@ N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram : HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. criminal Aggai’ 40712004 Santosh,-. aged 'about 40 years 8/0 Bfijlal‘Halba, R/o Aianknhar PS Mohla, District Rajnandgaon (CG) y_s_ State of Chhattsgarh Through PS Mohia District Rajnandgacn (CG) Aggellant Aggeal under Section 374 12) Cr.P.c. Present : Sahu, Shri DR counsei Sharma, for Senior the appellant. Counsel with Shn' Gajendra Shri Ashish Shukla, Government Advocate for the State. Judgment (28m Juiy, 24mg) The foHowing judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. : Appellant Santosh stands convicted under Section 302 of the {PC with sentence of imprisonment for life vide impugned judgment dated 15*“ Sessions Triai No.1 1772001 . 2) March, 2GO2 passed by Sessions Judge, Rainandgaon in Appellant Santosh has been foundrguilty of commission of murder of deceased Mahrinbair by causing multiple external injuries by means of a Tangia on 13.06.2001. Appeilant’s conviction is founded on the eyewitness account of PW/S Beiabai, daughter- 3) in-law of deceased Mahrinbai, i whose evidence was found corroborated by the medical evidence of PW/9 Dr SR Mandavi. 4) At the mar the capitai charge of murder againsst accused Santosh was sought to be proved on the evidence of PW/1 Hemlal, PW/2 Phutturam, PW/3 Kabirdas, PWI'4 Jagdish Ram, PW/5 Beiabai; PW/6 Mahan Das, PWI7 ‘Mukteshwari Puri, PW/B Gautam Lai Sahu, PWIQ DR SR Mandavi, and PW/10 TS Baghei. 5) Accused Santosh abjured his guiit and pieaded faise implication. He, however, did, not examine any witness in his defence. 6) PW/Q Dr SR Mandavi on postmortem examination found as many as five external injuries on the body of the deceased as detailed in the postmortem report (Ex — P11 2}. Of the five external injuries found on the body of the deceased, three were on her head region and two on the neck. in the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, the cause of death of deceased Mahrinbai was shock and hemorrhage, resulting from the injuries found on the head region and neck. He further opined that the external injuries ‘fo'und on the body of the deceased could have been caused by means of a sharp a edged weapon like ‘Tangia’ seized from the accused. 7) Shri DR Sharma, teamed Senior Counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae for the appellant vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in recording the appellant's conviction on the evidence of solitary eyewitness PWI‘S Betabai, who is an interested witness being daughter—in-law of.deceased Mahrinbai. Learned @ Senior Counsel further submitted that the evidence of soiitary eyewitness PW/5 Belabai stands beiied by the medica! evidence in as much as the eyewitness deposed abcut dealing of only two blows by the accused/appellant, whereas the autopsy’surgeon found as many asfive external injuries on the body of the deceased. 8) Shrl Ashish Shukla, learned Government'Advocate on a the other hand supported the impugned iudgment of conviction and contended that it is the quality of the evidence which matters and not the quantity of the evidence. 9) PW/5 Beiabai has categorically deposed that on the fateful day, accused Santosh was digging a drain through their ‘badi‘, which was objected to by her mother-in—law, deceased Mahrinbai. Accused Santosh, thereupon started abusing the deceased and dealt repeated blows by means of Tangia. lt is further in her evidence, that when she tried to intervene, the accused threatened to assault her also. When she shouted for help, her husband Hemlal, and villagers Jagdish and Kabirdas came there, but by that times her mother-in-law Mahrinbai had succumbed to her injuries. She was subjected to a lengthy cross. examination, but 20thing could be elicited by the defence in her cross examination which may render her evidence unworthy of credence. 10) On a close scrutiny of the evidence of PWI5 Beiabai, we are satisfied that she is a reliable witness and her evidence can safety be acted upon. Her evidence stands amply corroborated by the medicat evidence of PW/Q Dr SR Mandavi,. who found multipie external injuries on the bpdy of deceased Mahrinbai which could ‘27 have been caused by means of a tangia. Mereiy because she is daughter-in-Iaw of deceased Mah‘rinbai, her evidence cannot be discarded. 11) On a thorough scrutiny of the entire evidence avaiiabie on record in generai and that of PW/5 Beiabai and PW/9 Dr SR Mandavi in particuiar, we are satisfied that the triai Court has rightiy believed the evidence of PW/S Beiabai in holding accused/ appeiiant Santosh guiity of causing those iniuries on deceased Mahrinbai by means of a tangia which resuited in her death. 12) The manner in which the appeiiant dealt repeated blows on head region and neck of deceased Mahrinbai; the number and nature of the injuries found on head region and neck of deceased Mahrinbai; the use of a heavy and 5harp object Tangia for causing injuries by the accused I appellant on the deceased; and the vital parts of the body i.e head region and neck, selected by the appellant for‘causing injuries on the deceased, who succumbed to those injuries on the spot itself do not leave any room for doubt that accused} appellant Santosh while causing those injuries on deceased Mahrinbai had intended to cause her death. The proved act of appellant Santosh of causing muitiple injuries by means of a k tangia on deceased Mahrinbai, therefore; in our opinion would not amount to anything short of ‘murder‘ and would be punishable under Section 302 of the IPC only. 13) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeat; therefore, is tiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The appeliant‘s conviction under Section 302 of @7 the IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life recorded by the triai er I \ Court is hereby maintained. Sdl~ i Sdl- r‘Chief Jusiice i Sunil Kumar Sinha ’ Judg