HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: ^ll;g^^. HON'BLB MR. T.P. SHARMA 8t HON'BLE MR. R.L. JHANWAR. JJ, Criminal Appeal No^992Z2Q04 Ramsiindar Pando S/o Chamru Pando, aged about 40 yeai's, R/o VUlage Bharatpur, Pandopara PoUce Station Surajpur District Surguja (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh thi'ough Police Station Sui'ajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). CRIMINAL APPBAL UNDER SBCTION 374 OF THE CODB OF Presenfc- Shri Abhay Tiwari, Advocate for fhe appeUant. Shri Saadeep Yadav, Dy. G.A. for fhe State/respondent. ORAL-JUDGBMENT (Passedoa 28/09/2010) The foUowtng tudguient of fhe Court was uassed bv ChaUenge in fhis appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22/9/2004 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpiir, District Sm^uja, C.G. in Sessions Trial No. 83/2004 wherebv and where under after holdinp fhe appeUant yiilty for the commission of offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder of his father-in-law Mahaveer Pando; convicted the appellant under Section ^ 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced imprisonment for life and fine ofRs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. Conviction is impugned on the groLind fhat wifhout any iota of evidence sufilcient for conviction of the appellaat Court below has convicted and sentenced fhe appeUant as aforeruentioned and thereby committed an Ulegality. As per case of the prosecution, on fateful day of 12/9/2003 at about 4 P.M. appellant and deceased Mahaveer Pando were sitting in the house of appeUant. Thev were consuraine liauor and thereafter appeUant quan'eled w7ifh Mahaveer Pando and caused three injuries upon the head and other part of the body of deceased Mahaveer Pando and caused his uistantaneously death. Wife of appeUant PW4 Manglibai and PW3 Phoolkunwar mother of deceased Mahaveer Pando were present on the spot. They have seen the incident. PW8 Dashru, Kotwar went to the police station and lodged Flrst Information Report vide Ex. P- 8. Marg mtimation was recorded vide Ex. P-7. Investigatmg OfBcer left for scene of occurrence, after summoning the witnesses vide Ex. P-11, inquest over the dead bodv of Mahaveer Pando was conducted vide Ex. P-12. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Govt. Hospital, Surajpur vide Ex. P-13. PW15 Dr. P.K. Sharma conducted autopsy vide Ex. P-17 and found following injuries:- (i1 One mcised wound of 4 c.m. x 2.5 c.m. x bone deeu over left side of m.astoid resion and bone was visible. (ii) One incised wound over left mastoid region of 3-c.m. x 2.5 c.m. x bone deep and bone was visible. (iii) One incised woiind of nnder injury No. 1 of 2.5 x 2.5 c.m. x bone deep. (iv) Contusion in different parts of tfae head and around the left eye of 6 c.m. x 4 c.m. Intemal heiaotoina was present. Mastoid bone was broken uito pieces. Brain membrane was ruptured. Hemotoma was found in left hemisphere and brain matter was comtng out from the injury. Mode of death was shock and death was honiicidal in nature. 4. Blood stained and plain soil were recovered from fhe spot vide Ex. P-2. Appellant/accused was taken mto custody. He raade discloser stateinent of axe vide Ex. P- 5, same was recovered at fhe instance of appeUant vide Ex. P-6. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-9. Sealed cloths of deceased was seized vide Ex. P-10. 5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded iinder Section 161 ofthe Gode ofCmiiinal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code'). After completion of fhe investigation charge sheet was filed before fhe Additional Chief ^ X f'w5]::'"ll& B •^n!^ Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur who in tum committed the case to the Coiirt of Sessions; Ambikapur from where leamed 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District Siirguja, received fhe case on transfer for trial. 6. In order to prove fhe guUt of the appeUant/accused prosecution examtned as many as 17 witnesses. Accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code where he denied the circumstances appearinj against him, innocency and false im.plication is claimed. 7. After affordtng an opportunity of hearing to the parties leamed 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District Siirguja, has convicted and sentenced fhe appellant as aforementioned. 8. Shri Abhay Tiwari, learned counsel for the appeflant and Shri Sandeep Yadav, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent are heard. Judgment unpugned and record of Court below perused. 9. Leamed counsel for fhe appellant vehemently argued that prosecution has not proved its case beyond all shadow of doubts. lividence of prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence and trustworthy even otherwise if the case of fhe prosecution is admitted as ^ospel trutfa then fhe act of appellant does not travel bevond the scope of under Section 304 Part-I of the .^^^'^SHBRS Indian Penal Code. In fhe present case appellant is tn custody since 17/9/2003 and has completed more than 7 years same would be sufiicient punishment to the appeUaat for the comiaission of aforesald ofience. 10. On the otlier hand, leamed Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State opposed fhe appeal and submits that this is not a case m which appellant has causally caused tnjuries but in fhe present case appeUant has caused three fatal injures over the head by dangerous weapon axe and Hed from fhe spot shows his grave intention of causing death of Mahaveer Pando i.e. his fafher-in-law. 11. In order to appreciate fhe argument advanced on behalf of fhe parties, we have examtned the evidence adduced on behalfofffae prosecution. 12. In fhe present case, homicidal death as a result of fatal iniuries found over the head of deceased Mahaveer Pando has not been substantially disputed on behalf of fhe appeUant on ftie other hand; ofherwlse also established by fhe evidence of PW15 Dr. P.K. Sharma and autopsy report Ex. P-17. Death was homicidal m nature. 13. As regard fhe complicity of fhe appeUant in crime in question, conviction of fhe appeUant is based on fhe evidence of PW3 PhooUnmwar & PW4 MangUbai. PW3 ^SS^Ss^S^^^ ^iS©Slt^@4i?? !l:];i:l:!IIIJS Phoolkuiiwar is mottier of deceased Mahaveer Pando and grant-mofher-in-law of fbe appeUant likevrase EW4 MangMtMi is a wifeQfpresenfappeUantanddai^g^^ dece^ed MahayeerPando. AppeUantwas-son-m- deceased Ma3iayeer Pando. As per ewdence of B^^^ Phoolkunwar & PW4 Mangyb^, both were preseiit| m; fhe tiouse, appellant and deceased Mah^veei" I^tm<|lQ ]; were eonsumihg llquar thea'eafter appellant quaCT^d J with deceased Mahaveer Pando and assauItedltHTee ; injuries oiver the head ofdficeased Mahaveer Pimido. jlle fell down and died when fhey tried to save Mahaseer i ': • '• ' ". Pando then appellant piisbed Phboilkunwar and| wffieBi i hls wffe tried t6 save hCT^father deceased| Malia^eer Pando •ffiien appellant alsoJ Ghasedi her. Defence ijhas cross eXammed ftfese witnesses at lel^fli 1nit t^s j^lot been able to illicit aiythmg m^theji j to discredit ftieir testjmbny^sgecially relating toj j[th& |i preseilce of both the persons i.e. appellant j ^nd B fiwy :B l;i';:ln il?.< » •NiaBil^ deceased Mahaveer Pando^i.a the, house aK a^sW^iS, injuiy caused by appeUant^^^^^^^t^ ;:?^!iiyii.)Jti|KiByEal'l instantaneoiislv death Qf MahaseerjPaiido. Erosi^M has alsb addueed tlie evidencjg Qfrecovieiy of!axejlt|p| toasis tff <UsclOsur& statBDa^ afidsjst9jte!n^[t|c|Bi 1wittnesses^. •tou®i^||!SjietijMgt||fiipf^3u^?||eTOd '^?T~^BI^il ^rl:^?^.fii^rti;; WSsWS ll'Mlill&l »Na ^•i;i!:! fMS 'Mi ![ 1 N11 :tll i;l o 1- \ more value rafher fhan the evidence of eye witnesses. Evidence of PW3 Phoolkunwar 8s PW4 Manelibai relative of deceased and appellant inspire confidence and trustworthv and same are suf&cient for drawing an inference that appellant has caused three fatal inJLires over fhe head of deceased on his mastoid region. 14. As regard the question of inotive is concemed, fhe motive is onlv ald in CTimuialitv and loses its importance. tn case of du'ect evidence even othenvise motive caa be inferred on fhe basis of fhe nature of injury, part of the body where tnjury was caused, weapon used and other like circumstances. 15. In the present case, as per leamed counsel for the appellant, appeUant has made extrajudicial confession to Ku. Manju Yadav, which has been recorded by Police as Ex. P-4 in which appeUant has told her that at flie time of incident, he wfll many his daughter i.e. wife of the appeUant wifh other person fberefore, he has kiUed his father-in-law i.e. Mahaveer Pando. This statement finds place Ex. P-4. Statement of Manju Yadav recorded by Investigattng Offlcer under Section 161 of the Code of Crimtnal Procedure, 1973 and prosecution is bond by ttiis document. If the aforesaid facts and contents of documents is considered fhen it would be clear that appeUant has kiUed his father-in-law although on the Hiag^ j !:-...// Ss-;'" S' ./y ^s BSS ;round fhat he was teUing to her that he wiU many the wife of appellant with other person that may be cause for causing any injury but not for fhe deafh of fhe Mahaveer Pando that too by causing fhree fatal injures over the vital part i.e. head of the deceased. The manner in which tnjury was caused, part of fhe body effected, nature of tnjury and weapon used cleared shows fhat appellant has uitentionallv caused the death of Mahaveer Pando. 16. After appreciating fhe evidence available on record leamed 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpm', District Surguja, has convicted fhe appeUant under Section 302 of fhe Indian Penal Code and sentenced imprisonment for Itfe and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. Conviction of the appellaiit is based on credible, clinching and legal evidence sustainable under fhe law. Leamed 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpiir, Dista'ict Surguja, has not committed any iUegality in convicttng and sentencing of the appeUant. 17. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any Ulegality in the judgment impugned. Cnm.inal appeal is devoid of nierits. Consequently, criminal appeal is Uable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge