@ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT Biy^SPUR Crimiaal Apoeal No.1162/2002 APPELLANT (Injail) VERSU8 RE8PONDBNT Goviad Ram aUas Panchraxii S/o Shri Aitwar Sai, aged 32 years, Occupation-Agriculture (Labourer) R/o viUage Beldagi, Thaaa Lakhanpur, District Surguja (CG) State of Chhatotisgarh CmMINAL APPEAL 0/8 374 (21 OF THB CODB OF CRIMINAI.. PROCUDERB Appearaace: Shn Saatosh Yadu, counsel for fhe appellant Shri Saadeep Yadav, Dy. Goverament Advocate for fhe State. Divisioa Bencli:- Hon»bleShri T.P. Sharma & Hoa^ble Shri R.L.Jhanwar»JJ Per T.P.Sharma, J. ORAL JUDGMBMIT (16.11.2010) Challenge m tihis appeal is to fhe judgment of conviction and order of senteuce dated 31.10.2002, passed by fhe Pirst Additional Sessions Judge, Siirguja (Ambikapur) (CG) ia S.T.No.276/2002, whercby and whercunder the leamed Additional Sessioas Jndge, after holdmg the appellant guilty for coimnission of culpable honiicide ainounting to xxiurder of Rajmati Bai, convicted fhe appeUant under Section 302 offhe IPC aiid sentenced for Ufe imprisonment aad to pay a fiae of Rs.lOOO/-, m default of payment of fine to fiirther undergo R.I. for 6 monfhs, ^f^^\ f j ~^'.:^-^^ 2. The conviction is impugned on the ground fhat wifhout fhere beiag any iota of evidence sufBcient for convictioii of fhe appeUaiit, fhe leamed First Additional Sessions Judge has convicted aad sentenced the appeUaat as aforementioned aiid thereby coninutted Ulegalily, 3. As per case of prosecution, on fateful day of 18,4.2002, belween 7.00 am to 4.00 pm at viUage Beldagi, Rajmati Bai (smee deceased) was prcsent ia her house with Geeta (PW-3), a duxab aad deaf child; at fhat tune, appeUant went iaside titie house of Rajiaati Bai and caused fatal iojiiry over her neck and chopped her neck aiid thereby caused mstantaaeous death of Rajmati Bai. Lohar Sai (PW-1) lodged FIR vide Ex. P/1 agahist iniknown person and inerg iatmiation vide Ex, P/2. The Investigatmg Officer left for fhe scene of occurrence aad after summomiig witaesses vide Ex. P/8 inquest over the dead body of fhe deceased was prepared vide Ex. P/9. Dead body was sent tbr autopsy to C.H.C, Loharpur vide Ex. P/12, where Dr. Ashok Kuinar (PW-11) conducted autopsy vide Ex. P/lOaad fouxid foUowiag injuries : i Head was chopped fix>ra fhe trunk. Cervical vertebra No. 3 aiid 4 were seperated. ii. Glotted blood was found over the hairs ofhead. m. Head aad tarunk were found separated aad after jommg ftieni they were belonguig to one woman named Rajmati Bai. iv. AU ffae organs of neck were found chopped, v. Incised wound of 3 x lw over the occipital regk)n. Brain niaterial was visible vi. Incised wound of 2 x 1" over right jaw Injuries were ante mortem m nature aad mode of deafh was opined to be haeinorrhage aad shock due to separation of head from. fhe torunk aad deafh was hoxmcidal ia natoiire. Plaia 33' soil aad blood staiaed soil was recovered froci tfae spot vide Ex. P/5. Oue axe was recovered froixi Mansai vide Ex, P/6, Spot map was prcparcd vide Ex. P/2. Patwad prepared spot nxap vide Ex. P/3. Seized articles werc sent for chemical exammatioH aDid presence of blood was found over fhe axe. Statements of llie witaesses were recorded under Section 161 of fhe Code of Crumnal Procedure, 1973 (ui short fhe Code). 4» After completion of iavestigation, charge sheet was fiAed before fhe Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aaibikapur, who iii tuni, coDimitted fhe case to fhe Court of Sessions, Axabikapur froni where fhe leaaied First Additional Sessions Judge received flie case on transfer for tdal. 5. In order to prove the guilt of fhe accused/appeMajit^ prosecution exaoimed as raaay as 12 witaesses. Accused was exaniiaed under Section 313 of fhe Code, ia which, he denied fhe circumstances appearing agaiast him, ioiiocence and false unpUcation in crime m question was claimed. The appeBaiit taken spectfic defense of cdibi aad has clamied fhat at the tiaie of iacident, he was wifh his son ia law at viUage Chonna and was not present on fhe spot. However, the appellaat has iiot examined any defense witaess or has not produced any docunient ixi support ofhis contention, 6, After affordiag opportunity of hearing to fhe parties, tibie leamed First Additional Sessions Judge has couvicted and sentenced fhe appellaat as aforcsaid mentioned. 7. We have heard Shri Santosh Yadu, learaed counsel for titie appellaat and Shri Saadeep Yadav, leaaied Dy. Govemment Advocate for fhe State, perused fhe judgment ioipugned and record of fhe tdal Court. 8. Learaed counsel for fhe appeUant veheinentiy argued fhat conviction offhe appeUant is solely based on fhe evidence of (PW- ^s^. '? ^^^^ 1 :?/ 3) Geeta, a child witaess, who is dumb and deaf; her evidence does not inspires confidence, trastworthy aad safe to rely for couviction the appeUaat fhat too for fhe heiaous offence pzuushable uuder Section 302 of the 1PC. Even as per map preparcd by fhe Invest^ating Ofi&cer, she was answermg ia the Coiirt by words aad gestures and tfae iacident took place iaside fhe house. It was not possible for her to see fhe incident; flfierefore, her evidence is not reUable. 9. On fhe oftier haiid, learaed counsel for fhe State opposed fhese argunients and subndtted fhat although Geeta (PW-3) a child witaess aged about 15 years, is duinb aad deaf, but her evidence uispires confidence aiid trustworfhy to rely as she has properly answered fhe questions asked by fhe prosecution aad defense ija fhe Court by words aad gestures aad her evideace is well corroborated by fhe evidence of her m.0ttier Balmati (PW-7) aad father Anaadram (PW-2), 10. In order to appreciate fhe arguments advaaced on behalfof the parties, we have exatamed the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 11. In fhe present case, honiicidal deafh as a resiilt of fatal mjuiy over fhe neck i.e, choppiag of fhe head from the tnxak has not been substaatiatly dispufed by the appeUaat, on fhe ofher hand, it is established by fhe evidence of Dr. Ashok Kuiaar (PW- 11) and Autopsy report Ex. P/10 aad deaffa was homicidal m natare. 12. As regards coinpUcity offhe accused/appellant ui crmxe ia question is concemed, conviction of fhe appeUant is substantially based on tiie evidence of Geeta (PW-3) a chUd of 15 years, who is duaib aad deaf. Her statexnent has been recorded on fhe basis of words and gestures and written ao.swers. She has properly aaswered ftie questions. She was able to understaad fhe questions aad aaswered fhose questions properly. As per her evidence present appeUaat has chopped fhe neck of Rajmati Bai by fhe axe. In cross examination, she has specificaUy deposed that on tiie date of mcident, she had not gone to SchooL She has identified fhe assafclant Her evidence is weU corroborated by tlie evidence of her fafh.er Anaadram (PW-2), who has admitted ia para 5 of his cross exammation that at fhe time of incident, his daughter Geeta was present in house of Rajmati Bai (smce deceased). The evidence of her mother Balmati (PW-7) also corroborates her evidence, fherefore, her evideuce mspires confidence and trustworfhy to rely even after she is dumb and deaf. In appreciatmg fhe evidence, Court is rcquired to consider the evidentiary value aad quality of evidence adduced on behalf of fhe witoaesses and not fhe number ofwitoaesses. 13. In the present case, evidence of Geeta (PW-3) is sTijGBcient for drawiag an inference fhat the appeUant has chopped the head of Rajmati Bai from the trunk and thereby caused her deafh. Choppmg ofhead from the trunk itselfis sufficient for drawiag aa iaference that the appeUant has caused fatal aad grievous mjury to fhe deceased wifhi mtent to kill her. After appreciatiag ffae evidence avaUlable on record, fhe learaed First Additioaal Sessions Judge has rightly convicted axid sentenced the appellant as aforesaid nientioned. 14. On close scrutiay of fhe evidence, we do not find aad iUegaMty or iafirmity io. fhe conviction aiid sentence of fhe appellant. ConsequenUy, the appeal bemg devoid of merits is Mable to be dismissed aad it is hereby dismissed. sunita Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge