a?) \\ (\x. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE MR. T.P. SHARMA 6a HON’BLE MR. RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, JJ. Criminal Appeal No. 812/2005 APPELLANT Raju @ Panda, S/o Arjun Singh (In jail) Gond, aged 3O years, R/o village Chhbte Binauri, P.S. Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). RESPOND‘EIVT State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.). £ CRIMINAL APPEAL UEDER SECTION 37412) OF THE CODE OF CRIMIAL PROCEDURE, 1973. Presentz— Shri L.C. Das, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Neeraj Mehta, P.L. for the State/respondent. Versus $ JUDGEMENT (Passed on 24/ 1 1/201 1) The following judgment of the Court was passed bV T .P. Sharma, J:- 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of- conviction and order of sentence dated 31/3/2005 passed by 8th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bilaspur, C.G. in Sessions Trial N0. 288/2004 whereby and where under after holding the appellant guilty for the commission of offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder of 'his wife Shail Kumari, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. IOOO/—, in default of payment of fine amount, additional imprisonment for 6 months. , q; @ Conviction is impugned on the ground that Without any iota of evidence sufficient for conviction of appellant Court below has' convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed an illegality. As per case of the prosecution, appellant was residing with his wife Shail Kumari (since deceased) at village Chhote Binauri. On 24/4/2004 between 9:00—11:00 P.M. at night, appellant was present along with his wife Shail Kumari, he assaulted his wife by Lodha over her head 85 other parts of the body and caused serious injury.and caused her death. On second day, First Information Report was lodged vide EX. P—15 and Marg intimation was recorded vide EX. P—l6. Investigating Officer left .for scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide EX. P-l, inquest over the \ dead body of Shail Kumari was prepared vide EX. P—2. Blood stained 85 plain soil and one Lodha of stone was seized vide EX. P—6. Dead body of Shail Kumari was sent for autopsy to CIMS, Bilaspur vide Ex. P~12A. PW9 Dr. Preetam Sahni conducted autopsy vide Ex. P—l2 and found following injuries:— (i) Lacerated wound over forehead of 6 c.m. x 2 c.m. in midline, 8 c.m. above root of nose X bone deep. (ii) Lacerated wound of 2 c.m. X l c.m. just above the right eyebrow X bone deep. (iii) Extensive lacerated wound behind right ear of 15 c.m. X lO c.m. up to bone deep. Occipital bone was visible. Lacerated wound of 4 c.m. X 2 c.m. X bone deep over left parietal region. Mode of death was shock and death was homicidal in nature. w : OJ 4. Blood stained Cloths of appellant was seized Vide EX, P— 17. Spot map was prepared Vide Ex‘ P-19. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination and presence of blood over cloths of appellant and stone were confirmed ,Vide Ex. 13—24. As per report EX. P-24, blood found aforesaid articles was human blood. 5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’). After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed before the J/udicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessionsr Bilaspur from where learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge (F‘T.C.), Bilaspur, C.G. has received the case on transfer for trial. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code where he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. He has examined defence witness DWI Rubin Masih who has deposed that appellant was working under him and he was good behavior 8L conduct. After affordingan opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned 81h Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bilaspur, C.G. has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Mr. L. C. Das, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Neeraj Mehta, PL. for the State/respondent are heard. Judgment impugned and record of the Court below perused. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that this is a case of house murder but only on the ground of house murder, liability cannot be fastened : . upon appellant unless complete circumstances against appellant is proved beyond shadow of doubts. In the present case, prosecution has utterly failed to prove complete chain of circumstanceS‘ sufficient for conviction of appellant therefore, appellant is entitled for acquittal. On the other hand, learned P.L. for the respondent/State opposed the criminal appeal and argued that evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is sufficient for drawing definite conclusion that only appellant has committed aforesaid offence and Court below has rightly convicted and sentenced the tappellant as aforementioned. ln order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence V. adduced on behalf of the prosecution. ln the present case, homicidal death as a result of fatal injury found over the head of Shail Kumari has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant on the other hand, otherwise also established by the evidence of PW9 Dr. Preetam Sahni 85 autopsy report EX. P—l2 and death of Shail Kumari was homicidal in nature. As regard the complicity of appellant in crime in question is concerned, this is a case of house murder of wife of appellant committed at night. As per evidence of PWI Arjun Singh, father of appellant, appellant and his wife Shail Kumari were residing in the same room, on the date of incident his sister—in—law Amol Kunwar said that see the house of appellant then he went to the house o\f appellant where he found injured Shail Kumari and appellant was not present-on the spot. As per evidence of PW2 Bahoran, Shail Kumari was lying ;w injured in the house of appellant and appellant was also present in the house. Appellant used to reside in same house. As per evidence of PW4 Rajin Bai, sister— in—laW of the appellant, appellant came to her house and called her thereafter he fled. Defence has cross— examined these Witnesses at length but they have specifically deposed that appellant was residing with his wife Shail Kumari in same house and Shail Kumari was found injured in the"house of appellant. As per evidence of PW2 Bahoran, after hearing the sound of §§1 Arjun Singh that appellant has killed his wife, he rushed to the house of appellant. These unrebutted evidence are‘ sufficient for drawing an inference that at the time of in‘cident appellant and his wife were present in his house at night, his wife Shail Kumari was found ~ badly injured and appellant was under obligation to offer an explanation that who has caused injury to his wife in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act but appellant has not offered any explanation. In absence of any explanation on behalf of the appellant and presence of other circumstances, only inference wound be possible that only appellant has caused homicidal death amount to murder of his wife Shail Kumari. After appreciating the evidence available on record learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bilaspur, C.G. has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. On close scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Consequently, criminal appeal is devoid of merits, same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sdl- T. P. Sharma. &9e w K \