i<^ A^^' ^!5 3MlS:i|| HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Division Bench) Coram: ApRellant (in jail) Hon'ble Shri T.P. Sharma & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. Criminal ApReal tto^87 of2007 Barat Bariha son of Sukharoo Bariha, aged about 40 years, occupation Labour Work, resident of village Bokramuda, P.S, Bagbahra, Distt. Mahasamund (CG). Vs. Respondent. State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Bhagbahra, Distt. Mahasamund (CG). (Criminal Appeal underSection 374 (2) ofthe Cr.P.C.) Present: Mr. Jameer Akhtar Lohani, counsel for the appellant. Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL JUDGMENT (Deliveredon 8-8-2011) Per T.P. Sharma, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15-12-2006 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, in Sessions Trial No. 19/2006, whereby and .whereunder learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, after holding the appellant guilty for causing culpable homicidal death amounting to murder of his wife, convicted the appellant under Sections 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo life ^^ imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further Rl for two months. Conviction ofthe appellant is impugned on the ground that without there being any iota of-evidence, the court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed an illegality. As per case of prosecution, unfortunate deceased Ruhibai was residing with her husband, present appellant and her son Lakhan Bariha (PVW7) in herimother's house. Appellant and deceased used to quarrel with each other on the ground of living in the house of mother of deceased and mother-in-law of appellant. On fateful day of 13-5-2006 at about 5.00 p.m., deceased Ruhibai was present in her house. When she was cooking meals, appellant caused repeated injuries by axe over the neck of the deceased and caused her instantaneous death, thereafter fled way from the spot. When he was fleeing from the spot i.e., house of his mother-in-law, Gunwati Bai (PW/8), his mother-in-law saw the appellant coming out from her house holding blood stained axe, blood drops were found on the door of the house and after dashing her appellant fled away from her house. She went inside her house and saw the dead body of deceased Ruhibai was lying with injuries over her neck and blood was spread in the room. She started weaping and on hearing the sound, Lakhan Bariha (PW/7), son of the deceased along with other persons of the vicinity came there. Lakhan Bariha (PW/7) went inside the room and after seeing the incident he also started weaping, thereafter x :?B'at«mW 5. he went to Police Station Bagbahara and lodged first information report vide Ex.P/3. Investigating Officer left for scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P/5, inquest over the dead body of deceased wgs prepared vide Ex.P/6, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/4, dead body of deceased was sent for autopsy to Government Hospital, Bagbahara where Doctor L.L. Dhankar (PW/6) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P/17 and found following injuries; i) iftcised wound over right side of the neck of 3"x1"x1 % " upto trachea & internal organ was found cut; ii) incised wound over the neck of 2"x 1A " x % " and iii) incised wound dover the neck of 2"x % " x 1" and opined that mode of death was due to shock and death was homicidal in nature. During course of investigation accused was taken into custody and he made a disclosure statement of axe vide Ex.P/1 and same was recovered at the instance of appellant vide Ex.P/2 along with blood stained Gamcha, blood stained soil and plain soil from the spot were seized vide Ex.P/8 and sealed viscera and clothes of deceased were seized vide Ex.P/9. Acccused/appellant was also examined by Doctor R.K. Kuruwanshi (PW/5) who vide Ex.P/16 found one abrasion 2" in lengthand 2 %" over the chest. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to Raipurvide P/13. Statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, who in turn committed the case to the Court _J !i»n»«ww,ii i< of Sessions Judge, Raipur from where learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund received the case on transfer for trial who framed charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant who abjured the guilt. 6. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant the prosecution examined as many as nine 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, innocenc.e and false implication in crime in question is claimed. 7. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid mentioned. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court as also the impugned judgment 9. Mr. Jameer Akhtar Lonani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that conviction is substantially based only on the evidence of PW/8 Gunwati Bai, mother of the deceased who has not seen the incident and her evidence does not inspire confidence and trustworthy and there may be suspicion about the identity of person who fled away from the spot after commission of offence. 10. On the other hand, Mr. D.K. Gwalre, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State opposed the appeal and submits that evidence of Gunwati Bai (PW/8), mother of deceased and mother-in-law of appellant shows that she had seen the appellant ^ iDBtltl coming out from her house holding blood stained axe and after dashing her the appellant fled away from the spot. The evidence of this witness is sufficient for drawing inference that present appellant has committed homicidal death of deceased Ruhibai with intent to cause her-death. The court below after considering all evidence and aspects of the case, has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant. 11. In order to appreciafe the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties.'swe have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 12. In the present case, homicidal death of the deceased as a result offatal injuries found over the vital parts of deceased Ruhibai has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant. On the other hand, it is also established by the evidence of Doctor Doctor L.L. Dhankar (PW/6) and autopsy report (Ex.P/17) death of deceased Ruhibai was homicidal in nature. 13. As regards complicity of the appellant in the crime in question, conviction of the appellant is based on evidence of Gunwati Bai (PW/8), mother of the deceased and mother-in-law of the appellant. As per her evidence, at the time of incident at about 4.00 p.m. she came back to her house where appellant and her daughter, deceased Ruhibai were also residing. She called her daughter, but her daughter did not respond, at the same time appellant came out from the house holding blood stained axe and blood drops were also found on the door of the house. She went inside the house and saw theinjured dead body of her daughter f~" @ 1ili$J and rice were found in her fist. Dead body of deceased was lying in cooking room. Seeing the dead body of her daughter, shestarted weaping and on hearing the sound, persons of the vicinity came there who saw the dead body. After some time,her grand-son Lakhan Bariha (PW/7) came there and also saw the dead body of his mother. 14. Defence has cross-examined this witness at length, especially relating to the identity of the person who fled away from the spot. '(• In para 4 of her crossrexamination she has specifically deposed that the appellantwas the person who came out from her house holding blood stained axe and he fled away from the spot after dashing her. The evidence ofwitness Gunwati Bai (PW/8) is well corroborated by promptly lodged FIR (Ex.P/3) and same is sufficient for drawing inference that deceased and appellant were only two persons present inside the house of Gunwati Bai (PW/8). Appellant came out from her house holding axe with bloodstained axe, blood drops were also found on the door of the house, despite repeated calls, deceased did not respond and after dashing PW/8-Gunwati Bai, appellant from away from her house. When she went inside her house, she saw badly injured dead body of her daughter - Ruhibai. Appellant hasnot offered any explanation as to who caused fatal injuries to his wife, why the blood stained axe was in his possession and why he fled away from the house, knowing well that his wife was killed/murdered as a result of fatal injuries. These circumstances are sufficient to complete the chain of circumstances for drawing definite .'Y/-'' r^ F';aju conclusion that only appellant has caused homicidal death of his wife Ruhibai, except appellant nobody has committed the aforesaid offence. It is also quite sufficient to exclude possibility of innocenceof the appellant. Three fatal injuries found over the neck ofthe deceased are also sufficient for drawing inference that the appellant has caused homicidal death of his wife with intent to cause her death. 15. After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge, has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid mentioned. 16. On a close scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgmentof conviction and order of sentence. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed^ Sd/- RJ^. Chandrakar . Judge --.; SdA T.P. Sharma Judge