W HEGH €3QL§RT GE: @§‘§§°€&??E$G&RH WF E&LA$PL§R DEW$EGN EENm‘E: atammi HON’BLE MRER"H%§MA 3% HGN5BLE MR.R.E\§. CE-iANEmKAR, JJ‘ Mr. Ashiazh Smkia, Gav? #‘dvcca‘te Wire S‘taie. magmraw? {Paswd on ’H "‘ Qciauer! 220'} 1) ’. ChaEien§e in m$ app$a% §s ia thg jaiigmem er“ wmvisiian 2 crées’ cf gnce dated 2?.G8.20£)3 rpasssed by i‘ne AJdéiimai 3e$si0r§s Judge, Baikumihpur Bisii ((srEya {9.3), m S$5$§ons Tfiai Fxia.’§§8/2f303, Wham?- l 8; whayeuMa iesmad Adda" M ‘en C) Ir— baa! Sasgmg Jadge afiar hsiding appeiiam QguH'ty $3? caiwn1i$$isn cf cumawe hemicide amcunting kc: murdez’ m” hfg wEE’e ?am&‘ti (aims §ecea$e® ccnvécmd the 6m) Jam umer 86*“ ; 3Q2 d gen’ianaea‘ him ta undergc Empivigammem fer léfe am ffnva m LA defauii . - a;£ pgynmnf: a. n. ‘m o! .F {mas- ,: ‘ tmma'ie ML! unu$£§iga wudk x m, 3.}. $,5:,73m; ,.‘ \mbn . iirimmai Agwai Ma 1@5$§ af 2%3 é‘g’geHanéJ Gopai S/o Jagbanéhan Sherwa aged {m Jaii) about 4O years Rfo \Im Darripara Distt‘ Surguja, presem addre3s Katkona PfS Paina Tahsii Bazikunthpur Di$tt. Koriya {03.} E’&a*3a§£ .mgapemenz $ia€e cf Chhat‘iisgarh Thmugh : S.H.Q 0f PXS Patna Disif. Koréya (QC-i.) {CRMHXML APPEAL UNDER $ECTION 374 {2) OF THE CGEE CEMWAL PROCEDURE, 1973) ; ’. Ashok Kumar Shukie: arid Mr. Ainu Ghosh, caun%% s‘cv €319 aapeHanf x 2. Cenviciian is impugned an the ground that wifhoui there bemg any iata af evidence, the ’Mai Court has conv§ctad & gentemed the appeiiani as afcrememionw and thereby committed megaiiiy. 3. A$ per the unfsrtunate deceased Parwa'ti, wife of the appeliant was Eving with appeneni in his house siiuated at v§llage Kafkona, ei iniervenéng night 0i 21622003 and 28.02.2QG3 appeiiant consumed iiquer with hie Wife deceased Parweii and thereaftei appeiiani assauiied he! by eiick and eharp aged weapon crewbar and caused her tieetn. Death was iniimaied ie Jai Karen (PW/i). Oiher viiiegere and dei <aien (P W41} iedged meig wide EXPH. inveeiiga‘iing eifie i iefi fer scene ef eccunenee; afier eummening ine Wiineseee, inquest ever deed been; 0f D.eceeeed was prepared viee EXP]? Spoi map was prepared vide 1iTx.P/9.Dead bedy was sent fer auioesy to Primary Heaiih Ceriire, Patna vide EXPM3. Dr. AK. $harma {PWI06} condueied autopsy wide EXP/13 and feund feiiewing injuries:- case of pmsecutmn, physicany handicapped/disabied f: Abrasien and swelling ever ferehead of 2"x2". incieed‘wound over ankle at inner side, ebiique, ef 3 x V2 bony deer}. iii) Bruise of 5"x2” ever ieft thigh. iv) Abrasion ever right knee of 2”x2". .v) Abrasion of 2"x1” over righi thigh. vi: Bruise of 5"X2" over left eheuider. vii) Abrasien of 2”x2" over back side. viii) Abrasion or“ 2"}(1 " over ieft side of back at iumber regien. ix} Bruise mark oi 4"x2"on right buttock. Mode of death was shook. Body was lean and thin. 4. During ceurse of investigation, aopeiient was taken into custody. He made disoiosure statement of stick end sharp aged weaoon orowbar vide EXPM, same were recovered at his instance wide EXP/3. Kathari (bed 'ma; , ghagi) siained with bioocé was seized vide EXP/5. Patwari preparea‘ spat map vide EXP/w. CiotheS 9f deceased and viscera wera seized Vida EXP/12. Finakiy FAR. was; registered vide EXP/‘18. Staiemems cf i‘ne Wiinesses were recoyded under Secticn 161 sf the Cade sf Criminal Procedure (for short the ‘Csde‘). After campietion 3f inveaiigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court oi Chief Judieiei Magietrate, Eaikunihpur, who in ’rurn commiiied the case t0 the Ccurt 0f Sessions Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur, ieamed Additicnai Sessions. Juoge received the case on transfer for triai. in order to prove the guiit of the aooused/appeiient, prosecution nae G) examined ae many as t2 witneeeesr Statement of the aooueed/appeiiant wee recorded under Section 3t3 oi the Code where he denied the circumstances» appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. He has also examined his mother Gehdi Bei (DWI’l) as defence evidence who has deposed that deceased wee physioaiiy disabled and at the time of incident she had gone tor ease rom her house where she feli down from bridge end received injuries theri she shouted for heip thereafter viilagers came and shifted injured from the place of accident to her house where in} red died at night. She has further deposed that appellant has been falseiy implicated and detained by police. . After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, teamed Additional Sessions Judge, convicted 8: sentenced the appeiiant as aforementioned. 8. Mr. Atnu Gh03h, counsei for the appenant and Mr. AshiSh Shukla, Gav‘t. Advacaie for the State are heard. Perused the judgment impugned and re‘cerd 0f the Ma! Court. 9. Learned ccunsel for the appeiiant vehemently argued tha‘L in order te convict the appeiiaht for cemmission of culpable hemlclde ameuntihg re murder of his wife prosecution was under obligation to prove ihe fact that appellant has caused homicidal death of deceased by taking circumstantial evidence, but in the preeent caee prosecution has utterly tailed to prove the aforesaid fact in absence oi any defence evidence, may he patentiy false, is not sufficient for conviction of appeilant under Section 362 of IPC. Giving faise explanation by adducing defence witneesed itself is not adverse circumstance. .,: He aiso submits that virtually prosecution has not adduced any evidence to connect the appellant with crime in question and in absence of any incriminating evidence appellant is entitled for acquittal. to. On the other hand, iearned Govt. Advocate for the State opposed the appeal and submits that this is a case of house murder. Disabied deceased was residing with appellant in his house and she died as a result of injui'ies found over-her body. At the time of incident ie. at night appeil‘ant was present along with deceased and he was under obtigation to offer an explanation in terms of Section 106 of Evidence Act but instead of offering true expianation appellant has offered false explanation by adducing defence witness of his mother. Aithough appeiiant has not suggested any witness reiating to aforesaid defence of accident of failing from the bridge even he himself has not offered any explanation during his examination under Section 313 ofthe Code tin order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have exammed the evidence avai!abie cn recard. 12in the mesent case, hamicidai death of deceased Parwati as a result of muFcipie in} ries found over “the body 0? deceased which was canaiiuted has n9? been Subsiantialw disaputed on behai§ Gf appeHant, even etherwiee eame is also eetabiiehed by the evidence 0f Dr. AK. Sharma (PW/E6) and autopsy report EXP/13, which revea1s thai deceased died as a resuii of anie—moriem inguries found over the body e? deceased. By examining deienoe witness Gendi Bai (DWI’i) appeiiant has also admitied ihai deceased died as a result of iniuries found ove; her baciy. iEAe regard oompiioiiy of the appeiiant in crime in question is concerned, oomiotién’ ef the present appeiiant is eubetantiaiiy based en circumstan iai evidence. in case of oonviciiori based on circumsteritiei eviderioe, es held by ihe Apex Court in ihe matter of Q. chaega Redoiy V“ gig-rte ef e33. , the proeeouiion is required io edduee evidence ape such evidence must satisfying the foiiowing test:- ii 3 (2) (3) I (4) the oiroumsiances from which an inference of guiii is soughi io be drawn, must be cooehtiy and firmiy eeiabliehed; those circumstances should of a definite tendency uherringiy pointing towards the guiif of fhe accused; the circumstances taken cumalatively shouid farm a chain so compiete that there is no eeoape from the eonciusion that Within aii human probability the crime wae committed by the accused and none else; and the circumstantiai evidence in order to euetain conviction must be complete and inoapabie of expianation of any other hypothesis than that of the guiit of the accused and such evidence shouid not only be consistent with the guiit of the accused but shouid be inconsistent with his innocence. 14in the present case, as per the evidence of Jai Karan (PWJT) appeliant was nresent in his house on 27.32.2GG3 at night. He himseif consumed a iiquor with deceased} thereafter on second day dead body of deceased was fauna? in ihe house of appeliant. As per evidence of Dr.;’-\.K‘ Sharma {PW/8) death af deceased was hamieidai in nature. injury No.2 was incised wound over ankle at inner side bnny deep and 1Q injuries were found within part of body which cannot be neglected 0f failing down from bridge as deposed by Gendi Bel (DW/i} in hei evidence Theee injuries; are sufficient i0 falsify the evidence cf Gendi Bai (DW/i). Disabled deceased wae reeiding in the muse 0i eppeiiani and appeliant wee ales present in the intervening night after suataining injuries ehe died, which was ebiigaiorgi i0 appeilan’: under Seciien 106 cf the Evidenee Acl: is aiiei an‘explana’cion as tc new she died and who has caused such injuries. He has noi offered any expianeiien in examinatisn under Seeiien 313 of the Code. Appeiiant has no‘i suggeeied anything reiating i0 prosecution witnesses but adduced detence'evidence of hie mother Gendi Bai {DW/t). He has tried to prove the tact that deceased has received injuries by ialiing from bridge, which patentiy faise, in the iight oi autopey report Ext-3M3 and evidence of Dr.A.Kr Sharrna (PW/6), which reveals that ‘ineised wound wee aiso found on tl e internai part oi ankie, injury over forehead, abrasion on buttock, thigh, knee and upper part at ehoulder. if the aforesaid facts are considered together in the iight of aiereeaid false explanation given by appellant by examining his mother Gend‘i Bai (DWM) then only inference wouid be possible that only the apeeiient has caused homicidat death of deceased and except appellant no other person has caused such injuries and wiii aiso exclude possibility of innocence of the appeliant. (y \ \\ \ #«I; Way ' V, h., “>77 . 15. Af‘ier appraciating the evidence a Additicnal SeSSions Judge ha N aforementioned. 16‘ 0a dose scruiiny of the evidence adduced 0n beha we dG not fi‘nd any §I appeffant. 1?. Cansequentiy, the appeai being devoid 9f merits L dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ‘ mp. sHA'RMA’iV“ " va§¥abie 0f} reoarcé, the Ieamed Fi s ccnvictgd and $entenc>$d the appei! iegaiity or infirmity in canvicii Sd/ jadge mi amt as is }iab!e i0 be Sdk RN. Chandrakarlr‘r‘ Judge if of ihe prosecuia'on, ng and sentencing the f