HEQM QQUR’E‘ 9F CHI-E fwwv7v‘33i ‘bi V .Isuv Hag’blg gsfowi Fa $5 :—i(m"%)§e grim mK. CWRA M /‘ KAL-AP RAM v V3: “take né‘ {‘hhaémamw‘b Sd/- V.K. Shrivatava Judge £RFMEHK§L APPEAL EQ§5Q J QQQ 3. JUE3QMEN’!‘ ENNQ €3€3N$EBE~RATE€EN *4 Fima’we ‘E’san «hwtiee Fakhriédm gm v9 \‘ L sw— \ POSt 1‘03: >6! 09 ! 2005 ‘ Sd/— ‘ 1 Fakhruddin Li‘igé \ L6,; 09! 2005 A g a HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH z BILASPUR (Division Bench) CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Fakhruddin, J 8: Hon'ble Shri Vijay Kumar Shrivastava; J. CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 66012001 Kalap Ram, slo. Tilak Ram Rathiya, aged about 45 years rlo. Charkhapara, Manghapara, PS Pathalgaon, » Dist. Jashpur (CG). ‘Appellant Vs a State of Chhauisgarh Through PS Pathalgaon, Dist. Jashpur (CG) A Respondent PRESENT Mr. Ashok Dixit, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. U.N.S. Deo. Additional Public Prosecutor for the $tate. JUDGMENT (Delivered on \él09I2005) Per Viiay Kumar Shrivastava, J. This appeal is directed against the iudgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19/06/2001 passed by die Addih'onal Sessions Judge, Jashpumagar , in Sessions Trial No.31/2000 by which the appellant has been held guilty for committing offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the l.P.C., and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to payé tine of Rs.500/-, in default of mm of hn/eto undergo additional R.l. for two months. aet 2) Brief fads of the case are that on 23/1 2/1999 at about 12.15 p.m. deceased Babulal Sonwani driving hismotor cycle bearing No. M.P. 27-C - 1343 was coming from the house of Upsarpanch - Chandra Shanker. When he reached near the house of Mohitram. appellant came there, stopped hirn and wielded injuries on his head by inflicting an axe blow as a result of that deceased Babulal Sonwani fell down from his motor cycle. After some time Somelal gave information to Upsarpandh Chandra Shanker that the deceased Babulal Sonwani on he way fell “down from his motor cycle and has died. Thereaner, Chandra Shanker gave infomiation to police regarding the incident and on his informadon; merg intimation was recorded by the Police. B.B.S. Rajput, Sub-Inspector came to the spot, prepared panch Nama of the dead body and sent the L. dead body for autopsy. Doctor Laxman Bankhed conducted the post mortem. On post mortem, medical ofhcer found incised wound of size 6 cm x 2 cm x 5 cm over posterior half of vertex region (parieto occipital) transversely. oblique extending more to right side. red coloured bleeding and brain deep. Fracture of both occipital bone and parietal region and middle fossa. Medical Ofiicer was of the opinion that the death was caused due to head injury and the death was homicidal in nature. 3) During investigation evidence of Lalih Bat, Udwaso Bai, and Ramsila Bai, who were present on the spot, have been taken and from their statements. it revealed that the appellant inflicting injuries by axe (Tangia) on deceased Babulal Sonwani caused injury on his head and asa result Babulal Sonwanisuccumbed to those injuries. On the memorandum of appellant axe and i6 hindle, shirt were recovered and seized from him. The seized axe and handle was sent to Medical Officer with query who. aner examining the axe-and h handle. opined mat the injuries found on the body of the deceasedfould be causedbythe seized axe. During investigation spot map has also been got prepared by Patwari. Motor-cycle. Vpiain eanh and blood stains were seized {tom the spot. Plain earth. biood stains‘ axe and m handie and the ciothes seized from the appellant were sent to FSL for chemical examination. After investigation police report has been tiled in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jashpurnagar who committed the case to sessions for trial. v , 14) Charge under section 302 of me I.P.c., was framed against the appellant. Charge was read over and explained to him, who abjured his guilt and his defence was that due to enmity he Ms been falsely A implicated in this case. irr" - 5) Learned trial Court retying on autopsy report. evidence of Medial otticer Doctor Laxman Bankhed (PWI7) and the eyewitnesses Lalita Bat (PW/1), Udwaso Bai (PW/2) and Ramsila Bai (PW/3) held the appellant guilty for commith'ng the murder of deceased Babulal §onwani and accordingly convicted and sentenced. ' 6) Both the parties are heard and record of trial Court perused. 7) Doctor Laxman Bankhed (PW/7) in his evidence has deposed that he conducted the post mortem of the body of deceased Babulal Sonwani, 0n examination he found incised wound of size 6 cm x 2 cm x 5 cm over vertex region (parieto occipital region) transversely, oblique extending more to right side. reddish colored mar¢ns sharp cut and wound is brain deep. Brain matter is compressed and crushed coming out, through the wound. lntracranial and intracerebral hemorrhages present. Fracture of occipiml bone and depressed fracture of right parietal bone was also present. There is also fracture of right E‘ middle fossa. Bleeding through right ear present. He has further deposed that in his opinion the cause of death was due to coma as a result of ; shock due to head injury. The death was homicidal in nature. His autopsy report is, Ex. P/9. He also deposed that for his examination, that one axe and its handle were produced on 26/1 211 999 and in his opinion; the injury found on the body of the deceased Babulal Sonwani coutd have been 1 caused by the axe. He has been cross-examined at lengm, but nothing substantiai has been brought to‘ discredit or disbelieve his evidence. “a 8) e Lalita Bai (PW/1) in her statement deposed mat she was at boriing pump, she saw the appellant coming with an axe and at that time ‘ deceased Babulal Sonwani was coming on his motor cycle. Appellant g, with that axe intlicted blow on the head of Babulal. who received injuries on the head and fell down. Udwaso Bai (PW/2) was also present near boring pump, who in her statement deposed that the appellant came carrying an axe in his hand and with that axe he intiicted injuries on me head of Babulal Sonwani who was on his motor cycle. Babulal 'sonwani fell down and died on the spot. Ramsila Bai (PW/3) was also present near boring pump, who in her statement deposed that she was taking bath at that time and she saw the appellant running away with an axe from there. 9) From the cross examination of Lalita Bai (PW/1). Udwaso Bai (PW/2) and Ramsila Bai (PW/3), it has been brought that the appeiiant is s nephew of witness Chandra Shanker. Chandra Shanker is Upsarpanch. The houses of appellant and Chandia Shanker are adioining and the relation between appellant and Chandra Shanker is not cordial. The village in whichthey are residing, has two groups, one is headed by Chandra Shanker and another by Mansingh. Appellant belonged to the m group of Mansingh. They accompanying Chandra Shanker went to the Police Station and their statements were recorded by the Poiioe under the dictation of Chandra Shanker . Ramsila Bai (PW/3) aiso admitted that in recording her statement by‘ the Police, Chandra Shanker was instrumental to it. Lalita Bai (PW/3) and Udwaso Bai (PW/2), in their cross examination have deposed that they did not state before the Police that the appellant by using both the hands inflicted blows by an axe on the head of Babulal Sonwani, but they were not confronted with their police statements. Only difference appears to be brought is that both the witnesses narrated k g before the Police that the appellant wielded injuries by inflicting axe blows on the head of B‘abulal Sonwani. Only omission brought is that they did not tell that both the hands were used by the appellant. Chandra Shanker (PW/4) who is the uncle of the deoeased in cross-examination has admitted the fact that the village is divided into two groups, one group belongs to him and another is of Mans'ingh. Earlier appeltant was in the group of Mansingh. but later on came in his group. All the witnesses belonged to his group. He denied the fact that he was instrumental in getting recorded the statements of Lalita Bai (PW/1), Udwaso Bai (PW/2) and Ramsiia Bai (PW/3). The appellant's house and his house are adioining. Appellant has a son who is presently residing in the village. 10) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that merg intimation i.e,. Ex.P/1 and Panch nama of dead body EXIP2 suggest that the deceased died as a result of motor accident, therefore, the appellant could not be implicated in the crime of murder. EXP/1 has been recorded w on the report of Chandra Shanker (PW/4). In EXP/1 its if. Chandra Shanker had reported that Somelal informed that Babulal Sonwani fell down from the motor cycle. In EXP/2 also on spot inspection, it was found that the deceased was lying over the motor cycle. Neither EXP/1 has been recorded on the basis of eyewitnesses nor Ex.‘PI2 has been conducted on the information of eyewitnesses. Therefore. bom these documents are not substantial to discredit the version of eye-witnesses. ‘ From the medical evidence, also it is clear that only one blow over me head of Babuiai Sonwani has been caused. No other injuries were found i on the body of the deceased and it is known to everybody that if any motor i accident occurs certainly a number of injuries must be caused on the body 1 of the person who met with an accident. From the medical evidence as well as the eVIdence of eyewrtnesses it ls clear that the deceased was on u; motorcycle and was stopped by the appeiiant who gave axe blow on his hea‘d. 0n receiving injuries on the head. the deceased fell down as a dead body was lying on the mow cycle and only one injury t. 3 was found on his head. 11) has been proved that on memorandum an axe and its handle were seized from the appellant and from-the evidence of PW/7 it was also proved that the seized axe was sent to him for examination and he on examination. was of the opinion that the injuries caused over the body of the deceased could have been caused by the axe. From the evidenoe of B.B.S. Rajput (PW/6), sub-Insmctor, it 12) Guddu Vs. State of M.P.. reported in 2004 (1) Supreme Court Cases 414 held that; Hon'ble the Apex Court rendering judgment in Banti alias ;na “E. Cnmmel Tnal -- Wtnesses Eyewitness — Thelrpresenoeatthespotofoccunence From their cross-examination nodung miirm could be elrcrtedtocastadoubtontherrwmrty No reason suggested why they would faisely implicate the accum nor any motive suggestedforsuch falseimpiicetion—Merely ‘ result of that ww&wmxw 44a mm g *‘m m ~ 4 ‘3 «if‘w mi 13) From reading the evidence of Lalia Bai (PW/1), Udwaso Bai (PW/2) and Ramsila Bai (PW/3) as a whole and also considering the a * omission brought in the evidence of La £ ‘ mat‘erial,‘ ma Bai and Udwaso Bai not their evidence on the substantial point does not appeat to be ‘ There is nothing to establish that the appellant has been falsely implicated and only because of presence of groupism in village or otfence of murder. 15) We are of the opinion that there is nothing subshntiat on record to show or prove that the tinding recorded by the trial Court is perverse or erroneous or calls for any intervention. The trial Court has rightly arrived at the tinding. There is rib’intirmity in the iudgment of mra conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court C9 16) In the result. the iudgment. conviction. and order of sentence passed by the trial Cou/\rt are maintained and the appeal is dismissed. Sd/— i ’A' Sd/- Fakhruddin [ V.K. Shrivatava _ Judge Judge Raju