^3 /<. HSGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BSLASPUR Criminai AppeaS No.1173 of 2093 Division Bench: CORA^: HON'BLE MR.T.P.SHARMA & . HON'BLE MR.R.LJHANWAR. JJ. APPELLANT (in Jai!) RESPONDENT Chamru Das S/o Mahabir Panika, aged about 36 years, Occupatlon- Agriculturist, R/o Vlliage Barima, Poliee Station Kamleshwarpur, Distt.-Surguja (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Poisce Station Basantpur, Distt.Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE Cr.P.C.) Present:- Mr.Anand Kumar Gupta, counsel for the appellant. Mr.Sandeep Yadav, Deputy Government Advocate forthe State. JUDGiVSENT (ORAU (Passed on 14thJanuary, 2011) T.P.Sharma, J.:- 'l. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.9.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur) in Sesslons Triai No.56/2003, whereby and whereunder jearned Sessions Judge after hoiding the appeliant guiity for commlssion of cuipable homicide of his wife Sanmet Bal amounting to murder convicted him under Section 302 ofthe i.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for iife and to pay fine of Rs.300/'-, in default of payment of flne to further undergo R.S. for one month. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being any iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appeiiant as aforementioned and thereby committed. ^?^-^ ^ \':-^?^^ ^ZM^. -^.^:^ ^ 'k ^,,. ..y / '^ \^^s^'' ^ ^'••;..' .-..-rf^ ®) 3. As per case of the prosecution, on 26.10.2002 at about 9 am. whije deceased Sanmet Bai Vv'as keeping down hsr head ioad wood, the sppeiiant assauited her by kltohen stool and caused her death. Incident was seen by his daughter Sunita (PW-1) and mother of the appeilant Sanmatiya Bai (PW-2). Sagat Ram (PW-3) 'went to the Poiice Station and iodged the F.i.R. vide Ex.P/1. Merg was recorded vlde Ex.P/11. After summoning the witnesses vlde Ex.P/12, inquest over dsad body of Sanmet Bai was prepared vide Ex.P/6. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Government Hospitai, Narmadapur where Dr.R.S.Singh (PW-4) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P/9 and found fotiowing injuries:- (i) Contusion of 8 x 4 cm. h over ieft chick. (il) Lacerated wound of 8 x 2 cm. deep up to skyil bone on Seft side upper part of head. (Iti) Lacersted wound of3 x 2 cm. wlth fracttire of skuiS. (iv) Lacerated wound of5 x 3 cm. deep up to skuiS. (v) Lacerated wound of 6 x 3 cm. fracture of skui! bone on middie upper part of frontai bone. (vl) Contusion of4 x 3 cm. on anterior-iateral ieft slde of neck. (vli) Contuslon of 6 x 2 cm. on back side beiow jeft scapuia. Cause of death was shock due to head injury and death Vv'as homscidai in nature. Kitchen stool aSong with bSoodstalned artlcies were seized from the spot vide Ex.P/2. Bioodstalned soii, piain soli and broken pieces of bangies were selzsd from the spot vsde Ex.P/3. Bloodstained cSothes of the deceased were seized vide Ex.P/4. The accused was taken into custody, he made dssdosure statement of kltchen stooi vide Ex.P/7. Carpenter axe was seized from the accused vlde Ex.P/5. The appellsnt has aiso caused injuriss to himself, he was examlnect by Dr.R.S.SIngh (PW-4) vide Ex.P/10 and four injuries were found. Spot map was prepared by investigating offlcer vide Ex.P/13. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination vide Ex.P/15 and presence of biood cn kltchen stooi and on ciothes ofthe appeliant were confsrmed vide Ex.P/16. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and after compietion of investigatson charge sheet was flied before the Court of Judiciai Magistrate Flrst Ciass, Amblkapur (Surguja) ^s^ s s^s^ ^ /• ^ who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sesslons, Surguja (AmbiRapur). 5. in order to prove the guilt of the accused/appeliant, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. Statement of the accused/appeiiant was recorded under Section 313 ofthe Cr.P.C. where he denied the circumstances appearing against him and cialmed innocence and faise impilcatson in the crime sn questlon. 6. After affording an opportunsty of hearlng to the parties; iearned Sesslons Judge, Ambikapur has convicted and sentenced the appeliant as aforementioned. 7. We have heard MrAnand Kumar Gupta, counsel for the appeiiant and IVSr.Sandeep Yadav, Deputy Government Advocate for the State, perused thejudgment impugned and record ofthetrial Gourt. 8. Learned counsei for the appeilant submits that in tne present case, convlction is based on the basis of evldence of Sunlta (PW-1) and Sanmatiya Bai (PW-2), reiatives witnesses but their evidence do not inspire and trustworthy. As per evldence of these wltnesses, the appeiSant is not a man of sound msnd, he is unsound mind. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsei supported the judgment and submsts that evidence adduced on behaif of the prosecution is sufficient for drawing inference that the appeilant has committed the aforesaid offence and the triai Court has rightiy convicted and sentenced the appeliant as aforementioned. 10.in order to appreciate the argumsnts advanced on behaif of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behaif ofthe prosecutlon. 11.Sn the present case, homicida! death of as a resuit of ante-mortem fatai injuries of Sanmet Bai has not been substantialiy dlsputed on behalf of the appeiiant, on the other hand, also established by the evidence of Dr.R.S.SIngh (PW-4) and autopsy report Ex.P/QA. Death was homicldai in nature. ^ ^ ,^t,-^ ff~ S' t w^:^^ 1%, @ 12.As regards the compiiclty of the appejlant in ths crime in questlon, evsdence of Sunjta (PW-1), daughter of appel!ant and deceased and Sanmatiya Bai (PW-2), mother of the appeilant reveal that the appellant has caused injurles to hls wife by kitehen stooi and caused her instantaneously death. Defence has cross-examined these v^ltnesses st tength but has not been able to eilcit anythlng in their cross-examinatlon to dlscredlt thelr testimony. They have admitted in their cross-examination that the appeiiant is not a man ofsound mjnd, but the appeiSant himseif has not taken any defence, he has not stated sn hls examlnation under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and he has not proved any exception in terms of Sectlon 84 of ihe i.P.C. in the absence of such evidence, the on$y inference wouid be posslbie that the appeSlant has caused injuries to her wife v/ith intent to cause her death. 13.After appreclatlRg the evidence avaiiabSe o record, learned Sessions Judge, Ambikapur has convicted and sentenced the appeliant as aforementioned. 14.0n close scrutlny of the evidence, we do not find any ilS©galityin the judgment impugned warrantlng any interference. 15-Consequently, the appeal being without substance is iiabie to be dlsmissed and it is hereby dismlsssd. Sd/- j ; R.L. Jhanwar T.P.Sharma j Judge Judge | 3/-