HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BlLASPUR DB: HQn'bleShriDhirendralVlishra& Hon'bleShriR.N.Chandrakar.JJ. Criminal ADpeal No. 734 of2003 ARpellant Pachkod, s/o. Niradhu Gond, aged40 years, r/o. village Patharri, Police Station Mainpur, District Raipur(GG). Vs. ResDondent State of ChHattisgarh. Present: Shri R.S. Marhas, counsel forthe appellant. Shri ©.D.Waswani, Govt. Advocate fbr the State ORAL.IUDGMSNT (16-7.2010) 1. This cnminal appeal is directed against thejudgmentof conviction and order ofsentencedated 16-1-2003 passed in Sessions Trjal Case No. 417 of 2002, whereby learned 9 Additional Sessipns Judge (FTC), Raipur, has convicted the appellant under Seetion 302 of the lodian Penal Code and sentenced himl to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rg.250/-, for cpnhmitting murder of his second wife Meena Bai, ih default :of p^yrnent of fine tQ ',[.,; . ! ; undergofurtherR.1. ofsixmonths. ', ij 2. The case ofthe prosecution, in bFi]ef,,as^pjQtected iji the impygned, judgment is that PW-3 -Budhra^iilodgeG|jgport^n 27-8-2002iin Police Station, Mainpur, at 5.13Q|a|p.j?t<g tH&effeet t|iat tiis nephew PaehKod - appellant afterleaving ;Mis^first wife tias kept Meena Bai as his second wife for the lasf 10 - 12 years sjnd he has twp i.i 1; •i :'t f 'n' 1 lil .iilt, 'w j ..lliUlsi 2 children from her. Yesterday at 7 O'clock his grand son Bhukan told him that fhe appellant's wife died at4.DO p.m. He got suspicious as Meena Bai was not suffering from any sickness and how she died, he went and saw that Meena Bai had injuries on herface, back and body. Me enquired from the appellant, but he did not tellanything. 3. Information was registered as morgue intimation Ex.P/6. After receiving morgue intifflation, police proceeded for investigatioi'i to village Patharriand prepared inquest (Ex-P/1 Oioverthe person of the deceased in presence of witnesses. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for autopsy to Government Hospital, Mainpur, where Dr. K.C. Uram (PVWI)conducted postmortemandgaveihis report (Ex-P/1). On the hasis ofmemorandum ofthe appell^nt (Ex.P/7), blpod stained weapon of offence broken club ini;two pieces was taken into possession vide Ex.P/8. Station l-fQliise Officer prepared site map (Ex.P/14)andspot map (Ex.P/15)!vfras got prepared by Patwari Shri Mugal Singh Nagesh (PW<8). Blood stained club wasforwarded to Dr. K.C. Uram (PW/1)|for examination and the Doctor opined that injuries found on the bc>dy of Meena Bai could be caused by bamboo stick and he advised the article to be sent fbr ehemical analysis for confirmation'of presence of blood (Ex.P/5). 4. After completing the investigation, chargesheet was filed agginst the appellant in the Court of Judicial Majgistrate First Cl|a?s, Gariyaband, who in turn eommitted the case to the Countjof Sessions Judge, Raipur and the same was received on tran^fer aa^t' :lii: -sa 5. 6. for trial by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who framed Charge underSection 302of the Indian Penal Codeagainst the appellant who abjured his guilt. Prosecution in order to establish the charges againstthe appellant examined 9 witnesses in all. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in theprosecution caseand pleadecl innocence and false implication. He also pleacted that his wife consumed excessive liquor and died due to fall. However, he did not examine any witness in defence. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties, convictedandseritencedtheappellantasmentionedinparagrapb one ofthejudgment. Homicidal death of deceased Meena Bai has not been seriously disputed. However, from theevidenceof Dr. K.C. Uram (PW/1), who eonducted postmortem and proved the report (Ex.P/1) in which he found the following injuries on the person of the deceased and opined that the cause of death was cardio- respiratory arrest due to hypovolumia shock and t'lomjcidal in nature and has further described that the mode of death was multiple trauma on the body leads t6 abnormal colleetion of blood over traumatiGal part whieh led to hyppvolumia| of blood and furtherdescribedthatthetimeofdeathwas24-72hoursbefbre the postmortem, we are of the opinion that the itrial Court has ^\: IU i rightly rejected the defence of the appellantand held that the deceased died homicidal death. i) ") iii) IV) V) vi) vii) viii) INJURIES On right lower part of chest over 9 -12th rib areaabrasion line 4 -5 cm long 2in number, red colour. On the back side of body—right scapulla 1x1 cm. Black colour contusion and below inf. angle area ofright scuppula 6 -7 cm long and 1 %to 2 cmwith contusion two in number. Neck: left side of neck- horizontal contusion 10-12 cm long 1 % to 2 cm width red colour. Left shoulder- contusion -3x4 cm. red colour. Buttbck - right byttoclt - wholei buttock reddish eolour, 10-12 eontusions hbfizontal, oblique, vertical each contusion - 8 m-10 cm long 114 to 2cm width. Buttock - 8-12 contusions, each 8-10 cm long width 1 % to2 cm. Scapulla—twocontusions,each contusion 7-8 cm long 1 %to2 em width. 8. Shri R.S. Marhas, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no eye-witness to the incident. Theconviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence. However, the circumstances relied upon by.the prosecution have not been independentlyestablished during investigation. The trial Court has also not considered the fact that the appellant did not; flee away from hls house after the incident. Had he been responsible for murder of his wife, he could have definitely abscpnded. The time of the mNNn— 1 1 ii'!a.!;ai.>ft^".:';;;.'ifr llfii ti ^i*-v%.;/j3^/^ incident isalso not certain as the Doctor has given the time of death of the deceased 24 to 72 hours from the postmortem. 9. On the other hand,. Shri G.D. Waswani, Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State supported the impugned judgment. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court asalso theimpugnedjudgment. 11. Conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the trial Court are as under- > The appellant and the deceased resided together in the same house where Meena Bai was murdered. Appellant's sister-in-law Kunti Bai (PW/4) who resides in the house adjaeentto the house of the appellantover heard the appellant and the deceased quarrelling with each other and the screams of the deceased to save her life. > The appellant did not inform anyone in the village about the deathof his wife when he was asked by Budhram (PW/3)as to how Meena Bai died. He kept quite and lastly the appellant took defence that Meena Bai consumed excessive liquor and she died due to fallunder intoxication which has been found to be false. > The weapon of offence Bamboo : sticK Was j | recovered on the basis of disclosurei sfatement of the appellant and Doctor opined that the injuries present over the dead body of Meena Bai could be caused by Bamboo stick. 12. Thetrial Courtrelyingupontheevideneeofi Budhram(PW/3)|and Kunti Baj (PW/4)has held that both Meena Bai.wife ofthe app^llant t) —.s ^e^^:^f39^ and the appellant resided together in the same house where the incident occurred. 13. PW/3 Budhram has deposed that the appellant is his nephew whereas deceased is his daughter-in-law. After death of Meena Bai, he went to Police Station and reported the fnatter about the death of the deceased. Healso stated that he went and saw the dead body of the deceased, however, he did not inspect closely and did not see anyinjury on her person. Atthe time of inquest he noticed injuTies over the person of Meena Bai . In his cross examination he admitted that Meena Bai used to consume excessive liquor and she died because of that. 14. PW.4 - Kunti Bai, has deposed thatthe appellant isherbrother-in- law whereas Meena Bai, iswife ofthe appellant. On Sunday at 10 - 11 p.m.,she heard appellant and the deceasgd quarreling. WHen she went out of her house, she heard that Meena Bai was shoutjng to save her. After her death she wentto her and found injuries ion herface. Meena Bai and the appellant quarreled with each other |on Sunday and because of beating she died. In cross-examination Ishe has stated thather house is in front ofthe appellant's house. i | 15. From perusal of the above evidence, it is established thatithe appellant and the deceased werehusband and wife and they resid^d together in thesame house where the incident took place. ln|the intervening night of Sunday and Monday, there was quarrel betwgen the deceased and the appellant and the decea^ed was shouting] for help which was over heard by Kunti Bai (PW/4). Report of |the ; incident was lodged by Budhram (PW/3) in Police Station, Mairfi^ur ,^« ^'' on27-8-2002. The deceased died in the house of the appellant, however, he did not disclose the fact of her death either to the villagers or to the Police and he kept quite till investigation commenced afterthe report by Budhram (PW/3). The appellant has taken the defence by way of cross-examining ttie prosecution witnesses as also in his statement under Section 313 ofthe Codeof Criminal Procedure that the deceased died dueto fall as she had consumed excessive liquor. The above defence also establishes the presence of the appellant inhis house when Meena Bai died and the explanation offered by the appellant regarding death of his wife has been falsified by theevidenceof Dr. K.C. Uram (PW/1), who has Gategorically opined thatthe injuries present over dead body could not be caused by fall on the ground. That apart, the disclosure statement of the appellant regarding the recovery of weapon of offence - Bamboo stick and the Dr. K.C. Uram (PW/1) whoopined that the injuries presentover the dead body could be caused by bamboostick and consklering over allevidenceavailable on record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to establisti the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the Circumstances relied upon bythe prosecution in the presentcase dd not call for any interference by this court and we find no substance in thisappeal 16. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge j _J. Sd/- ^jij.Chandrakar .ludge •If' Astitiitbfai