/^ Appellants HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR.. J Criminal Appeal No. 1138 of2000 Nadguram S/Q. Maangu @ Maahangu „-<f \ Vs. Respondent The State of Chhattisgarh. POST FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT Sd/- JUDGE l-9-2009 Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge V'-. 1->; Appellant: ^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 11 38 of 2000 Nadguram s/o. Maangu @ Maahangu, aged 35 years, Caste Madiya, r/o. village Taragaon, PS Bhanupuri, Dist. Bastar(CG). Versys Respondent: State of CG. thrpugh Station House Officer, Police Station Bhanupuri, Dist. Bastar.(CG). (Criminal appeal u/S 374 ofthe Code of Criminal Prpcedure 1973) SB: Hon'ble Shri R.N.Chandrakar, J. Present: Mr. Manoj Mishra, Advocate appears as Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. JUDGMENT (Delivered on this.s.*--1- day of September, 2009) 1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1-2-2000 passed by the FirstAdditiQnal Sessions Judge, Bastar (Jagdalpur) in Sessions Trial No. 398 of 99, convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo ngorous imprisonment for four years. 2. The judgment is challenged on the ground that the trial court has committed illegality in convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant as mentioned above without any cogent and reliable evidence available on record though, the accused/appellant has already been released from jail on 26-1-2002 after he was given the benefit of special remission on the eveof RepublicDay.as isevident from perusal of the PUD dated ^ ^ 4-2-2008 sent by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jagdalpur, Dist. Bastar. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21-7-1999 when Btidhobai, the prosecutrix, after collecting "Boda" fruits etc., returned to her house, the accused/appellant (husbandof the prosecutrix) attacked with axe on her neck, head, check and waist with intention to cause her death on the pretext that she does not do the domestic works due to which she sustained grjevQus injuries. After assaulting his wife Budhobai, the accused appellant fled away from the place of occurrence. The village Kotwar brought her to the hospital from Where the Station House Officer was informed who recorded DehatiNalsi (Ex.P/11) and on that basis registered the FIR(Ex.P/10) for offence u/s307 of the IPC and the matter was investigated. 4. After completing the investigation.charge sheet was fited against the accused/appellant in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur, who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Courtfrom where the trial Court received thecase on transfer. During trial the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, framed the charge under Section 307 of the IPC. The accused/appellant abjured the guilt. After recording the evidenceof witnesses, the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication. After due trial, the learned Ist AdditionalSessions Judge, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant asmenticned in para 1 of thejudgment. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court are bad in the eyes of law as the trial court has not properly appreciated the prosecution evidence. He further submits that the accused/appellant was in drunken condition at the time of incident due towhich he was not in a h It ^ 7 (^^ position to understand the consequences of his act. He also submitted that the Doctorwho examined the injured did not state anything regarding grievousness of the injuries and he did not opine, whether the injuries sustained by the prosecutrix were sufficientto cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further submits that the Investigating Officer did not submit bed-head ticket and x-ray repori:s of the prosecutrix in the trial Court, therefore, it was not proved that the injuries were grievous in nature. There was no eye-witness to the incident and the intention of the accused/appellant was also not proved. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances ofthe case, thejudgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court be set aside and the accused/appellant be acquitted of the charge. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State argued the matter in support of the impugned judgment of the lower Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, 1 have perused the records of the trial Court and also the impugned judgment. 8. In order to prove the guilt against the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. 9. PW/1 Budhobai, the prosecutrixstated in her deposition that on the date of incident when she returned to her house from the forest aftercollecting "Boda" fruits, her husband, the accused/appellant was digging Papaya Tree to which she objected. On this, the accused/appellant became furious and saying that v/ho was she toobject, attacked on her neck, cheekand back with the sharp edged axe. She made out cryand hearing the same Budhram and his family members came there. Seeing them, her husband, the accused/appellant fled away from the spot towards the forestalong with axe. Thereafter, she was taken to Bhanupuri Hospjtal by Budhram and Nadaram, the village Kotwar to whom she narrated the ^ ^' incident. She further stated that the Police seized plain and blood smeared earth and broken bangles from the spot. 10. PW/2 Nadaram, village Kotwar stated in his deposition that he did not go to the house of Budhobai, but she herself had come to him and stated that she was assaulted with axe by her husband. On asking, Budhobai stated that she objected her husband to cut Papaya Tree due to which he assaulted her with axe. Onseeing her smeared with blood, he took her to Bhanupuri Police Station, thereafter, looking to her terrible condition he along with one Cpnstable took her to the Bhanupuri Hospital from where she was referred to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur where she was hospitalized for about a month. He stated to see the injuries of axe on her waist; neck, cheekand backside the head. The Police investigated the matterand seized the blood smeared saree and blouse of Budhobai from him vide seizure memo Ex.P/1. Thiswitness was declared hostile. 11. PW/3 Budhram stated in his deposition that on the date of incident he was in his house and heard the cries from the houseof Budhobai who came to his house smeared with blood andasked for water. After drinking water she asked him to take her to the Kotwar. While he was taking her towards Mohalla, the Kotwar met themon the way. Budhobai narrated the incident to them and she was taken to the Police Station from where she was sent to Bhanupuri Hospital. 12. PW/4 Rameshwar stated in his deposition that after the incident, the Police came to the village and interrogated the accused in his presence, but nothing was stated out by the accused about the axe. He further stated that nothing was seized from the accused/appellant before him. He admittedhis signatures on memorandum statement (Ex.P/3) and seizure memo(Ex.P/4). He also admitted his signature on arrest memo (Ex.P/5) andstated that the accused/appellant was arrested before him. The •-^ •<;-' witness was declared hostile and in the leading question put to him, though he denied the memorandum (Ex.P/3) given by the accused/appellant, admitted thesejzure of one iron axe stained with blood fromthe accused. 13. PW/6 Dr. K.S. Paikra stated in his deposition that on 31-7-1999 he examined the prosecutrix Budhobai and found the following injuries:- 1) One incised wound inthe sizeof 1 1/S"x 1/£"x %" at rightside ofneck. 2) One incised wouhd in the size of 1 ^" x ^ " x Vz" at right side of occipital region. 3) One incised wound in the sizeof 2 %" x 1^"x %" at left side of buttock. 4) One jncised wound in the size of 3" x ^" x 1/^" at right cheek. He opined that all the injuries were caused by hard and sharp edged weapon within 12 hours from his examination. He referred the injured to District Hospital, Jagdalpur, immediately in viewofthe grievoysness of the injuries sustained byher and expressed hisinability to stateabout the nature of injuries without the opinion of x-ray and surgicalspecialist. He gave his report vide Ex.P/6. He also admitted that on 27-8-1999 he examined the seized axe sent by the Police Station Bhanupuri vide Ex.P/7 and found blood stains over its sharp edge. He advised for chemical examination of the same. He also admitted to examine the seized plain and blood smearedearth, saree, blouse and broken banglesvide Ex.P/8 and P/9 and advised for chemical examinafion. 14. PW/8 NareshDubey, Station House Officer, stated in his deposjtion that he recorded DehatiNalsi (Ex.P/11) at Primary Health Centre, Bhanpuri, on the basis of statement given by prosecutrix Budhobai. Thereafter, he preparedspot map Ex.P/12, sent the prosecutrix for medical examination vide application Ex.P/6-A, seized plain blood smeared earth, broken bangles vide seizure memo Ex.P/5, arrested the accused on2-8-1999 vide Ex.P/5, recorded memorandum statement Ex.P/3, seized blood -< stained iron axe from accused/appellant vide seizure memo Ex.P/4 and sent the seized articles for examination by the Doctor Vide applications Ex.P/7-A and Ex.P/8-A. On 8-8-1999 he seized saree and blouse of the prosecutrix vide Ex.P/1 which were sent for examination by the Doctor vide Ex.P/9-A, recorded the statements of the witnesses and sent the seized articles to FSL, Raipur, for examination through Superintendentof Police, Jagdalpur, vide Ex.P/13 and report thereof (EX.P/14) was received. 15. On re-appraisal ofthe evidence and on going through the record, itis clear that the statements of the witnesses are consistent despite there being some contradiction and omission. So far as the offence u/S. 307 of the IPC is concerned, the accused/appellant can be convicted on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix and her testimony is not required to be corroborated by any eye-witness. More over, in the instant case, the prosecutrix is the wife of accused/appellant, therefore, there is no likelihood that she would implicate the accused/appellant in a false case. Thestatement of the prosecutrix also finds corroborated by the medical evidence. In the report of FSL also, the clothes of prosecutrix were found blood stained. 16. For the foregoing reasons, 1 am of the considered opinion that the judgment ofthe trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in appeal. The court below has rightly placed reliance on the statements of the witnesses while convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant as mentioned above. 17. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid ofsubstance, is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge raju