HiGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR s: HON'BLE MR.T.P.S HON'BLE MR.R.L.* ,-VAR.JJ. APPELLANT rinJain Sudharam s/o Koia Bhuriya aged 40 years residsnt of Sadmar P.S- Barsur District Dantewada. Stats of Chhaftisgarh. ar (CRMiNAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRiMENAL PROCEDURE, 1973$ Present:- Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, couRse! for the appelianf. Mr-Sandeep Yadav, Dv.Govt.Advocate for the SSate. ORAL JUi sss \ (Passed on 30th August, 2010) Ghaijenge in this appesl is to She Judgment of convtction & order of sentence dated 21.9.200t passed by the 4 Additionai Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, In Sesstons TrisiNo. 119/2001, whereby & whereundsr ieamed 4^h Addltiona! Sesslons Judge after holding fhe appeiiant gudty for commtssion of culpabie homicide amounting to murder of Sannu, convicted under Sectlon 302 of the indian Penai Code and senienced hsm to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs,500/-, :jn default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. "f 2. CoRvictjon Is impugned on the ground that without thsre betng iota evidsnce, {he triat Gourt has coRvicted & sentenced the sppeilant aforementioned and {hereby committed iiiegaiity. ;. Case ofthe prosecution, jn brief, is that on 9.1.2001 Sa.nnu, husband of Mail (PW-1) went to cojtect wood, but he did not retum. On 13.1.2001, tKs qppeliant came to the house of Mall (PW-1) and made extra judiclai - confession that he has commltted murder of Shannu by sxe. She has '^'1 ' -"ws •^ N1 as nsrratsd to incjdent to other persons, t'nen they VB'ent to the spot and finally lodged fhe F.1.R. vide Ex.P/1. After summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P/2, inquest over the body of the deceased vvas prepared vide Ex.P/3. Spof map was prepared by invsstigatlng offscer vide Ex.P/4. Bioodstalned and plaln sotl were recovered from the spot vfde Ex.P/5. The accused vvas taken Into custody, he made a'isclosure statemsnt of axe vide Ex.P/9 and same was recovered at his Insiance vlde Ex.P/6. Dead body was senf for autopsy to Primary Heaith Csntrs, Barasur vide Ex.P/7. Dr.P.S.Komre (PVV-6) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P/13 and found foiiowing injuries;- i) One Incised wound ovsr mid of post part of the head of 3" x 2' 4". ii) Lacerated wound over upper part of right eye of 2" x 1 " x 1" lii) iniernal tissue of brain and bone was found cut. Brain matter v/as aiso coming out. iv) Bone beneath inju"/ near right eye was slso found fraciurs. Cause of death v/as massive heamorrhage and death w?s homicidal in nature. nf ththe witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of fhe Cr.P r.P.C. and after completion of investigation.charge sheet was fitea' bsfore the Court of Chief Judiciai Magistrate, Dantewada, who in tum committed the case to the Court of fhe Sessions, Jagdajpur from where the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdaipur received the case on transfer for triai. 5. in order to prove the guiit of the accused/appeitaRt, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses. Statement of the accused/appeiiant was aiso recorded under Section 313 ofthe Cr.P.C. where he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pieaded innocenceand rafse impiicstJon In the cnme in quesfioR. 6. After sffording opportunity of hearing to the parties, iearnea' 4*'' Additionai Sesstons Judge convicted and sentenced the appeilant BS aforementioned. .J^M!';, • ^) 7. Wi nar \^^^ We have heard Isarned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment ^.aned and record ofthe tria! Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant veherr.entiy argued ihat in the preserst case F.1.R. has been iodged after three days of incideRt, but deiay has not been expfained whic'n is faia! to the prosecutlon. Ail the witnesses are interested witnesses and they have not seen the incident and with a view to implicate, they have deposed against the presert appeiiart. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsei supported t'ne judgment impugned and argued that in the present case, conviction is substantiaiiy based on extra judicial confession made by the appeliani to Maii (PVV-1), Mounja (PW-2), Somdu (PW-3) and Sonaru (PW-4). Mounja (PW-2), Somdu (PW-3) and Sonam (PW-4) gre ateo eye witnesssd before whom the appeliant has caused fatal injuriss resuiting Into deafh of Sannu. These evidences are sufficient fer drawing Inference thai the appeiiant has committed cuipabie homicide amounting to murder of Sannu and the inai coun n iforementlonsd. :h»^h^ ^irtV^\f'f^r^tf4 jui.iy ^UilVi'LriE.1ed & senteRced the appellant a 10.1n order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examlned the evldence adduced on behaif offhe prosecution. . in the p 12 present case, fatal Injuries over the body of deceased. Sannu and homicidai death of Sannu has not been substantiaily disputed on bshalf of the appeiiant, on fhe other hand, oiherwiss also estabiished by the evidence of Dr.P.S.Komre (FW-6) and autopsy report Ex.P/13 which reveal thai fatal injuries were found over the head of deceased Sannu, which is sufficient for causina death and dsath was homicidai in nature. ; .As regards the complicity of the accused/appeiiant In the cnme in questlon, the prosecutlon has examined two sets of evidencs viz., (11) extra judiciai confession made by the appellant and (2) evidences of thte eye witResses. As per evidence of Mounja (PW-2), the present appeilarit has caused fatal injuries to Sannu by axe and repeated thres injuries were caussd over his head, Sannu feii down and died. Somdu (PVV-3) and Sonaru (PW-4) have substantiaily corroborated the evicSsnce qf Mounja^PW-2). Defencs has cross-examinsd these witnssses at iengt^ ii *!> : ! i !; i! <S;SiE|j> ^f^\/ •>i-^L-'^ i^;'!t^£L^f' ^ fcut has not been able to eiicit anyfhing in their cross-examinations to discredit their testimony. They have aiso deposed reiating to exira judiciai confesslon made by the appeiiant in the panchayat. As per evldence of Ma!i (RA/-1), wife of the deceased who has todged the F.S.R. Ex.P/1, the appeliant came io her snd made extra judiciat confegsion that he has kiiSsd her husband, On the basis of extra judiclal confessjon she verified and Sodged ths F.i.R. vide Ex.P/1 whteh reveals the factum of extra judicial confession made by the appeliant- Mounja (PW-2), Somdu (PVV-3) and Sonaru (PVV-4) have aiso corroborated the factum of extra judteiai confession made by the appellant before panchayat in v/hich ths appeilaRt has specifically admittsd that he has kilied Sannu by axe. 13.in the present case, evidences of the ey& witnesses and extra judteiai confession made by the appeiiant before the v.i'itnssses are suffiGtsnt for drawing inference that the appeiiant has caused fatai injuries to Sannu. 14.As regards the question of motive, in case cf dlrect evidence motive losses its importance, even otherwise, motivs oniy aids in crirRlnality and can be inferred on the basis of nafure of injury, kind of weapon used, part of t'ne body effected and other simiiar circumstancss. 15.1n the present case, the appeilant has caused three injuries over the body of dsceased Sannu and two injuries over the head whlch shows motsve for causing cuipabie homicjde amounting to murder of the IS.After appreciating the evidence avaiiabie on record, iearned 4h Addtttonai Sessions Judgs has convicteci & senienced the appeiiani as afQrementioned. i7.Cn ciose scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find any iilegaiity In the convictton & sentence of the appeliant. Conviction of the appeiiant is based on iegsi, clinching, credibie and cogent evidence sustainable under fhe law. ( iS.Consequentiy, the appsal being devoid of merit is iiable to be dismis^d] and it is hsreby tiismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge i\ Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge