-l?>t!;Wi ': : '.J,; ti»:> .) .^-»»a . •^^-^-•i-i •a.'a j i'^ "f T '*'"* j yp^iiva'tr saaasyssBGi. isasj .t®aysQ ,.,ana&< "•^^'i r^ " i' "? •—.-.J _42^W-^ ^Stf ^S^S^^SS' -^M£_. ^airf ^•J^^.t^u^s'3^ =7^=r77rTA "^t" 7 t-d-w^ ^nd-f^'c1 /f^S>^ _^Sa')f .a./ ^/A&<^^ f> \ ! -^Syj.'^SO ~^r^4 w^ Ei'B€»3 \J :,u"r 1 .3 f"i ^^ h£ ~~T, i li-f.1 —tb•//•i- "y^ ''-t. ^91 LiT —k^ ~e "ti /oY -_3.^-Ui92S 0/%.( ^. • tfEi^v^k.lti •^vitMts.-a M^ ^tt^e ~=T-?—g—g- A.Lfau», TS^~S'^K X-&^9-^SS" Q»a5~; tlbL.^ brt ^\to\,>?ut-i .'Vtuyi^ 10 I-'((l>'-><°r /- —^N^.- ^-- .^'auai. ^Fhlk^ll^l-^e^lt^-l^ll^ f~^w\y ^hhl r^SIH" ^fe sa Ueu!mu3) yu99 mnw0 ^d^^4A. ~^9~^~S ET Sfi 'r'3 ttS-US. ..£••'?''^^*:' :i'S;^S^@i^*^§ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR Cr.Appeal No.1115/1992 Pamkaia -Versus- State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) JUDGMEMT (2 ^-/ss^^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.ABpeal No.ll15/1992 Pamla-am. -Versus- State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhatdsgarh) CORAM: HON'BUE SHRI FAKHRUDDm. HON'BUE SHRI DILIP RAOSAHEB BBSHMUKH. JJ Shri Raabir Siagh Marhas, Advocate with Ku. Saiata Jaio. for the appellaat. Shri J.D.Bajpai, G.A./AddL PubUc Prosecutor with Shri Akhil Mishra, P.L. for the State. JUDGMBNT (Deliyered ou 29.07.2005) Per DIUp Raosaheb DeshmaUi, J. This appeal is directed agaiast fhe judgment dated 7th August 1992 deUvered by Shri D.R.Rahul 1st AddL Sessions Judge, Raigarh in. sessions trial No. 20/1992 whereby the appeUant was convicted for offence under Section 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. aad sentenced under Section 302 I.P.C. to imprisoiunent for Ufe wifh a fine of Rs.200/- and m. default to undergo further rigorous unprisoTimept for one inonth aad uiider Section 201 offhe I.P.C. to r^orous imprisoument for ane year. 2', Adinittedly, fhe deceased Moha Bai was fhe wife of the appellaat-Panikraia. Acquitted co-accused Bhola aad Shankarlal, were fhe sons offhe deceased. ~" - 2.- --"?: -;(»• ^^^;i-l^ -g- 3. Briefly stated fhe prosecution story is that the appellant- Parukram doubted the character of Moha Bai. They were living separately. On 21.12.91 in fhe afltemoon at about 3.00 P.M. Moba Bai had gone near the river strcatu (Lath Nalah) for fiffing water. The appellaat-Panikraui caine (here armed with an axe and assaulted Moha Bai by the axe. Moha Bai succiunbed to tfae injiuies on fhe spot. Sadhuram, a lad of 16 years, P.W.4, who was attending a caU of nature nearby saw the occurrence, got fiightened and ran a'way to Iiis hoiae. Later, the appeUaat- Patukram wifh the assistaace of co-accused Bhola and Shankarlal lifted the dead body of Moha Bai on a cot, took it towards their house in village Tangar and burat the dead body of Moha Bai to cause disappearance of fhe evidence ofiniuder by Panikram. 3. Labhodas, Kotwar, lodged -marg iatimatfon vide Ex. P.15 on 22nd December 1991 in Police Station Sara.ngarh. Dehati Nalishi Ex.P.14 was written by Sub-Inspector B.S.Thakur P.W.15 on 23.12.1991. The boues aad ashes ofthe deceased were recovered vide Ex.P.3 on 23.12.1991 by Sub-Inspector B.S.Thakur fmm the pier. On fhe basis of stateinent of fhe appeBaat Parukram Ex.P.4, one axe having blood like stains was sejzed vide Ex.P.5, a wooden cot was also ^seized from the appeUant vide Ex.P.6. The articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratoiy Science, Sagar vide Bx^P.lO. However, the report of the F.S.L. could not be produced before the trial Court. After completion of investigation, fhe appeUaat Panikrain aad two accused persons naniely Bhola and -3- Shaukarlal were prosecuted for offence under Sections 302 aad 201 offhe I.P.C. 4. The appeUant atyured his giult aad clauned trial. He pleaded innocence ia defence aiid led no evidence. The prosecution examined as inany as 15 witaesses in fhis case. The trial Court placing iaiplicit reUance on the testimony of Sadliurani P.W.4 duly corroborated by Labhodas P.W.l aad Vijay Siagh P.W.6, convicted the accused appeUant-Paiukram under Section 302 and 201 ofthe I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisoninent as shown inparagraph 1 (supra). 5. The leamed couiisel for fhe appeUant has heanly reUed upon paragraph 6 of P.W.4 Sadhurani whereia fhis witaiess has stated fhat he could not see ia a huny whether the assaUaat on Moha Bai was PaTiikram or not aad has contended that fhe above stateinent creates a strong suspicion about fhe coinplicity of the appeUaat- Panikram ia fhe niurder of Moha Bai He also aigued fhat the presence of Sadhliram. P.W.4 who appears to be a chaace witness at fhe scene of occurrence is also doubtftil. In a nutsheU, the leamed counsel for fhe appeUant argued fhat the evidence led by the prosecution fell short of the standard of proof required for conung to;fhe conclusion of the gudUt agauist fhe appeUaat. On the ofher haud, leamed GQyemment Advocate has supported fhe , judgineht of the trial Court aiid has counteied the aigUDients advaaced by the counsel for fhe appeUant by sayin^; fhat fhe testimony of Sadhuram. P.W.4 is corroborated by Labhodas P.W. 1 ~ and Vijay Siitgh P.W.6 to whoia Sadhuram. P.W.4 had narrated the -^f- ^l- incident on the next day. He also contended fhat Sadhuram P.W.4 bears no grudge ^ainst.fhe appetlant and his presence near the scene of occurrence is^ natural. It was also ai^ued that the testiinoay of Sadhuram P.W.4 in paragraph 6, which was refencd to by fhe counsel for the appellaat, has to be read conjunctly with fhe statenient niade by this witaess just a Une above tbe narrated version. It appears that tirte witness was whoUy denyiag the suggestion of the defence that he could not properiy see the appeUaiit since after heamig the shouts of Moha Bai, he got frightened aad ran away. 6. We have considered aad given our thoughtful consideration to the rival subinissions and have also gone fhrough fhe record luinutely. We are conscious that the case against the appeBant rests wholly on fhe testmiony of Sadhuram P.W.4, who is a young lad of 16 years, and fherefore, fhe testiinony of fhis witaess needs to be considered wittl care aad caution. On such scrutiny, we find that Sadhuram. P.W.4 has narrated fhat he was attendiag a caU of nature near fhe nalah aad had seen Moha Bai walking ahead of liim towards the river streaoi (lafh nalah). While he was attendiag tfie catl ofnature, he heard shouts of Moha Bai who was ciying for help aad he/'saw fhat fhe appellant-Paiukrani was assaulting Moha Bai by a Tangia on the face._ He got fi-ightened aad raa away to his house. So far as the testnnony of Sadhuram. P.W. 4 is concemed, we find fhat Suritram P.W.3 had stated fhat he heard fhe cries of Bhola, the son of the deceased, and had 'gone there. He saw that thc dead.body of Moha Bai was lying on the ground with injuries ^——--- 5'— -5'- B:;8iBil! f ''s'^'.ssyK:'^ and blood oozmg fiuia the face and foiir broken teeth were also lying nearby. This evidence stands whoUy unrebutted in. cross- examiaation and lendg fuU corroboration to tlie testfcmony of Sadhuram P.W.4 that he had seeu Panikram assaulting Moha Bai by an axe on titie face. Vijay Singh P.W.6 is fhe witaess at whose house Sadhurani P.W.4 was workiug as a servaat. He has deposed that on Sunday i.e, next day after occiu-rence, the father of Sadhuram brought Sadhuram to his house who told him that while he was attendiag the caU of nature near fhe Nalah he had seen Moha Bai waUdng ahead of hi'm and heard the cries of Moha Bai and also saw that Panikraui was assaulting Moha Bai by an axe. There is absolutely nothjng ia the cross-examiiiation of this witaess which would render fhe testiiaony iinworthy of credit. The testiinony of Vijay Siagh also explaias the conduct of Sadhuram. P.W.4 in nanating thc occurrcnce day later to fhis witness. P.W. 1 Labhodas is the Kotwar, who has also deposed that ou beiag asked, Sadhuram had told him that he had seen Panikrani assaulting Moha Bai. We thus find that Sadhurain P.W.4 is a truthful witness and can be safely relied on. 7. So far as fhe conteation of the counsel for fhe appeUant relating to gortion oftestuaony ofSadhiiram P.W.4 ia paragraph 6 of'the cross-exanunadon ie^concemed, we find that it is wholfy e- untenable. Firstly, because Sadhuram P.W.4 kn^w the appeUaut f\^ aad fhe deceased and the iacident had taken place in broad day light. Though the witness Sadhuram P.W.4 in cross-examination paragTaph 6 has deppsed that he saw fhe occurrence ia a hurry yet •-'6^ B'pi'S -6- in fhe next three to four liaes he has categoncally deiiied fhat he was iiiiplicatmg Ftenikraia at fhe uistigation of other persons or at fhe induceinent of police. We find fhat the testimony of Sadhuram. is whoUy reliable and has rightiy been relied on by fhe leamed trial Judge who had fhe opporh.uuty to see fhe deineanour of fhis witness, for bnngiag'hoine fhe guilt of fhe accused appeUant Panikratn under Section 302 offhe I.P.C. 8. The testunony of Suritram P.W.3 also estabUshes beyond doubt fhat the appeUaat had carried the deadbody of Moha Bai on a cot to vfflage Tangar. Investigating Of&cer Sub-Inspector B.S.Thakur P.W. 15 has also proved seizure inenio Ex.P.3 which establishes beyond doubt tfaat fhe dead body ofMoha Bai had been bumt aad reduced to ashes aad fhat fhe boaes and ashes ofMoha Bai were recovered froin vfflage Taagar. No explaaation whatsoever is forthcoming fix>in fhc appeUaat in ttus regard. Thus the ofFence under Section 201 I.P.C. also staads proved beyond doubt against the appellant 9. Having thus considered tfae prosecution evidence ia its entirety and also the aiyunents advaaced by learaed counsel for fhe-tiarties we find that tfae evidence led by fhe prosecution briags home the guilt iinder Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal / Code against fhe appellant Paiukram beyond atl reasonable doubt. The appeal has fherefore no substaace aad is accordiagly disnussed. -1?- -y- 10. Before parting we appreciate the valuable assistaace rendered by leamed couasel for the parties. Fakhruddin Judge Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge A3°' 'ia