(9 HEGH CGURT OF CHHATTESéARH AT EILASPUR Crimimi Apned No.61$ af 2007 Badru @ Eudr-u Mandavi, S/o Lakhu 60nd, aged abou’? 25 years, R/a Murgi Farm/ Kimndui. Presen‘r Aa‘dr-ess: Soukcmpui, P.5. Gangqiur, Tahsi'i & Dis'i'r'ic'? Bijapur' (6.6.) Versus _¢__ REsPoNDENT 5mm of Chhawasgam Through: swan Incharge, Kimndui, Disfr‘icf Dakshin BasTar Danfewada (C.6.)‘ (Appeak under Seci'ion 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure) BEvEsion Qench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P.5harma 8: Hm‘bie Mr. NK. Aqarwal, JJ. Presenf: Ms. Sunim Jain, counsei for 1'he appeibnf. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Pane! Lawyer fer fhe S‘ra‘re/ respondent oaAL JUDéMENT (?assed an 03” day cf February, 2611) Per T.P. Sherma, 3'. Chaiienge in This appecd is To fhe judgmem' of convicfion and order of senfence don‘ed 26-06-2007 passed by Sessions Judge Dakshin Basmr Damewada (Chha‘frisgarh) in S.T. No.90/2005 whereby and whereunder iearned Sessions Judge afH’er ho!ding ’rhe appeliam guih'y for f‘ne offence of cuipabie homicide amoun?ing, fo murder of Vikas Hcdder (deceased) convim‘ed ‘rhe appeiicm‘i' under 5ec?5on 3G2 of fhe Indian Penai Code (for shor'r ‘fhe IPC’) and senfenced 'nim fo undergo imprisonmen'r for Iife and ‘io pay a fine of RslOO/z in defaui‘i', addi‘i’ionai rigorous imprisonmem‘ for one mom‘h. 2. Convic‘i’ion is impugned on fne ground fhm‘ wi‘ihout any ioTa of evidence and proof of inTen‘i'ion, iearned Cour? beiow has convicfed ané semerrced ”the appeilanf as aforememioned and “thereby commif‘fed iliagali'ry. 3. Brief facfs cf prosecu‘rioa case are fhaf, on The fa'i'eful nigh? of 23-O?-ZOG4 a‘r 3.00 am, presen‘? appeHam was sleeping abng wif'r; ‘z‘he deceased V§ka$ Hai‘dar in N.M.D.C. Guesf House, Kirawdui. PW-3 Purshoi’a‘am Sahu was also sleeping in 'rhe some gues'i hause. $3.0?” Shri Vija‘y Panciey was aiso shying in “rhe suiTa of aforesaid guas‘? house. The appeilani caused fu'hxl injury upon fha neck of Vikas Haidqr whb was sleeping beside ihe appeiiam ‘i‘hen Vikas Hahiar' woke up. fippeilam‘ fiea away from ‘rhe gues‘r ‘nouse wi’r‘n knife. Vikas Haldar chased fhe appeilan'i'. On heai‘ing The sound m‘ Vikas Haidar, PW—3 Purshoi'mm Sahu aiso woke up and chased The appeiiani". The appeiian‘r affer inrowing fine knife fied away frcm ‘ihe spoi. Vikas Haldar was badiy injured, he feii down and became uncanscious. PW-3 Pur—sha‘i'fam Sahu informed The 5.D.O.P., Shri Vijay Pandey who was si'aying in sui‘ie Ne. 3 in ‘i’he same gues‘r house ihai because Vikas Haidar' has been assauii'ed by "rhe appeiiarn‘, S.D.O.?., Shri Vijay Pandey made arrangemen‘i for shiffing of injured Vikas Haidar and during ‘i'he course of shif'iing, Vikas Haidar died an ihe way. FIR was iodged vide Ex. P4 aiso merg was recorded vide Ex. P-5. Investigm‘ing G'fficer iei‘i for scene of occurrence, afier‘ summoning 'The wi‘i'nesses vide Ex. P-12, inques‘r‘ over- i'he body of The deceased- ‘Jikas Haidar was prepared vide Ex. P43. Blood siained knife, one pair of slipper and one rexin chappal; blood s'lained soil and plain soii were recovered from fhe spoi' vide Ex. P-o. Dufy regisier and work order were seized from Sanjay Soni vide Ex. P—8. Spa? map was also prepared vide Ex. P—11. Dead body was sen’r for au’ropsy To F’rimary Healih Cem‘re, Kirandul where Dr. Kumar Gou‘iam (PW—1) concluded aufopsy vid'e Ex. P-i and found one abrasion over 'i’humb of lef'i‘ leg of size 1 cm x £3 in size cu? 3 @ ‘r'ar‘oa‘r wound of size of 5" x % cm x 1" over- r$ghf side of neck. Deep fissue and s‘x‘ernomos feed musde and righ? juggler ve§n cad cam‘rid array are cu? arid some c!o?'red biaod is present Mode of dea'rh was syncope due ‘ro excessive Mood iess from in sized cu? ‘rhroaf injury and We deafn was homicidal in namre. Pafwari prepared spo+ map vide Ex. P—3. Sealed cic‘thes of deceased were se§zed vide Ex. ?-14. S‘M‘remen‘rs of witnesses were recorded under Secfiori 161 of The Code of Cr3‘minol Procedure, 1973 (for shor'r ‘fhe Code’) and offer complei'ion of inves?§9o+ion, charge sheaf was fiied before The Chief Judicioi Magis’rrofe, Donw‘ewodo who in i’urn, commi’r‘ied The case To The Cour? of Sessions, Damewodo from where learned Sessions Judge, received fhe case on 'rransier for Trioi. 4. in order ‘ro prove #he guiii of ihe appeiiom‘, prosecu‘i'ion examined as many as 6 wi‘messes‘ Accused was examined under Secfion 313 of The Code where he denied Tine circumstances appearing agains’i him, pleaded innocence and false implication in crime in quesfion. 5. Affer affording opoorfunify of nearing To fhe parfies, learned Sessions Judge convici’ed fne appellon‘r under Sem‘ion 302 of IPC and senfenced fine oppeiianf as aforemenfioned. 6. We have heard learned counsel for The par'ries, perused The judgmen‘f impugned and record of Courf below. 7. Ms. Suni'ra Jain, learned counsel adpearing for fhe appellanf, vehemenfly argued ‘r‘na'r convicfion is based on sole Testimony of chance wifness PW-3 Purshof‘mm Salau w‘no hos no? seen i'he aciuoii incident As per his evidence, he has seeri ‘rhe appeilan’i’ and deceased when born were running from guesf house. This ew’dence is nor sufficieor for o’raW/hg inference #Im" dips/Yew 1945 “”‘gd dam/waif aéeie‘ of Mes #a/am’ Zea/wed cog/fie” / appearirlg fer The appellam‘ fur’mer argued Thu-1’ as per- case of prosecuTion, on!y one injury was found over fhe body of The deceasad and even offer receiving such injury, Vikas Haidar was alive for a considerabie Time even he rushed from The spo'r and showed for help, fhis showg ‘i'ha? The appeiiarrr has no? caused homicidai dem’h of ihe deceased wiih infenfion To cause his deafh. 8. On “the ofher hand, le‘mrhed counsel appearing for ‘rhe Sm're/responden‘r, vehemen‘iiy opposed ‘rhe appeai and submi‘r‘red 'i'ha? presen‘r appeiiam‘ and fhe o‘eceased were sleeping loge‘iher, while deceased was sleeping, appellan? has caused fowl injury over 'ihe neck especially, when ‘ihe deceased was no? in a posifion “lo ‘lake help or 1'0 save himseif. This shows fhe grave in‘l’em‘ion of causing deai’h of 'rhe deceased by The appellant Evidence adduced on behalf of ihe prosecuiion is sufficien‘r for drawing a definiie inference Thai only appellant has caused culpable homicidal dea‘l’h amounfing *ro murder of The deceased. Affer apprecialing The evidence available on record, learned Trial Judge has righ‘rly convicfed and sen'l'enced as aforemen'l'ioned. 9. In order 'l'o apprecia‘re argumen'rs advanced on behalf of ‘l‘he parfies, we have examined lhe evidence adduced on behalf of The prosecul‘ion. In The presen‘r case, homicidal dea'l‘h as a resulf of fa‘fal injury found over ‘lhe neck i.e. vi‘ral par? of fhe body of Vikas Haldar has no? been subs‘l'an'rially dispu'l'ed on behalf of fhe appellant on fhe ofher hand, especially from fhe evidence of PW~1 Dr. Kumar Gou‘l‘am and aufopsy repor‘r'Ex. P-1 and fes‘l'imony of Vikas Haldar', if is esfablished fhaf deafh was homicidal in na'l'ure. 10. As regards complicify of 'rhe appellam‘ in crime in quesfion, convicfion is based on fhe evidence of Purshoffam Sahu (PW—3), who was also sfaying in *rhe same guesf house and was sleeping wifhin close disfance from The appellan’r and fhe deceased. As per his evidence, he was s!eepin9 wi‘i'hin fhe close disfance from ‘rhe deceased and fhe appeilan'f in fhe same gues‘r house aT ‘rhe ‘rime cf inciden‘r. When he hear-d The sound of “Bachao, Bachao" he woke up and saw fha‘? appeiiam‘ was running offer opening fhe gafe of gues‘? house fowards main ga're. Injured Viias Haidar- was chasing The appeilan‘r. The appeilam' affer fhr-owing knife fled away from The spot injured Vikas Haidar‘fell down near fhe main gafe, sfained wi‘rh blood. He immedia’rely knocked The room of S.D.O.P., Shri Vijay Pandey who was sfaying in Room No. ‘3’ Then fhey arranged for shiffing +he injured Vikus Haidar To hospi‘mi bu? during course of journey, Vikas Haidar died. He has lodged ‘rhe FIR. vide Ex. P—4 and merg intima‘rion Ex. P-5. Blood grained knife, slipper and ofher ar‘l‘icles were seized from fhe spof vide Ex. P—é. The defence has crossmexamined These wifnesses a‘l length. In his cross-examina'l'ion he has cafegorically deposed the? fhe appellanf has injured fhe deceased. He has seen The appellanf wifhin The disfance of 25 f’r. where ligh‘r was available. He has admiffed in para 13 of his cross-examination ihaf he has informed S.D.O.P.,’5hri Vijay Pandey relafing f0 inciden‘r and fhe facf fha‘i affer causing injury The appellan‘r fled away from The spoT. He has denied The suggesTion ThaT he has'seen The incident He is noT chance wiTness. He was also sTaying in The same guesT hause. He was working as waiTer in The same guesT house. His presence in The guesT house was noT unnaTural. He is noT having any enmiTy wiTh The appellanT or inTimacy wiTh The deceased. In his deTailed cross—examinaTion, defence has noT been able To eliciT anyThing To discrediT his TesTimony. Evidence of PurshoTTam Sahu (PW-3) inspires confidence and TrusTworThy. His evidence is sufficienT for drawing inference ThaT appelianT afTer causing faTal injury has fled away from The guesT house and presenT appellanT has Thrown knife near The ga're of guesT house. This evidence is 69 sufficien? for- dr-awing inference fhm‘ ‘fhe appeilan‘r has caused homicida! deafh of Vikas Haldar. 11. As regards ‘fhe quesTion of mo1‘ive, mofive only aids in criminaiify and in case of direcf evidence i? bsses ifs impor'mnce. Mafive can be inferred on ‘rhe basis of fhe weapon used, par‘r of fhe body effecfed, naTure of injury and other simiiar circumsfances. 12. In 'Hqe preseni’ case, The appeiian'r has caused “rne fafai injury over fine neck of fhe deceased while he was sleeping and was no? in a posifion +0 save himself or fake help from any person which shows The infen‘rion of ‘rhe appellan'i' for causing deafh of fhe deceased. Affer apprecia‘ring The evidence available on record, learhed Sessions Judge convicTed and senTenced The appellanT as aforemenTioned. On close scruTiny of The evidence, we do noT find any illegaliTy in The judgmenT impugned requiring inTerference of This CourT. 13. For The foregoing, The appeal being devoid of meriT is liable To be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/~ T.P. SHARMA w ,/ Judge / Kvr