HIGH CGURT OF CHHAT?§$GARH Ki $§M$Pi§§ DWES§9N EENQR:- CORAM Hon’b!e Mr T ? $ham‘a & , Hor‘ bie MrR L Jharmar, JJ. Criminai Appeal Na 963 cf 2994 ppeiiam gasant Sana via SM Kasam Vera aged (In Jail) about v5 years RIG Brindavan Nagar Onya Bast: Kushaipur P S Puranl $ast1 Distract Raipur (C G) x Vs. State of Chhamsgarh Thmugh Paawe Statlen Puram Bast: Raipur (C G) (Crimina! Appga‘ under Seution 3?4(2)¥ ef Cr.P.C.) U " Fé ispandent Mrs Fouzia Mirza counsai far the appeHant Mrs Madhu Nls'aa Singh Panel Lawyer for the atate/respondant ORAL JumMEw‘r ’ (Pa3sed on 13"' Apri!, 201 1} T.P.$harma, J. Chatienge in this appeai is ta the judgment of common a grder qf canteme dathd 15 C! 29M pa$sed by the 11m Additionai SeS$iaris Judge (F T C) Raipur m Sessmns Tnai No 12GI2G04 whereby & wha eunder learned 1 1‘“ Additional Sessmns Judge after hoidlng the appetiant gutity fay commsslon 0f cuipabie homicide amau'atmg to murder of Dumendra Smgh @ Laiéu Thamr convrcted mm under aectrcn 3G2 of the i P C and swntenced to uwdergq imprmcnment for Me and fne af Rs.2900/—, m defauii of paym€ni of frne ta further undergo RJ. far six months. Conviotion is impugnad on the ground that withoot any iota of evidence, the triai {3mm has convicted and sentenced the appeirdnt as aforementioned and thereby committed megeiity. As per case of prosecution, on the fatefm day of '18.2.2{)i)4 at about 130 pm. deceased Dumendra Srngh was coming with Kiehore Kumar Verne (PW-1) bv scooter his scoorer was interoepted and stopped by the presen‘ appeirent he aeked the deceased about Deepak and after Giggmg repeateory assauited over rhe chest and other parts or the oody oy A ‘ w 2‘ dragger and causad instantaneousiy death of Eumandra $ingh. K§shom Kumar Verma (PW-1) took the injured Dumendra $ingh ta Med§ca§ Couege, Raipur fer treatment where he succumbed in the injuriea information was sent to Poiice Station Mouhdhapara Vida ExPi12 and on the basis of EXP/‘1 2, merg intimation was recorded Vida ExPi? 3. Kishore Kumar Verma (PW—1) iodged F.i.R. Vida Ex.Pi2 and merg iniimation vide EXP/'1. investigating officer proceeded for scene of occurrence and afier summoning te wiinesses vide EXP/'5, inquest ever dead bod f the deceased ws prepared vide Ex.P/'6. Spot man was repare vide EXP/3 Dead body was sent for autopsy to Medicar Coiiee Raiur ide EXP/’20 where Dr.UHas Gonnade (PW-10) conducted autos ide Ex.Pi1 S and found foiiowing injuries:— {i) Abrasion over the neck as a resuit of draggin of 2.5 m. and «2.1 x .1 cm_ {ii) One stab wound over the chest in 6"“ inieroostai reion effecting heart and membrain hit} One stab wound 6‘“ and T“ ribs, ari‘reguier, hath etu ~ biunt, size 1.7‘ om. x .5 cm (iv) Bio oozes fro ail stab incised wound. od m Cause of death was due to shock and heemorrhege as a res of stab injury to heart. During the course of investigation, accused wee taken into custody, he made disciosure statement of dragger vide ExP/a and same was recovered at his instance vide EXPQ. Dregger as examined by the doctor vide ExPiig. Bioodstained & piain eoii were recovered from th spot vide Ex.Pl21. Seized artistes were sent for chemicai exanation an resence f lood on dragger was confirmed vid Ex.Plt7. C Statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section i61 of the ode ‘ i of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code’) and after completion o investigation charge sheet was fiied n the Court f Judiciai Magistrate First Ciass, Raipur, who in turn, commied the case to the Court of Sessis, Raiur, from where teamed 11‘“ Addition Sessions Judg (F..C, Raipur received the case on trasfer for triai. in orr to prove the guiit of, the accusediappellant, rosecution has examined as many a ieven witnesses. Accused was examined under Section 313 of the Coe, in which he denied the circumstances apearing It ( on p al e T.‘ n de p s e C d p gainst hm and ciaimeoi innocence and faise implication in the crime in / / h y c a pd g p v py v g c g mgn de uit w e mi d p o b e f i o tt \ a i Pg_ questim. The appeiiant has a!se examir‘ed defame witness 3huneshwat Tandi {DW- who has deposed mat no Insideni has been taken piace at the time of Incident and he wao present near the piace of mcident After prowdlng an oppcmumty of hearing to the parties, ieamed 11m“ Additibnal Sessiens Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur has convicted and senténced ihe appeliant as afcrementioned. We have heard iearned counse: for the parties, perused the udgment impugned and record of the the! Courf. Learned counsei for the appeuanf submits that conwction is rbstantlaily baeed on {he ewdence of Kashore Kumar Verma (PW-f), eithougn conviction can be based only 0n the beefs of soiitary whness if same is found fuiiy reliable, but in the present case evidence of Kiehore Kumer Verma (PW~1) does not. inspire confidence and trushvorthy. Hisevidence is not corroborated by other independent witnesses. Eventhe appelient was not having any grudge or cause for causing injury to the deceased, but he was having grudge against one Deepak, butgrosecution has not examined Deepak to urfotd the real story ln ti‘e preser‘t case evidence of Kisbore Kumar Verma (PW-1) Is sufticient for drawmg suspioion that the appellant may have committed the offence but the same is not sufficient for drawmg definite conclusmn that the appellant has committed the aforesaid offence. On the other hand teamed State counsel supported the judgment impugned and submits that ewdence of soiitary Witness Kishore Kumar Verma (PW-1) is suffoient for drawmg inference that the appeiiant has caused injury to the deceased with intent to cause his death. . ln order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behaif of the parties. . in the present case, homicidai death as a resuit of fatal injury found over vital parts i.e; chest and heart of deceased Dumendra Singh has not been substantiaiiy disputed on behaif of the appeiiant, even otherwise, it is aiso estabiished by the evidence of Dr.Uilas Gonnade (PW-10) and autopsy report EXP/t 8. Death of Dumendra Singh was homicidai in nature. x d j (-4— . As regards the compiicity of the appeilant in crime in quesiion, conviction is substantiaiiy based on the basis of soliiary evidence cf Kishere‘ Kumarr‘ Verma (PW~1). Conviction can be based cniy on the basis of soiitary~ witness, if same is found to be true. As per evidenoe of Kishore Kumar Verma (PW-1), he aiong with deceased Dumendra Singh were coming by scooter, they were stopped ano intercepted by the appeiiant, the appeiiant dragged Dumendra Singh from scooter and caused fatai injuries over his chest. He immediaieiy rushed to the house of the deceased and} intimated the incident, Dumendra Singh was iyihgkin the ftoor, they immediately took Dumendra Singh to hospital where he died. As per his evidence, he has iodged the F.l.R. and merg. Defence has oross~ examined this witness at length, but has not been abie to eiioit anything in his cross-examination to discard his testimony, especialiy relating to the tact that the sappeiiant has not: stopped and intercepted the. deceased- while they were coming by scooter and has not caused injuries by dragger, although there is some discrepancy in merg ExPi‘i and F.i.R. Ex.Pl2 relating to the weapon. As per his evidence, the appeiiant has caused injuries to the deceased by dragger, but as per Exs.P/‘i and W2 theappeiiant has caused injuries by knife. . Virtualiy there is substantial dispute between dragger and knife, but his evidence cannot be discarded only on the ground that he has informed the police as knife. Evidence of Kishore Kumar Verma (PW-1) is weii corroborated by medicai evidence and promptiy iodged F.i.R. and merg. . As regards the question of motive; in case of direct evidence motive tosses its impedance, even otherwise, motive only aids in oriminaiity and can be inferred on the basis of nature of injury, kind of weapon used, part of the body effected and other simiiar circumstances. . in the present case, while deceased was coming by scooter he was stopped by the appeiiant and caused repeatedly injury overhthe chest by dragger shows his intention for causing death of deceased Dumendra Singh. . After appreciating the evidence avaiiable on record, the triai Court has convicted and sentenced the appeilant as aforementioned. d @ _ y 17. Whiie convicting and sentencing the appeiiant under Sectasn 362 0f the LPG. the triai Court has not committed any iilegatity 0r $nfsrm§ty. Canviction is substantialiy ba$ed an clinching and nredibie nvidence and ’ is well founded. 18. Conseduentiy, being without we do not find any substance in the appeai, The appeni substance is iiabie to be dismissed and it is hereby R.L. Jhanwar l’fsyy/Aq/\ Judge J 'T‘P' Smége \