-^^.'^\ JJ : :»'*^ X'?- •E1::K^^ "'iS^p'" @ HIGH COUKT ORCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI T.P.SHARMA AND HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR. JJ. Appellant (in jail) RESPONDENT djminat Appeal No.680 of 2005 Sonadhar Maria, S/o Lakhmuram Maria, aged 35 years, Occupation ~ Labour, R/o ,at viliage - Bagmohalai, Harkam Para, P.S. Bhanpuri, Tahsil Jagdalpur, Dist. Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS Stete of C.G. through P.S. - Bhanpuri, Dist. Bastar (Jagdalpur). Criminal Appeal under Section 372 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code Appearance: Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, counsel for the appellant. Smt. Madhu NishaSingh, P.L. for the State. ORALORDER (Passedon 27.06.2011) Per T.P.Sharma.«J. Chaltenge in this appeal is to the judgment ofconviction and order of sentence dated 30tfl July, 2005 passed in S.T.No.147/2005 by the Se^ions Judge, Jagdatpur whereby and whereunder after holding the appeltant guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of his wife PremTOti, the Court below convicted theappellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. <: 2. The conviction is impugned on the ground tt»twithout any iota of evidence, the Court below convictBel and sentenced the appellants as aforemenUoned and thereby committed illegatity. 3. As per the case of prosecution, the appellant was residing wlth his wife Premvati (since deceased) and three kids in his house si&atBd Bagmohalai, Harkampara, P.S. Bhanpuri, Dist. Jagdalpur. On 2.4.2005 the appellant was present along with his wife and three Idds, where he assautod his wife and caused her instantaneous death. The apDellant made eAa 1 f^ judicial confession before Kirtjram P.W.1 , P.W.3 Shankar and other persons. On 4.4.2005 Kirtinam P.W.1 lodged F.I.R. at Police Station Bhanpuri wde Ex.P.1. Merg was recorded vide Ex.P.10. InvestigatingOfRcerlrttforscene of occurrence and after summoning the wttnesses vide ExP.5 and P.5A, inquest over the dead body was prepared vlde Ex.P.6. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P.2. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Civil Hospitsd, Bhanpuri vide Ex.P.12. P.W.4 Dr. A. Kachhap conducted ^e autopsy smd found the foltowing injuries: ' tj. 1. Multiple abradons over back and both knees. 2. Multiple abrasions of 10 x 8 cm in shape over b®thIhe hips. 3. Lacerated wound of 5x 4 cm. over forehead. 4. IVIultipleabrastonsoverboththeelbow]eintof7x5cin. 5. Fracture of nasal bone. 6. Laceration and chop of both ear (Pinna & Lobule) 7. Contusion over temporal regfon with Haematoma and fracture of temporal bone of5 x 5 cm. y Mode of death was shock and deatti was homicidal in nature. During the course of investigation, blood stained and plan soils were recovered on the spot vide Ex.P.3. Sealed cloths of the deceased was seized vide Ex.P.11. Bloodstained cloths of ttie deceased were seized vide Ex.P.9. Seized artictes were sent for chemical examination vide Ex.P.14 and blood was confirmed over lungi and other cloths of the appellarrt vida Ex.P.15. Statements of witnesses were recoreled under Section 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code"). 4. After completion of invesUgation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur, who in tum comraltted the case to the Court ofSessions. <: 5. In order to appreciate the guilt of the appdtant, prosecidion examined as many as 5 witnesses. Accused/appeltant was also •xaminad urKler Section 313 ofthe Code wherein he denied allthe ciroumstances appearing against hlm and innocence and fatse implication is clalmed. 6. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the teamed Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned in paragraph 1 ofthlsjudgment. 7. We have heard Smt.\Hamida Steldiqui and &nt. Madhu Nisha Singh, counsel for the parties at length and have pemsed the judgment impugned including record of the Court below. 8. Leamed counsel for ttie appellant vehemently argued that conviction of the appellant is substanh'ally based on ciraimstantial evlden<» and the evidence of extrajudicial confession made by the appeltant before P.W.1 Kirtiram and P.W.3 Shankar. bu^^Ahe aforesaid evidance does not inspire confidence and trustworthy and the same is not safe to rely for convietion of the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C.. 9. On the other ftand, leamed coureel for the State opposed and submitted ttiat the evidence <rf P.W.3 Shankar alone is suflteient for conviction ofthe appellant. 10. tn order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of ttie parties, we have examined the evidenced adduced on behalf of the prosecution. In ttie present case, homictelal death as a r®»ult®flatal injuiy found over the body of the decea»d Premvati has not been subdantially disputed on behalf of the appellant but on the other hand also establi*ed from the medical evidence of P.W.4 Dr. A.Kadihap and autopsy vide EX.P. 8 and death was homicidal in nature. 11. As regards complicity of the appetlant in crime in qu^tion, convicBon ofthe appellant is substantlalty based on the fotlowing circumstancas: i. Deceased Premvati was residing with his hustaand i.e. appellsnt at the time of incident and appellant was also present hi the house along with his wife. ii. Wife of the appellant i.e;.Premvati died as a result of fetel injury, in the house ofthe appellant. iii. Appellant has not oflered any expjanation ttiat how his wife dl«l and who has caused injury to his wife. iv. Present appellant has made exhra judteial cortiession of the guilt before the 12. As per evidence of P.W.3 Shankar, after commlssion of offence, the appellant visited his house and made extra judicial confessien on second day •^ moming that he has killei^ his wife. Defence has cross-examined Uiis witness and suggested that appellant residing with his wife and relations between them were cordial buton that date of incident how it had happened. This suggestion was supported with the case of prosecution that at the time of offence Uie appellant was present in his house and has kflled his wife. The aforesaid extra judicial confession coupled with the cireumstances that ttie appellant was present in his house along with his wife and three smatl ii --..-- • kids, the deceased died as a resutt: of fatat injury, offence was committed in secrecy and the present appellant has not offered any explanaiton, which was under obligation to <rffer, in terms of Section 1(»of fte Evidenee Act, that who has caused murder of his wife. ^4ore over, The appellant himself admitted the guilt before P.W.2 Shankar and madeextra judicial confession and the appellant has not lodged any infimation about tha deatti of his wife even after two days of the incident. If these circumstances are consictered together, the only interference would be possible that the appellant has caused homicidal amounting to murder of his wife and no ottier person has caused the aforesaid evidence and also exclude the possibility of innocence oftheappellant. 13. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the afyellant as aforementioned. 14. On close scrutiny of Uie evidence and material available on record, we do not find any illegality and infirmity In the impugned conviction and sentence ofthe appellant. 15. ConsequenUy, the appeal, being devoidof merit and substance, te Hable to be and is hereby dismissed, Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge