HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR xx DIVISION BENCH APPEAL UIS 374 (21 CR.P.C. K ORAL-JUDGEMENT (Passed on 22/01/2010] The following judgment of the Court was passed by M T.P. Shanna J:- I. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of 4‘ x CORAM.’ HON’BLE M . T.P. SHARMA 85 HON’BLE MR. R. L.‘ JHANWAR JJ. Criminal Agyeal No. \ APPELLANT 1039(2003 (IN JAIL) Majkuram Tikaitram, Aged Dhobi, 23 P.S. Years, Janjgir S/o Distt. Janjgir—champa . Xx RESPONDENT VERSUS (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh. v 2. The judgment is impugned on the ground that without any clinching and credible evidence Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant aforementioned and thereby committed an illegality. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on fateful day of 21/4/02 at about 6.30 A.M. deceased Bhuribai was going to take water from the Hand Pump at Village Hedaspur District Janjgir appellant who was having previous enmity came near the Hand Pump and assaulted the deceased by stick and caused instantaneously death of the deceased. PW3 Devcharan father—in-law of the deceased ‘has lodged the First Information Report promptly vide Ex. P—6. Marg was recorded Vide Ex. P—12. Investigating Officer left for the scene of occurrence. After summoning the Witnesses Vide Ex. P—l, inquest over the dead body of the deceased were prepared Vide Ex. P—2. Dead ‘body was sent for autopsy to District Hospital, Janjgir‘ Vide Ex. P— 8. Autopsy was conducted by a team of doctors PW7 i Dr. Anita Shrivastava and PW6 Dr. RS. Prabhakar Vide EX. P—9 and found following injuries:— (1) Lacerated wound over middle finger of 1 x 1/2 x 1/2 c.m'. (2) l depressed fracture of left maxilla and nasal bone. (3) Lacerated wound over right cheek of 1 x 1/2 X 1/.» c.m. (4) . Lacerated wound over right eyebrow of 3 x 1/2 xi 1/2 c.m. 7/» L. . .w~.«.&’nx L,” 3? and lacerated wound of 1 X 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. (5) Two lacerated wounds over occipital temporal region of 5 x 1/2 x skin deep of 4 X 1/2 c.m. x skin deep (7) Depressed fracture of right frontal and fracture of part of temporal bone. (8) Fracture of right jaw (9) Rupture of brain membrane of 1 x 1/2 c.m., brain matter was pulpy, tears were present over dura and brain. The cause of death was coma as a result of brain injury. Death was homicidal in nature. 4. Appellant was taken into custody he has made disclosure statement of Tenu stick vide Ex. P—3. The bléo'd stained Tenu stick was recovered at the instance of accused Vide EX. P—4. Blood stained Lungi was recovered from the accused vide Ex. P—5. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-7. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination vide Ex. P—16. Presence of blood over the Lungi of the accused, stick recovered from the accused were confirmed by chemical examination report vide Ex. P—17. i 5. Statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’). After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed before' the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Bilaspur. Learned Additional 69 Sessions Judge has received the case on transfer for trial. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused prosecution examined as well as 11 witnesses. Accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code where he denied the circumstances appearng against him; i innocency and false imlication is claimed. p 7. After affording an pportunity o hearing to the parties o f learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant aforementione. d 8. Lened counsel for the parties are heard. Judgment impugd and record of Court below perused. Learned counsel for the appellant vemently argued he that the parties wre in inimical terms and evidence of e entrusted witnesses without furter corroboration from ‘ h independent source would not be safe. . On the other hand, learned counsel for the 10 State/respondent opposed the appeal an submits that d the conviction is based on direct evidence of eyewitnesses PW2 Panchlal, PW3 Devcharan, PW4 Chandrabhan, recovery of blood stained stick and blood stained Lungi from the accused which are sufficient for conviction of the accused. ar ne @ 12. 11. In order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the parties we are examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. In the present case homicidal death as a result of ante— mortem injury of the deceased Bhuribaihas not been substantially disputed by the appellant otherwise also established by the evidence of PW6 Dr. R.S. Prabhakar, PW7 Anita Shrivastava and autopsy report Ex. P-9 which reveal that fatal injury over the head and brain including fracture was found over the dead body and death was homicidal in nature. 13. As regard the complicity of the appellant in crime in question is concerned the conviction is based on direct evidence of PW2 Panchlal, PW3 Devcharan 85 PW4 Chandrabhan. PW2 Panchlal has deposed in his evidence that at the time of incident at about 6.30 to 7 A.M. he was sitting in front of his house at that time appellant came with stick towards his house the i deceased was going for taking water the appellant assaulted the deceased over her nose then she fell down then. appellant repeatedly assaulted by stick to the deceased he shouted then Nanki Thakur, Asha and father of the Nanki Thakur came deceased Bhuribai died on the spot. PW3 another eye witness Devcharan has also deposed that at the time of incident Q he had gone towards pond to call of nature he heard the sound of children then he came he saw his daughter —in—law lying in the land and the accused has assaulted her he saw the injury over the face, head and back of his daughter—in-law other person were also present near the place of incident. PW4 Chandrabhan has deposed in his evidence that he heard the sound of high frequency that W33} W EH?! VET §” he immediately chased towards spot. He saw that appellant was assaulting the wife of Mangal namely Bhuribai by stick he tried to intercepted but also chased him then he ran away. In his cross examination PW2 Panchlal has deposed that at the time of incident Bhuribai was going for taking the water she was on a way after causing injury to the deceased, mother and u sister of the appellant came and they took the appellant to their house. Defence has cross examined this witness but has not asked anything to show that this witness has not seen the incident and appellant has not assaulted the deceased. l4. Defence has also cross examined the witness PW3 Deocharan in which he has stated that appellant has assaulted the deceased and after inflecting injury he went to his house. PW 4 Chandrabhan has deposed in Para—1 of his evidence that he has seen the incident but in Para-4 of his cross examination he do not knOW' about the Marpeet factum of causing injury to the deceased by the appellant have also been corroborated by the evidence of PW8 Ramsingh who has deposed that after hearing the sound of Panchlal he went to the spot and he has seen the incident. Presence of these witnesses at the time of incident specially after hearing the sound of Panchlal are natural. The statement of I aforesaid witnesses inspire confidence, trustworthy and safe to rely. The evidence of aforesaid witnesses are sufficient for drawing an inference that appellant has inflected the several injures over the body of the deceased and deceased died on the spot as a result of such injury instantaneously. Prosecution has also adduced the evidence relating to recovery of blood stained stick and Lungi at the instance of appellant vide Exs. P-3, P—4 8r, P—5, the pre‘sence of blood over the Lungi and Stick has been confirmed by the chemical examination report vide Ex. P—17. Appellant has not offered any explanation‘relating to presence of blood over the Lungi and stick seized from the possession of the accused this evidence is also corroborated piece of evidence. l a l As regard the question of motive is concerned the motive is only aid in criminality and in case of direct evidence it loses its importance. Motive can be inferred on the basis of the nature of injury, part of the body injured, weapon used and the manner of inflicting the injury. The aforesaid facts and circumstances are sufficient for drawing inference. In the present case deceased who was woman was going for taking water to Hand Pump, she was not holding any weapon. She was not quarreling with the appellant but appellant came with stick and caused repeated injury to the deceased including fracture of maxilla, nasal bone, face, temporal bone and right jaw shows that appellant has caused fatal injury which intent to cause the death of the deceased. After appreciating the evidence available on record i learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 of the £ Indian Penal Code for causing the homicidal death amounting to murder of Bhuribai. The conviction of the appellant is based on credible, clinching and reliable evidence sustainable under the law. Court below has also awarded the minimum sentence prescribed under the law. l7. For the foregoing reason, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned warranting any interference. The appeal is devoid of merits. Consequently, the criminal appeal is liable to be * :’ A dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. l Sd/- ”KEY. SHARMA sax- ’ 1E R.L. Jhanwar Edge Judge * :’