Q ' ’ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR ‘ w Criminal Agpeal No 1111 of 2004 {C ‘é V APPELLANT: Krishna @ Kallu Bahadur S/o Gorelal > (In Jail)‘ Sonl aged 29 years Occupation ‘ . Agriculture R/o Vlllage Pahad Para Nagar Pollce Statuon Balkunthpur Dlstt v . Konya (C G ) Versus RESPONDENT: V. State of Chhaftisgarh, Through Police. Station Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) T {Criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal‘Procedure, 1973} ' ‘ , Present Mr *‘Ravmdra Agrawai counsel for the appellant i Mr Ashish Shukla Govt Advocate forthe State/respondent , A Division Bench: - ‘ . L. Hon’ble‘Mr. T.P. Sh’arma and I v > v .,‘. .lt . Hon’ble Mr; R.L. Jhanwar, JJ ORAL JUDGMENT ‘(1 5-9-2010) T.P. Sha'rma, J: - 1 Challenge in this appeal "is to the judgment of cor‘Viction &'or‘der’ of v sentence dated 20 12 2004 passed by the Additional Sessmns Judge Baikunthpur (Koriya) In Sessmns Trial No 198/2004 whereby & 5' whereunder learned Additional Sessmns Judge after holding the appellant guilty 'for commission of culpable homicide amOunting to murder of Jagmohan and causing simplehhurt to Kalavati, Sandeep 8th ‘Chatradhari convicted the appellant under bections 302 & 323 of the l P C and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life & pay fne of‘ Rs 3 OOOI- in default of payment of fne to further undergo R i for three s months and to undergo R i for one year respectively 2. ConViction is impugned on the ground that Without any iota of evidence \ u the trial Court has conVIcted & sentenced the appellant and thereby » committed illegality . 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on,the fateful day of 21-12—2003 at about 12 noon, on account of previous enmity the appellant came-with '1’, I: ‘1“. _, axe & stick to the house of Jagmohan (Since deceased) he challenged I Jagmohan and assaulted him by stick over his head tWIce when otherw >5 w ‘ Icomplamants Kalavatl & Sandeep came to Intervene and save Jagmohan the appellant assaulted them also Jagmohan narrated the ‘ madent to Villagers and fmally went to the Police Stahon and lodged report Vlde Ex P-1 Jagmohan was sent for medlcal exammatlon and , was examined by Dr D K ChIkanJurI (PW—8) Vlde EXP 6 and found . followmg Injuries — (1) Lacerated wound over back of scalp of 1 1/2” W x 1A”, fresh blood was coming and (2) Lacerated wound over OCCIpItal region of 2 1/2" 1A”, x W,» fresh I blood was coming lDr D K ghlkanjun (PW 8) also examined Injured Kalavatl vrde Ex P 7 ‘ and found swellmg over her right thigh of 8” x 1" He has also exammedV Injured Sandeep Vlde Ex P—8 and found swellmg over back of head of 2 1/2” x 2" Jagmohan was admitted tn hospital and he dled on 25 12 2003 l' \ ‘ at 5 30 a m Dehatl merg was recorded Vlde Ex P 5 on the baSIS of mtlmatlon Ex P 4 Numbered merg was recorded vrde Ex P—11 After summoning the wrtnesses Vlde Ex P-12 Inquest over the dead body of .Jagmohan was prepared wde Ex P—13 Dead body was sent for autopsy to Community Health Centre Chlrmlrl . Dr Vmay Jarswal (PW-9) 1 ‘ conducted autopsy Vlde Ex P-1O and found followmg Injuries - r ‘ (1)Lacerated wound over right 0colpltal region of head rn the Slze of 8 cm x2cm xbonedeep (2) Lacerated wound over nght ocmpltal regton of head In the Size of 8 cm x2cm xbonedeep V Cause of death of Jagmohan was due to head Injury and death was :; homICIdal In nature Heavy wooden stick was seized from the appellant Vlde Ex P 2 Patwarl prepared spot map Vlde Ex P- . Statements of the wntnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the " Cr P C After completion of Investigation charge sheet was flled before ‘the Court of Chief JudICIal Magistrate Balkunthpur who committed the v case to the Court of SeSSIons Amblkapur from where learned Addltlonal . SeSSIons Judge received the case on transfer for trlal ln order to prove the gUIIt of the appellant the prosecution has examined . as many as ffteen Witnesses The accused was examined under ' . «I . SeCtion 31 f the rPC '‘ 3 o C e e s appearing agamst him pleaded mnocence and false Implication iv > 6. After prOVIdIng oppodumty of hearing to the parties learned Additiona'I Sessmns Judge conVIcted & sentenced the appeHant as aforementioned .7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties perused the judgment ‘impugned and record of the trlal Court '8. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that In the hght of eVIdence of Injured Witnesses Kalavatl (PW—.1), Sandeep (PW-2) & = V Chatradhari (PW 3) he is not disputing the injuries found ove’r the bodies , of Kalavatl Sandeep, Chatradhari and deceased Jagmohan but he Is disputing conVIction of the appellant under Section 302 of the lP C Learned counsel further argued that as per the eVIdence of prosecution Witnesses the appellant was holding axe & stick and has caused injuries over the head of the deceased by stick not by axe and no boney injury/ .was found over the body of the deceased This shows that the appellant has not caused injury With intent to cause the death of the deceased .Therefore, act of the appellant does not travel beyond the scope of . Section 304 Part-I Or Part—ll of the IP C The appellant is in custody ' Since 23 12 2003 and therefore period of detention of the appellant is . suffICIent sentence to the appellant 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the appeal and” submitted that on the fateful day the appellant went to the hodse of the deceased with preparation to cause hisi‘death and injuries .t'o‘ other“.tjl..li.x persons, the appellant assaulted the deceased and when the same‘was‘ i objected by other witnesses and when they tried to savexthe’ deceased, a ,I‘ " $ . the appellant has caused injuries to them also. This’shows grave intention of the appellant to commit murder of Jagmohan and to cause simple injuries to other persons After appreciating the evidence available on record the trial Court has rightly conv1cted & sentenced the appellant i. t i 1 \ . ‘ 1O ln order to appreCIate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties we have examined the evrdence adduced on behalf of the parties V \ 11_4ln .the present case, homICIdal death of Jagmohan as a result of head _,. '~ ,ia. LL i injuries has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant, a Otherwise lalso same is established by the evidence of-Dr; D.K. In which h dnied the Circumtances . . ‘Chlkanjun (PW-8) medical examination report Ex P-6 eVIdence of Dr ' ~ Vmay Jalswal (PW-9) and autopsy report Ex P 10 Although no fracture or boney Injury was found over the head of the deceased but srzes of '- two lacerated wounds over occrprtal regron of the deceased show the I . nature of Injuries and that the death was homlcrdal m nature Slmple' 7’ Injuries found over the bodies of Kalavatl Sandeep & Chatradharr have also not been disputed by the appellant and the same are otherwrse ‘ ’establlshed by the evrdence of Dr D K ChIkanJun (PW 8) and medical exammatron reports ExsP 7&P 8 f- V ’ 1 1 2 . 7 (WE: 12 As regards complrcrty of the appellant In the crrme m question evrdence _ ‘of Injured wrtnesses Kalavatr (PW-1) Sandeep (PW 2) & Chatradharr (PW-3) Is suffICIent to establish the fact that on the fateful day the ‘ appella‘ht‘came With stlck & axe to the house of deceased Jagmohan and I v. after challenging Jagmohan he has caused Injuries upon the head of Jagmohan and when Kalavatl (PW-1) & Sandeep (PW 2) wrfe & son of Jagmohan respectwely, tried to save Jagmohan the appellant assaulted them also by stick and caused Injuries to them This evrdence Is ' suffICIent for drawmg Inference that the appellant has caused simple .Inlurles to Kalavatl & Sandeep and fatal Injuries to Jagmohan resulting In his death ' 3 As regards motive behind the crime motive can be Inferred from nature of Injuries weapon used and on the baSIs of other Circumstances ln the ‘ present case the appellant was havmg axe & stick (tendu stick) and he has used tendu stick for causmg Injuries to Jagmohan This Is not the I; g I case In which the InCIdent took place all of a sudden This Is also not the A case that the appellant has caused Injuries on sudden provocation and place of InCIdent and has caused Injuries With the said object But ln this i'case the appellant had gone to the house of Jagmohan With stick and after challenging Jagmohan the appellant has caused Injuries on the person of Jagmohan and when Kalavatl & Sandeep came to save A Jagmohan the appellant had not left the place of occurrence but has caused Injuries to both these persons also This shows the grave v Intention of the appellant of causmg death of Jagmohan and causmg 3 Injuries to Kalavatl Sandeep & Chatradharl that the appellant took out the object (weapon of offence) lying at the H V. in: I. Ir. ‘ ~ 1 5 ¥ ’14.After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Additionai sn udg ied & sente th ppella fontie senc pos pon aell r as n g ~ ng ece uabi ne e ia s cru enc nt d a egay n th pean te as manne uet d o e an ey Sdl- T.P. Sharma Judge Sdl— R.L. Jhanwar Judge Sesios Je convct nced e ant as aremeond ConVIction & ntees imed u the ppant ae bed o Ieai' " and cllnchl VIden sstaine udr th w 15 On cloe stiny of ewde we do o fin ny Iliht In cowctmg & sentencmg e apllt In h foreaid r Conseqnly, the appeal being evotd f mrit is liable to be dismissed d it is herb dismissed