[iiii ^139^ .T DWISION BENCH HON'BLE MR. T.P. SHARMA 8s HON'BLE MR. R. L. JHANWAR, JJ, VERSUS Rajendra S/o Halalkhore Marar aged 23 years R/o Shanti Nagar, Bhilai-3 Occupation vegetable seUer. State of Madhya Pradesh, through Thana Purani Bhilai, District Di^u-g. CR.P.C. 1973, Present:- Shri Abhay Kum.ar Tiwari, Advocate for the appellaat. Shri Sandeep Yadav, Dy. G.A. for the State/respondent. The followmg judanent of the Coi-ut was passed by 1. Challenge in fhis appeal is to fhe judgment of convection and order of sentence dated 9/3/92 passed by 5ttl Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 227/91 whereby and where under after holding the appeUant guilty for the commission of culpable homicide amounttng to murder of his DiotJ-ier Hafhiyarinbai convicted fhe appellant under Section e- • ...^y^^^ i;»IigSa <B«^ :l!;Ei-.] -.,tiE-^:' z. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced imprisonnient for Ufe. The judgment is impugned on fhe groi-md ttiat without iota of evidence Court below has convicted and sentenced the appeflant aforementioned and fhereby committed an Ulegality. Case of fhe prosecution in brief is &at on fateful day of 15/5/91 at about 8 A.M. appellaiit son of deceased Hathivannbai was present m his house deceased was also present ttien appeHant demanded Rs. 40/-from his mother Hafhiyarinbai which was denied then appellant assaulted tlie mother by hammer over her head and caused instaataneously death of fhe deceased. Wife of the appellant PW7 Kewara Bai went to the police station and lodged fhe First Information Report vide Ex. P-9. Marg was recorded vide Ex. P-11. Investigating Officer proceeded for fhe scene of occurrence and after summoning fhe witnesses, mquest over the dead body of fhe deceased Hafhlyarinbai was prepared vide Ex. P-8. Dead body was sent for autopsy to fhe Govt. Hospital Durg. Autopsy was conducted by FW4 Dr. G.S. Thakur vide Ex. P-6 and found foUowing mjures:- (1) One lacerated woiind over right side of head of 6" x 2" x l". (2) lacerated wound over right partial region of 4 x 2" x 1 "•satoa.""-<!8 ^itasS^ (3) lacerated wound over back of the right side of the head of 4" x 4" . (4) lacerated wound over middle of the head of2"xl"xl". Membrane of brain was found ruptured, brain was also ruptured, partial, frontal aad occipital bone was found fractui'e. Cause of deatti was shock and synco as aresult ofhead uijury. Blood stained and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex. P-2. One blood statned Lungi and SlTtrt were recovered from the wife of the accused vide Ex. P- 3. Accused was taken into custody he made disclosure statement of the hammer and LLingi vide Ex. P-5. Hammer and Liingi was recovered at the instaace of appellant vide Ex. P-5. Spot m.ap was prepared vide Ex, P-13. Patwari also prepared spot map vide Ex. P-7. Sealed cloths and articles were seized after autopsy videEx. P-14. Statement of the witaesses were recorded under Section 161 ofthe Code ofCrimmal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code'). After completion of fhe investigation charge sheet was ffled before tfae Judicial Magistrate Fii'st Class, Durg who in tum committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Durg. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has received the case on transfer for trial. •^m& B •'j^'^r-'5'"^ ^ s s (eS. 6. In order to prove fhe guilt of the appeUant/accused prosecution examined as weU as 8 witnesses. Accused was exammed under Section 313 ofthe Code where he denied fhe ctrcLmistances appearing against him, innocency and false implication is clainied. 7. Aft.er affording an opporturuty of hearing to the parties leamed Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant aforementioned. 8. Leamed counsel for the parties are heard. Judgment impugned and record of Court below perused. 9. Leamed counsel for tlie appellant vehemently argued fhat prosecution has not adduced any evidence to connect the appeUant with crime in question. Prosecution has not proved the presence of blood that too of hammer, blood over fhe axe. Axe has not been recovered at the instance of appellant. The evidence adduced on behalf of fhe prosecution is not sufEident .« . for drawing an tnference fhat appeUant has comxnitted the aforesaid offence. 10. On the ofher hand, leamed counsel for the State/respondent opposed fhe appeal and subinits that the evidence of wife of tfae appeHant PW7 Kewara Bai although who is hostile witaess is sufficient for drawin^ aa infei^nce that appeUaat was a person who had caused fatal tajiiry to his mofher and caused her deafh. 11. In order to appreciate fhe argument advanced on behatf of the parties we faave examined fhe evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 12. In the present case, homicidal death as a result of ante- mortem fatal tnjury has not been substantially disputed on behaif of the appeUant on tfae ottier hand, also established by fhe evldence of PW4 Dr. G.S. Thakur and autopsy report Ex. P-6 which reveal 4 lacerated wounds over fhe head and fractiire of parietal, frontal and occipital bone. Rupture of brain and brain membrane which are sufficlent for causiag the death of the deceased and death was homicidal in natiire. 13. As regard fhe complicity of fhe appeUant in crime in question is concerned PW7 Kewara Bai wife of fhe •» deceased although who has hostile has deposed m her evidence that at the time of incident appellant and deceased were present in the house, appeUant was taken Rs. 40/- from her mother tlien she went for ease and when she came back to her house she saw fhe dead body of her mother-in-law and appellant was not present tn fhe house fhen she went to the Police Station and lodged fhe report vide Ex. P-9. She is also deposed in her evldence that she has lodged the First Information Report that when she came after ease then she saw that her mother was agoniang and appellant ,^'i''"'-V., ;("';;. '!^ IT^. 1 II fSh-S"'"^ ..:^ 3 .."Ss ^\'] was taken out the inoney from the box of her mother but iirunediately she has denied fhat she has not stated this fact to the Police in Para-2 of her evidence, she has admitted that she has stated to police that on accoiint of demand of money the quarrel took place beto/een accused and his raother. In her cross exainination she has admitted fhat fhere was enmity 'between her inother-in-law and husband. Again she has deposed that fhere was no enmity between her mother-in-law and her husband. 14. Defence has not been cross examined this witness relating to fhe fact that appeUant was demanding Rs, 40/- from the deceased and when she came after ease then she saw her mofher-in-law she was ui agonizm^ condition or accused was not quan'eled with his mother. The evidence of this witness clearty reveal that. appellant quarreled with hls mother he was present wifh his niother tn hls house just before her death and after her death he was not present in his house. Appellant has not offered any explanation relating to 4 injiires found over fhe head of her mother. Prosecution has also adduced fhe evidence. Recovery of weapon at the uistance of appeUant, PW3 Vijay Jaia has deposed that appellant inade disclosure statement of hammer vide Ex. P-4. Haiaiiier was found iii hidden position KiisiaaetauilnNHittiin*iMa(t; . •v'^.. ^ I. lAy" JJ ;^. i^t^! ^ . ^.x "i :';®i;^^ 15. under fhe fuel wood and appellant took out hammer and produced which was seized vide Ex. P-5. PW6 Jitendra Singh Rangi has also corrobora^ted the aforesald evidence. PW8 Jiwanlal Bhalekar, Investigattng OfScer has specificaUy deposed in Para-3 of his evldence that he has interrogated the accused who niade disclosure statement of fhe hammer and on the basis of disclosure stateiaent raade by the accused he has seized haminer aad one Lungi, definitely fhe hammer is a article of common use but the evidence of aforesaid witnesses reveal fhat it was hidden ixnder the fuel wood and was not within the knowledge of anv other person m such ctrcumstance the accused has not offered any explanation that how he know about fhe hidden hammer it shows that the appellant hlmself has hidden the hamm.er. After appreciatiag tfae evidence avallable on record leamed Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant aforementioned. The evidence of discloser statement, evidence of PW7 Kewara Bai wife of fhe appeUant fhat just before fhe death appeUant was quarreling wifh fhe deceased, he was deinanding Rs. 40/-. Deceased died as a result of mjT.uy are sufficient for drawing an mference that appellant was a jiiunii^iBiniiimiiitiiiOTii 11 l-';h;¥.:^ii^fe. 5 »SrfSa •:"' WHflfe person who has caused ttie homicidal deafh of his mofher. 16. As regard fhe question of motive is concemed the motive is only aid in crmunaUty and in case of direct evidence it loses its tmportance. Motive can be inferred on the basis of fhe nature of tnj'Lio^ part of the body injured, weapon used and the manner of mflicting fhe mjury. The aforesaid facts and cu-cumstances are sufficient for drawing an mference. 17. In fhe present case appellant has used hammer dangerous weapon for causing iajur^' and has caused 4 injures, injuo7 over the head shows his grave intention of causing death of the deceased. 18. On close scrutmy of the evidence, we are agree \vith the view taken by the trial Coi-irt in convictmg fhe appellant aad sentenctng him for the commission of fhe inurder of his mother, we do not find aiiy iUegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned. Appeal is devoid of any merits. Consequenfl}r; the criminal appeal is liable to be disniissed and it is hereby dismissed. Present appellant is in baH he shall surrender huuself unmediately for serving remaining part of fhe sentence. SdA' ~, ^•P- Sharnia Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge