HIGH COUHT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2001 ^ CORAM: HON'BLE MR.T.P.SHASMA 8s HON'BLE MR. N.K. Agarwal, JJ. APPELLANT (InJafl) RESPONDENT Fulshay, Son ofJagannath, resident of vfllage - Basan^pur, . Police Station- Janjgir,Distt. Jangeer, Champa (Chhattisgarh Versus <f. State af Chhattisearh (CRMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 OFTHE CODE OF CRMINAL PROGEDURE, 1973) Presenfc- Mr. Abhay Tiwari, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Rakesh Jha, Dy. Govt. Advocate, for fhe (Passed on 7th Januaiy, 2010) The judgment of the Cozirt was .delivered by T.P.Sharma, J,: T- 1. Challenge in (his appeal is to fhe judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 22-12-2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, JaiTJgu' m Sessions Trial No. 22/97 whereby and whereunder leamed Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty for commission of offence of hoBiicidal deafh amounttng to murder of Ramkali, eonvicted tfae appeUant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced' him to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,OOQ/-. 2. Judgmentis impugned on fbe ground thatwifhout there betni credible evidence to connect tihe appeBant in tlie crime iii question, fhe Court below has convicted and sentenced the " appellant as aforementioned and fhereby committed iUegality. 3, Tfae ease &f prosecution, in brief, is fhat on fateful day of 11-9- 96-fif about 9.00 A.M..deceased Ramkali was present m the Si 1 ! :1 i ll!l ^ii Iiouse of Phoolbai (P.W. 3). The appeUant caine wifh axe. The deceased asked the appellant as to why he has come, then the appellant told her that he wUl kill her. At that tmie, Ku. Vunla (P.W. 2) daughter oftee deceased and Phoolbai (P.W. 3), owiier of fhe house were present. The appellant assaulted the deceased by axe and caused repeated injuries. The deceased fell down and died. Phoolbail (P.W. 3) lodged First Information Report immediately vide Ex. P-6. PoUce also recorded Merg liiitimation and proceeded for spot. After siimmordng the witnesses vide Ex. P-1, inguest over the dead body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex. P-2. Dead body was sent for autopsy to fhe Oovemment Hospital, Janjgu- vide Ex. P-8. Autopsy was conducted by P.W. 6 Dr. Arvtnd Dwlvedi vlde Ex. P-9 and he found foUowkig injuries:- i. Incised woiuid of8x 3 x 2.5 cm over fhe back ofneck, spinal cord was cut; ii. Incised wound of5 x 2 x2 cm over left parietal region including cut fracture of right parietal bone. Brain was also damaged; iii.' Incised wound of 6 x 2.5 c.m. x bone deep over left mandibular region; and iv. Stab wound over left thigh of 0.75 x 0.75 x 3 c.m. Deafh was due to shock and homicidal in nattire. At fhe time of deatii, flie deceased was pregnant. Her sealed cloths were seized vlde Ex. P-7. Axe was seized vide Ex. P-3 from. Bhagwat Prasad. Blood stained and plain soU were recovered from the spot vide Ex. P-5. After seiziire of fhe axe, fhe disclosure statement of the axe made by fhe accused was recorded vide Ex. P-17. Blood stained clothes of fhe accused was seized vide Ex. P-18. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination vide Ex. P-19. Presence of blood over fhe clothes seized from the accused was confirmed vide Ex. P-23. Statements offhe witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code pf Criminal Procediire,- 1973 (hereinafter refeired fo as Kitlll Nlili fhe Code'), After coinpletion of investigation, charge sheet was filed ia fhe Court ofJudicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgu' who ui turn cominitted the case to fhe Court of the Sessions Judge, Janjgir from where Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgtr received the same on transfer for trial. 5. In order to prove tfae guilt of the appellant/accused, prosecution examraed as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused /appeUant was also recorded iinder Section 313 of the Code where he denied the circumstances appearing against him and claimed innocencd,' and false impUcatlon. Accused also adduced defence evidence.of D.W. 1 Kartikram, who deposed fhat one day prior to fhe date of incident, the accused was present in the poMce station. 6. After affording an opportiinity ofhearing to the parties, leamed Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgu- has convlcted and senfenced the appeUant as aforementioned. 7. We have heard Mr. Abhay Tiwari, leamed counsel for the appeUant and Mr. Rakesh Jha, leamed Dy. Govermnent Advocate for the State/respondent and perused the judgment impugned and record ofthe Court below. 8. Leamed counsel for the appeUant vehementty argued that the prosecution has concocted the case and even the disclosure statement has been recorded after rccoveiy ofthe article. P.W. 2 Ku. Vimla, child wltness and P.W. 3 Fhoolbai are interested witnesses. Their statements are not safe to rely without any fl-ufher corroboration. 9. On the other hand, leamed State counsel supported the judgment impugned and argued that P.W. 2 Ku. Vimla and P.W. 3 Phoolbai are natural witaesses, their presence at the time ofincidentwas natural-.The^' have seen the incident. P.W. 3 has promptly lodged the report. The evidence adduced on behalf of fhe prosecution is siifilcient for conviction of the appellaat. '•/• w 10. In order to appreciate fhe argument advanced on befaalf of the leamed counsel for the parties, we have exaiuined the evidence adduced on behalf of fhe parties. \ 11. In fhe present case, homicidal deafh as a result of iajury sustained by Ramkali is not substantiafly disputed, on the other haad, the evidence of P.W.6 Dr. Arviad Dwivedi aad autopsy report Ex. P»9 whieh reveals fhat there was fatal mcised wound iacluding fractiire on vital part of the deceased and spinal cord was found cut are suflicient for confirming the death as homicidal in natui?e. ^. 12. As regards the complicity of the appellant in the crime is question, conviction is based on fhe evidence of eye-witnesses P.W. 2 Ku.-Vimla and P.W. 3 Phoolbai. P.W. 3 Phoolbai has deposed in her evidence fhat at fhe time ofincident at about 8 to 9 a.m., she was present in ber house. Deceased RamkaU was also sitting beside fhe wall. AppeUant came with axc. The deceased asked the appellant as to why he has come with axe, fhen the appeUant told that he wUl kill her. They tried to resist but fhe appeUant tnflicted uijury over the neck of Ramkali by axe and Ramkali fell down. P.W. 2 Ku. Vimla has deposed fhat at fhe time of incident, the appeHant came wifh axe towards the house of Phoolbai. She also went to the house of Phoolbai. The accused assaulted her mother by axe over her neck. He repeatedly caused injuries to the deceased. The deceased fell down and died. Then tfae appellant fled away fi-om the spot She went to the house of her matemal Lincle and narrated the tncident to her relatives. The defence has eross-examined this witness at length. Though fhere is some omission and contradiction in her statement but fhey are not fatal to tlie prosecution. She has categorically supported the case of the prosecutian in her evidence. The defence has also cross- examined thls witaess at length but has not been able to elicit anything in her CTOss-examination to show that the appeUant has not caused fatal injury over the neck of RamkaU. Evidence of'these witnesses inspires cortGdence, trustwrorthy and safe to \ rely. (V f^ 13. The appeUant has caused several injuries over vital part of the body of Ramkali who came with axe where Ramkali was sitting. The accused caused several fatal injuries which shows his grave intention cf causing homicidal death amounting to murder of Raiakali. 14. After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Additional Sessions J^dge has convicted fhe appeUant under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to luidei^o 'imprisonment for Bfe wlth a fine ofRs. 1,000/-. The conviction is based on credible aad cBnching evidence sustamable tinder the law. v 15. For the foregoing reasons, we db not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal is Hable to the dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge Sd/- N.K.AgrawaI Judge ill