kumar Sit ;ti Sudru, son of Lakhniu, aged 40 years, resident of Katiyarras, P. S. Daiitewada, District Daatewada (Bastar) (c.a) State of Cliliattisgarh, Thi'ough P. S. Daatewada, Distt. Dantewada. 33-8-300'7:- Shri Suryakaiit Mishra, Shri Ashish Shiikla, Ad Akhil Mishra/ Paael Law^^er foi| Oraljudginent dictated <j BUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. This appeal is du'ected aad onler of sentence dated Speciai Judge, Scheduled Cas| Atrocities) Act aad Additional; •tion 374 (2) ofthe Cr.P.C.) ha, JJ. ^ounsel for the appeUaiit. iitional Public Prosecutor wifll Shri flie State/respondent. ^n Dais, agahist fhe jiidgnient of couviction 6th Septeniber, 2001 passed by the |:es & Schediiled Tribes (Prevention of |Sessions Judge; Basfar at Jagdalpiir appellaat guilty fbr COHILJIIU^ ^••:'s"^^. ,L 2/2007—50,UOO. in S.T. No.317/2000 wherctijy the said Com-t, after holdyig the sion of offence piuiishable under l;;i'. w^- <li7c| '^l<l|<!<>-i^ yiTfi'M<l<S,(c|<?'>l^^< NWdl *t<jcb '-'—-"l"l-""A-^"^-^-.""...^ w^ ^ra^ (4<!il^<^T) ^n^TM'f?^ WIT 3?n^r )I^R ^<nw ^Tf??r 3in^r e Section 302 ofthe I.P.C,, senti for life & to pay a fine of Rs.5| further iindergo R.I. for one ye| ^- _. .•• The brief facts are that| accused, First wife of the xsiamed to the accused 7 ye^ ^»i<if<n<i1i^[^ 'S[^S ^H^R IR'^fRPRT 3TI^t tknced hioi to undergo impnsonment )0/ -, in default of paynient of fine to ar. Uaiiki Bei is the second wife of the kcciised has died< Jaaki Bai was Irs prior to the date of fhe iacident She was having 3 issiies fro^n the accused. Her eldest son Ajit (siace deceased) was aged a| accused casiie to fhe hoiisel qnarrel wifh Janki Bai. On ofher children aad went to iti for sleepuig ui the night. Thj son Ajit were only two persou} niomuig, she returaed back (boiit 5 years. On 22-7-2000, tlie in dnuiken CQiiditioii aiid he had Jhe said uicideiit, Jaaki Bai took her |e hozise of her brofher-in-law Siidni ^ acciised/appeUant and their eldest ^ in tlie hoiise. On 23-7-2000, in the f:6 the hozise. She saw that Ajit was lyuig on niat and his body ^fas covered wifh blaaket Jaaki Bai that Ajit has died. Blood was oozuig she caUed her fatiier-ui-law Lakhraii. |^s some iiyury on fhe ueck of the |:s also gafhered therc, They also saw first uiformatioii report Ex.P/1 was |i Dmiteivada by Jaiiki Bai. Merg ^x.P/13. jiwestigation, the iiivestigatmg officer |ander Ex.P/4. Inqziest on the dead renioved fhe blanket and sa^/vl out from his moiifh. On thisj They all saw tiiat there w^ deceased. Maoy other viUage| the dead body. Ultiniately, l6dged ia the Police Statio| iiitioiation was lodped under During the course of gave notice tp'(Iie Paricha^ t';::i • ...' ^^.^•: Y07—50,000. 3^T -^Ml<<>^, ^TQ-M1!^, fs|<<i>l^^< 'WIW **<i<b""" " "" ^<^"":"^ 200 f 3n^?r xra'ER ((i^lc<<^) ^n^Tj^T'RpihF WT ^fl^D^h^lcb c pr^pared ^erc wa^ bodv of the deceased was custody, the acciised gave omaments of liis wife. luemoraliduni, omainents identification of omaments under Ex.P/10. Site plan pf underEx.P/15. The body under reqzusitiou Ex.P/16. B.K. Tirki^ who prepared his cause of death was honiicidal ia uattirc. Duriiig foUownig syniptoms aad mjiiri^s under Ex. P/5. In the police m^mormidiiBi under Ex. P/ 6 regarduig |n pursiiance of the aforesaid seized iiuder Ex. P/ 9. The conducted by Execiitive Magistrate place of occzirrence was prepared deceased was sent for postinortesii postixiortem. was conducted by Dr. ireport Ex.P/16-A. He opuied that dzie to fhrottliiig, which was course of postraortem, he noticed fhe offllie Tlle asphy^ia ihe (i) Face bhush ia colour, (ii) Tongue bitten belween i^ (iu) Both eyes were swollen (iv) Froth was coniuig but (v) Echymosis were present| (vi) Head tilted towards rigliJ On further examuiationj base pf his skiill. About inju|ies that tlley were caiised by fuig^r 12-18 hours. Injziries were an|te After coiapletion of us ^246—2/2007—50,000. <=M<ii<n<ilt 'WT^f ^f 'f^rct <R(i<^i< ^F 3iTfhHgTT^?f Ipper aud lower teeth, ^iid conjunctiva are congested, fr^in nostrils, |on the neck, 3 ui number, side, he found that there was fracttire of on the neck, he gave his opinion Uke object and cluration was aboiit te inortem in nature. lal iavestigation/ charge sheet was filed m the (^©iiriof Clil^^|E<lici^ Magistrate^ Dantewada. who ia 3^T r<1l^l<»>^, ?5TfftTTTS, f«l<>i>l^^< wwr ^fe&-^02.^.-........,~....^ 2^ 3n^?r Ti?ra? (4C<^<^T) ^ 3?Ti^?r^rR^icb '?CT3?n^T}$n^Ic|» c -./ ttira committed the case to the| froin whera1 case was receN Sessions Judge, Jagdalpiir, wl-^o tfae accused/appellaat as afore^ Jiid|ge Acco3(duig Learned Special circumstaatial evidence. between husbaad aad wife in coinpajiy of the husband alont mi the house of brother-ili-1 house of husbaiid. When shd saw fhe dead body of the decj report, it was foiind fhat circusiistances cozipled with his examuiation under Sectioal he has been falsely ioiplicate4 Ajit had died on accoiint of inainly based. tbe Learned cozinsel for evidence of inofher of deceasfcd reliable, He also argues that other evidence in fhis case, tumed hostile, thereforc, appeUaat caiinot be sustamedj •\:'.::''.1",'-^;^ •^'-^.w. ,^007—50,000. <=pHf<n<ilt *ii*l<?ff '?f 'ft1^ iF^^K ^^fRm^Tr^f Court ofSessions Judge^ Jagdalpiir >d an transfer by the Additional condiicted the tdal and convicted said. has based conviction 011 to hiin, fherc was sonie qiiarrel |the ilight due to which wife left the a^ with faer two chUdren for sleepiiig i^ aiid flie deceased was left in the retiinied back in the niomuig, she 'ased lying ia tlie hoiise. After fhe tleafh was homicidal. On these etcplaiiation giveii by the accused ia 313 Cr.P.C. ia which he stated that ia fhis case and his son deceased flliiess/ conviction of ttie acciised is ; accused/appeUaat argnes fhat iiainely, Jaaki Bai (PW-1) is iiot apart from her evidence, there is no as nearly all ofher witnesses have aiid sentence awarded to the contiction ^•^ XI-eC—78 ^TI^T ?RT f<'lJch TT^TT 'STT^T ^FRW 'l^. 3:5:£T^TFTT^PT, ^Tft^<l<o, fa^l'y^ MINdl sb^ldb CT.A- |o?^ " ""^ 2001 , ^s) 3H^T XRRF (li^lfl<<^) ^cir^R ^rf^r ^n^T On the other haiidj argiiraents and supports ^ sentence passed by the tria]| We have heard leameki have aiso perused record of| counsel for the parties at lengfh and tlie Sessions case. tffie Adniittedly, convictic|?i circiinistantial evidence. Sd evidence is coucemed, in Thaki-an 8& Aar.1 tlie Ap^ pertaiaiiig to cu'cii2iistaatia| the siibject held aad reitera^ of law fhat wheu the case re( evidence niiist satisfy the fo^ a(l} The circunistaii^ sought to be drawn, (2) Those circuu: unerriiigtypomtmg circumst^iices (3) The circumstaii^ chaiii so coniplete conchision fhat withn committed by the accit s 2007 (4)SBR 321 <=hl^i<rl<lfl'1 "HTR^f ^fe^t <F3i^i< ^ 3tfW 371^T leamed State counsel opposes the jzidgnient of conviction aad order of Court. of the appellmit is based upon far as law ui relation to circiiinstantial matter of State of Qoa Vo |x Court, ia fhe seriea of prmciples evidence aad tests to be applied on |ted fhat it is a weU settled proposition ^ts upon circiinistantial evideuce, siich ^owiagtests:- t;es from which aa iiiference of guilt is ii^ust be cogentiy aad firmly estabUshed; to^ards shoiild be of a defuiite tendency gziilt ofthe accused; ^es, taken ciinizilatively, shoiilcl form a piat fhere is no escape from fhe ^ aU hziinan probabUity the cnme was {sed aad none else and XI-HC—78 1RTq^(T 3:n^T^ R'ii<=h ^T8n 'sn^r s^+4ic^ ^.- -^ 3:^T ^Nl^<4, ^Tfl^'KS, [s|<?i>iy^< ^,........Cv...ft......l.o^,,,..^ ^^ ^ 3T^?T XR^ (4clflc<<^) ^^TTW^Itn 3?Tt?T (4) The coiivictioii inust be any other hypothesis siicli evidesice should the accused but cu'cunistaiitial evidence ui oider to sustam co|iiplete and mcapable of explaiiation of fhan that of gziilt of the. accused aiid not only be consistent with the guilt of be uiconsistent with his iniioceiice/" shoull If we exaoiiiie evid circunista-nces are appearm; coitie > the appeUaat had there was qiiarrel be1 fatefal night dzie to and went to sleep in her tivo children; > adsiiittedly, tlie dece^ persoiis left ia the > when the inother oi Diomuig, she. saw th< was covered with > when blaaket was died and he had also > tlie accused gave ^ Cr.P.C. that the deatt f<rt^iri ^i^<rtl ^fe^t <H3i<^i< ^T'3tRR31T^r knce of PW-1 Jaaki Bm, foUowmg agahist the appellant:- roasii m drunken conditioii m tlie house, .veen the appeUant aad his wife m the ^hich wife left the iiiatrmionial hoiise the house of brofher-iii-law along with sed aiid the appeUaut were only two on the fateful night, bla-iiket tlie deceased retunied back m the .t boy was lying on the mat, his body and the appeUaat was not present, reisiovedI, she could see tliat the boy had !sustained mJTiries on his neck, alse explaiiation under Section 313 of his son has occiUTed 011 accozuit of XI-HC—78 3:5^r ^MI^^, ^Tn'y^g, (s)0i<i^< "^INdl sb^lcb .(l.v.-...A:', ? -CT^ 200 i- - 2?) 3TRt5T W^K (^f^^ ) 3^T ??T f<rl[<=h J 1cT8ff 'STT^T 5b^icb aahafc" '^ffW^Rf^T 3?T^?T ^ iUness^, whereas in tl^ m.any ante morteui inj has ophied fhat caus) throttling & there wa^ le inedical evidence, the doctor noticed I'uries on the body of flie deceased aad ^ of death was asphyxia as a result of fracture ofbase ofhis skiiU, > the accused disap^eared oniaoients of his wif4 of the acciised and ^ conducted by the Exe{ So far as evidence ai chief, in 2-3 Unes, she hasi accoiint of iUness^ but w] Govenizaent Advocate, afte^ vide para-2 ofher depositid cbl<<ltoi<ii<1 "RTR?Tf ^Fs^l <r^<^K ^T-sfRFT ^TT^T froin the house along wiih which were recovered at the uistmice are diily identified in the identiGcation "zitive Magistrate. ^aiiist t]ie appeUaat is concemed, his wife PW-1 Jajiki Bai has tbinied hostile. In the exaiauiation iii deposed that her sou Ajit has died on lien she was cross-examuied by the declaring her hostile, she has stated, n, that it is true that her son Ajit was sleepnig along wifh his fat^ier, It is also true fhat she had left house ofher husband, It is| the hoiise of her liiisban^ assault, due to ajager, shej categoricaUy adniitted that along with his fafher. S] nioming when she retume(| deceased was lying dead. S| that body of fhe deceased] renioved blaiiket and had | also true that there are m.aiiy rooias in. 1. When he assazilted her, after the went to the different rooin, She has ^eceased Ajit was sleepiag ui the room |ie has ftirther admitted tliat ia the back to her hoiise, she saw that the lie has also admitted that she had seen was covered wifh blaaket. She had ^een her son, She has also adniitted XI-HC—78 3TI^T^T f<^Jch TT^T 3TR?T st>^|ch h- T^T^FTT^T, ^Tfl^'Ko, ts)^iy^< wq^n- ^^^••••••••^•••••^•••••••••—^••^•••—•^ 200:1. 3^?r xnw (4^f^<^) '^TT^R ^rf^T 3:TT^T that Bftcr all these^ she had| thereafter ihey had gone. adniitted that the report wa^ para-3 of her depositionl participated ia the identifi^ adniitted that iii the Tehsil sUver Perpatti aad one Gur| with 12 No. ofgolden bead)) para-3 that when she had uight, he was alright. Wh^| she saw that he was IYUI^ deposed that the deceased had left him., Though, this] froiii the above evidence of| estabUshed: > she was assaulted by he^ > on account of such ass^i husbaad along wifli herj house of her brofher-iii-lt > her eldest son namely, appeUant ia the room wl^ <=t)i<Lif<yt<flri 'HR^f ^f^^i <r3i<^i< ^ ^tRw'sn^T gone to Kotwar aad Patel of fhe village, l-o the poUce station. She has also ^ lodged ui the poUce station by her. In she has adniitted that she had ation of oniaBients. She has fiirther Office she had identiified one pair of ya (oraaiiient of iieck which was fitted She has siiost specificaUy deposed ia left her son witii the appeUaat in flie ?n she rettimed back ia the inomuig, ^ dead ia fhe honse. She has also ^as lymg at the same place where she witaess has been declared hostile, biit this witness, followiag thiiigs are fuUy husband m the fateful night, ult, m aager, she left tfae house of her two chUdren aiid went to sleep ia the 1W, Ajit was left by her along with the o was sleepiiig on the mat, 3TT^?r,^Tl^ricF )^hNlcb e ss- .-^ 3^T^I^I<?i^, ^TTl-M^Ko, {s|<r!>l^< fa.:.».A....Joll^...._ ^ffCT ^q^--^—-"—"""^^-^-^-^ 200 J-. 3ilip?T XRR? (^f^SI^T) 'S'CTW^ftef 3i1T^T > when she returaed back t body of her son was coverg^ aiid saw that son has died, > the accused was uot presei3|t m the monimg in flie house, ^ a proceediag of identificati^n Magistrate aiid she had g|3ii< identified her omanients. was conducted by the Executive ;t?ne to Tehsil Office where she had Investigatuig Officer examuied as PW-7. Apart fr^ uivestigation, he has deposed 23-7-2000, m presence of cnstody and has prepared arr^ the acciised had given uecklace, which were kept b| brofher najiiely, Ludni. proved as Ex.P/6. Vide inersioraaduni aforesaid articy accused aiid seizure iDLerao Exl nfeiiiely exaiaiaed as PW-4. ideiitification iii Tehsil Kaiyal| identification was pertaiiiin.g golden necklice: After ^ii^t^ CM<<f<n<ilvi 'WI^f ^f 'feT3)1 <F»i^i< ^7 ^fRpT ^TT^T i tlie iiiomiiig, she could see that with blaaket. She removed blanket Rajendra Pathak has been >m ofher evidence pertaiiiing to flie yide para-8 of his evidence that 011 iiesses, he took the acciised in his ast inenio Ex.P/7. Oii the same day, pertainiiig to Peipatti aad rhiia ia the hoiise of his younger Eiioranduni fo this effect has been a-9, he has deposed that on such ks were seized at the iiistaiice of the P/9 was prcparcd accordiiigly. witnesses, iQfolniation paija- G.R, KuUiara, who W€|s worki&g as Telisildar, has been He [has deposed tiiat he condzicted ^.ya, Dantewada on 26-8-2000. His to Perpatti, silver omaoients aad oi&er articles of siiiiilar tyr>e, these S/246—2/2007— 50,UOO. 3:^''<ii^i0^, ^Tn-y^i^, fsi^>i^< ^mw ^q^""""—•"""•••""."-"..":..—.^ 2001 - y^ IG^ER (^l^f^si^r) ^i^rNls;n? WT ^I^T>sr»*ii<so ^iw^nafn^r c ^- ^^. articles were put fo identlfica1 <=ni^f<n<Il<i ^i*i<?IT "^ ft%t ^^R ^tRPT^TT^f ioii to Jaaki Bai, who had rightly ideutified those articles. He h^s proved his ideutificafion nienio as Ex,P/10. Therefore, it is est^bUshed that ia the Diomiiig, the accused had lefit his hozise aad wife. The said omaments werd which were recovered at hisl yi4€iitified l3y his wife. Ap| examiaation ofthe acciised rcd reply to last questiou ie. que| he had also takeu oniaments of his hiddeu ia fhe hoiise ofhis brofher, iastaace, Ultimately, they were jirt froin above, if we look iato (orded zuider Section 313 Cr.P.C., ia ^tion No.20, the accused has given explariation that his son has djied on accoiuif of iUness and he has been falsely iinplicated in this In fhe matter of Trin] Maharashtra2 the Apex Cou circumstantial evidence wherel "ase. lukh Maroti IQrkan V. State of |rt held tfaat aln a case based on no eye-witness accouiit is available, there is asiother priiiciple ofla|w which niiist be kept ia niiiid. The priiiciple is that when aii incrjLaiuiatuig circiinistance is piit to the acciised aad the said acciis€d|eifher offers no explaaation or offers an. explaaatioii which is fo^irid to be zuitrue, then the saBie the chaia of circzim.staiices to niake Ihas also referred to decisions ia flie ']ftu V. Rajendran [(1999) 8 SCC 679 ^avindra PrakashMittal [AIR 1992 SC (jyashfra V: Suresh [(2000) 1 SCC471 beconies aii additional Uiik u^ it coinplete." The Apex Court| in.atters of State of Tasnil Na\ (para-6)], Staie ofU.P. V. Dr. I{ 2045 (para-40)], Stciie ofMah^ 2200<5AtRSCW5aOO:l •^.•h •;s"A^^ GRPKJ ~ ^S/246—2/2007— 50,000. (para-27)], Ganesh Lal V. St^.te of Rajasihan [('2002) 1 SCC 731 m' ^•Ijl'., ^.?' XI-HC—78 3^T^T'f^ti^ ^T^ ^n^r^Hi^ lc^ .-^ ^wT ^i^i^, •^Tn*i<i<o, is<^'^i< ...Cl'..A....lol..z^.. ^EWTT'aW^ 3^TT|3R; (^?R?) -^nw'^r3^ —^ 2001 / -Sf^^TV^ ^-fe^-^^ ip^tRR (para-15)] and Gulab Chan^ V. Sfate of M.P. [(1995) 3 SCC 574 (para-4)]. After examming fhe e|itire material available on record, we are ofthe considered opinioti that chaia of circumstaiices, m this case, is complete. There is ^iardty any donbt of coming aay fhml person to commit murder of^he deceased. To siim zip, we may say that on the fateful night, hiisband aud wife, thereafter| aJong with her two chUdrcn| brofher-ia-law. Her eldest sol firstly there was quaiTel betiveen wife left the corapany of the husbaiid aad went to sleep m fhe hoiise of Ajit (deceased) was lyiiig along wifh father iii fhe house. He wa|s sleepiiig. V/hen wife came m fhe nioraing ia the house, she s€|w dead body of her son lyuig on the mat where it xvas left by her|m the night, which was covered by blaiiket. There were mjuri^s on the body of the deceased. Hiisband was missmg from th^ hoiise. Omaments of the deceased were also niissing. Omamen^s were recovered at the uistaiice of hiisbaiid aad they were dul\\ identiiied by wife. Husbaiid has offered no explaiiation regard^ng death of his son, rather he has given false mformation in this ^-gard, he has stated that deatii has occiuTed on accoiuit of iUiies^, It has been proved by medical evidence that death was hoi4icidal m natui^, apm-t from that, many mjuries were present 0^1 the neck, tliere was fracture of lower portion of the skiiU. The^'eforc, aU these circumstaiices lead ^—^——u to onty concliision that the acjcnsed was culprit m the crime m [ ^ - .XI-HC—78 I ' ^ <' <-- ^^ ?FT f<tl[<=h | ^^T ^n^r 9FRNr c- bNrtNN^ Ban^e / ^ 75ST ^l^l^, ^Tft*14 , fs|<ri'l<-1^< 12 ^HI^Idl *^l|eb .^v..:...A:......!0.2^. 3^?r ^r^ (4<^?l^<^) •^ 200j . &0; '^TTW^f^T 3:n^T question aiid there cajii be| view. In the result^ we do deserves to be disinissed add Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge lot find any force ia this appeal^ saaie d is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^l^lid^-l^^ ^ft^ ^^K ^'stRFT 3?T^T hardly aay room. for takuig aay other ,--;^^3^.