''f;-! ;^, 1 '•^'•\ ^ 's 'f \v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Division Bench) -v Coram: Hon^!eShnJ"JLSharma& Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ . Ap^ellant (in jail) Criminal Aopeal No. 551 of 200^ Chandrakant s/o. Sonu Ram .iSolkar, aged about 25 years, r/o. 'village Chilhafi, Police Chowki Pachpedi, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG). Respondent Vs. State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Pachpedi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). (Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) ofthe Cr.P.C.) Present: Shri J.P. Yadu, counsel forthe appellant. Shri J.A. Lohani, Panel Lawyer for the State. JUDGMENT (Deliveredon 4-11-2011) Per T.P. Sharma, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10-7-2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, ..< Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.' 388 of 2005, whereby and whereunder learned Sessions Judge, after holding the appellant guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of Mehatar Sahni, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.l. for two years. Conviction of the appellant is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence, the court below has convicted and senfenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. As per case of prosecution, on fateful day of 18-9-2005at about 3.30 p.m., PW/12 Sushil Kumarwent along with deceased Mehatar Sahni to betel shop of PW/3 Ramdhan. Ramdhan (PW/3) was preparing betelfor PW/12 Sushil Kumar, at that time deceased Mehatar Sahni was sitting on the bench and appellant came with iron rod and caused repeated injuries over various parts of the body of Mehatar Sahni as a result of which he died. PW/12 Sushil Kumar tried to snateh the iron rod, then the appellant fled away from the spot and thereafter, the villagers gathered on the spot. PW/2 Deepak Kumar gave merg intimation at Outpost Pachpedi vide Ex.P/2 where first information report was registered vide Ex.P/3, first information was lodged vide Ex.P/22, merg was recorded vide Ex.P/21. Investigating Officer left for scene of occurrence. After summoning witnesses vide Ex.P/6, inquestover the dead body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex.P/7, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/24, blood stained clothes of deceased were seized vide Ex.P/17, blood sfaijned clothes of appellant were seized vide Ex.P/11. Blood stained soil and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P/9. During course of investigation, appellant was taken into custody and he made a disclosure statement of iron rod vide Ex.P/8 and same was recovered at the instance of appellant vide Ex.P/10. Pawari \ prepared spot map vide Ex.P/14. Dead body of deceased was sent for autopsy to Community.Health Centre, Masturi vide Ex.P/23 where Dr. R.L. Tiwari (PW/1) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P/1 and found the foliowing injuries. i) Lacerated wound on left side of chin, in lower jaw 8cm,5'x 4cm x bone deep with fracture oflowerjaw. ii) Lacerated woundleft side forehead, near upper lateral partof left eye-brow 3cm x 2cm x bone deep. iii) Left ear cartilage torned at upper part, 2.5 cm x % cm size. iv) Lacerated wound left fronto parietal part of hand of 10cm x 2cm x bone deep. v) Lacerated wound right fronto parietal part of head of9cm x2 cm x bone deep. vi) Lacerated wound right front parietal part of hand of 8.5cm x 2cm x bone deep. vii) Lacerated wound over head 8 cm x2 cmx . bone deep. and opinedthat cause of death was as a result of excessive hemorrhage. 5. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure' (for short, "the Code"). After completion of investigation, charg&f'sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. Learned Sessions Judge, received the case on transfer fortrial. 7. 8. 9. 6. tn order to prove the guilt of the appellant the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the accused \ was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, innocence and false implication in crime in question is claimed. By adducing the evidence of DW/1 Chandrika Prasad and DW/2 Abdul Razak, appellant has taken defence that PW/12 Sushil Kumar has committed homicidal death of Mehatar Sahni and has falsely implicated him. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid mentioned. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court as also the impugned judgment. Shri J.P. Yadu, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that conviction is substantially based on the evidence of PW/12 SushilKumar whose statement under Section 161 of the Code has been recorded after eight days of the incident. As per case of defence, Sushil Kumar has committed murder of Mehatar Sahni and his evidence does not inspire confidence and trustworthy and even otherwise he has not supported the case of prosecution. Prosecution has declared him hostile. Inthe present circumstances, evidence of solitary;' eye Witness without any corroboration would not be safe for conviction of the appellant. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance in the matter of Gopal Singh vs. State of WI.P. and others in which it was held that conviction cannot be based on statement of solitary hostile eye-witness without any corroboration. 10. Onthe other hand, Shri J.A. Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the appeal and submits that conviction is based on the evidence of PW/12 Sushil Kumar whose presence at the time of incident has not been disputed by the defence and his evidence is well corroborated by the evidence of other hostite witness PW/3 .•>:.' Ramdhan, betel shop keeper. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses are sufficient for drawing inference that present appellant has committed homicide amounting to murder of Mehatar Sahni After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 11. ln order to appreciate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf oftheprosecution. 12. In the present case, homicidal death as a result of fatal injuries and multiple injuries found over the vital parts of the body of deceased Mehatar Sahni has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant. On the other hand, it is also established by the evidence of Dr. R.L. Tiwari (PW/1 and autopsy report (Ex.P/1) that the death ofdeceased MahatarSahni was homicidal in nature. 13. As regards complicity of the appellant in thecrime in question, conviction is substantially based on the evidence of PW/12 Sushil Kumar and PW/3 Ramdhan. Defence has taken specific defence by giving suggestion to PW/12 Sushil Kumar and examining DW/1 /.T2005(3) ILJ 316 14. Chandrika Prasad and DW/2 Abdul Razak that PW/12 Sushil Kumar has committed murder of Mehatar Sahni. Statement of PW/12 Sushil Kumar i.e., Ex. P/23 has been recorded on 25-9- 2005 after seven days of thejncident. Accused was arrested on 19- 9-2005. Accused/appellant examined DW/1 Chandrika Prasad and DW/2 Abdul Razak who have not lodged any report against PW/12 Sushil Kumar or have not.stated anything before Police that appellant has not committed any offence, inter alia, Sushil Kumar has committed offenee after considerable time of nine months. These witnesses have deposed that they were informed that PW/12 Sushil Kumar has caused homicidal death of deceased Mehatar Sahni which does not inspire confidence and their evidence appears to be unnatural. As per evidence of PW/12 Sushil Kumar, he was present in front of betel shop of PW/3 Ramdhan and deceased Mehatar Sahni was sitting on the bench. He heard the sound of falling of Mehatar Sahni and saw back, at that time appellant was holding iron rod and raising the same. He caught hold the rod but the appellant threatened him that he would also kill him, then he went towards his house. Mehatar Sahni died as a result of fatal injuries. This witness has not fully supported the case of prosecution and prosecution declared him hostile. In his cross-examination he has specifically deposed that he, appellanfr and Mehatar Sahni were ^ present on the spot whereas PW/3 Ramdhan was preparing betel. Appellant was holding iron rod. He tried to snatch the iron rod, but he did not succeed. Mehatar Sahni died on the spot as a result of l^ '/ 7 injuries. Prosecution has also declared PW/3 Ramdhan hostite. He has also not fully supported the case of prosecution but admitted the fact that at the time of incident, PW/12 Sushil Kumar was present on the spot. He heard the sound of falling of Mehtar Sahni and he saw back, at that time Mehatar fell on the ground. As per statement of PW/12 Sushil Kumar recoded after seven days ofthe incident vide Ex.P/23 and even ^s per case of defence, this witness was present on the spot and tiis presence has been admitted by PW/3 Ramdhan. His statement under Section 161 of the Code (Ex.P/5) also reflects the presence of PW/12 Sushil Kumar on the spot and role attributed to him. In the matter of Gopal Singh (supra) it was held that conviction cannot be based on statement of sotitary hostile eye-witness without any corroboration. In the present case, PW/12 Sushil Kumar has partially supported the case of prosecution and his evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW/3 Ramdhan. Thus, the facts of the case law cited by the counsel for the appellant are distinct from the facts of the present case. 15. The evidence of PW/12 Sushil Kumar and PW/3 Ramdhan are sufficient to establish the fact that the appellant was standing nearby deceased, he was holding iron rod and raising the same, deceased died as a result of fatal injuries and there was no other person except accused who caused.fatal injuries to Mehafar Sahni and these evidence are sufficient to prove that except appellant no other person has caused homicidal death of deceased Mehatar Sahni. ~^ 18. As regards the question of motive, in case of direct evidence motive looses its importans^e, even otherwise, motive only aids in criminality and can be inferred on the basis of nature of injuries, kind of weapon used, part of the body effected and other similar circumstances. In the present case, fatal injuries and multiple injuries have been found over head and other vital parts of the body of deceased which show tljat the act of brutality is sufficient for drawing inference that present appellant has caused homicidal death with intent to cause the death of deceased Mehatar Sahni. 17. After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as aforementioned. 18. On close scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 19. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^ /; <aju