COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR DJViSJONBENCH: L-s J '^ ApDeliant (!n Jail) Coram: Hon'bSe Mr. T.P.SHARMA & Hon'ble IVIr. .R.N. CHANDRAKAR, JJ. Crimlnal Appeai No. 519 of 1995 Manraj son of Mohan Rajwar, aged 35 years, resident of Girjapur, poljce station Patna, District Sarguja, C.G. Respondent Versus The State of Madhya (Now Chhattisgarh) Pradesh (CRMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECT!ON 374 (2) OF THE CODE QF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973) Present:- Mr. A.K. Prasad, counsel forthe appellant. Mr. J.A. Lohanj, Panei Lawyerforthe State. JUDGiVIENT (Deiivered on 17th October, 2011) PerT.P.Sharma,J.:- 1. Chalienge jn this appeai is to the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 15.03.1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur, District Sarguja, in Sessions Trial No.99/1994, whereby & whereunder iearned Addltional Sesslons Judge after hoiding appeliant guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of Sitaram Sahu (since deceased) convicted the appeiiant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for llfe. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed i!iega!ity. 3. As per case of prosecutlon, deceased came near the house of Laiji Prasad for posting the cards in post office box, after posting the cards, on account of previous animoslty, appeElant caused two repeated injuries <L by knlfe over his scapular and abdominai region. PW/12-Raniya and PW/13-Rajkumar, daughter and son of deceased were a!so coming tov/ards the spot. They had seen the incident. PW/6-Lalji Prasad whose house is sltuated near ths piace of incident has also seen the incident. He rushed towards the house of deceased by bicycle and informed to PW/12-Ranlya and PW/13-Rajkumar, daughter and son of deceased about the Enddent. Deceased succumbed to the injurles on the spot. 4. PW/12-Raniya and PW/13-Rajkumar, daughter and son of deceased informed .the incldent to their brother PW/1-Shriram, v\/ho went to police station and iodged FIR vide Ex.P/1. Investigating officer left for scene of occurrence, after summoning the witnesses vlde Ex.P/2, inquest over deaci body of deceased was prepared vide Ex.P/3. PEain soil, blood stained soll and one pair of Hawal chappai were seized from the spot vlde Ex.P/5. Dead body of deceased v^as sent for autopsy to Govt. Hosplta!, Baikunthpur vide Ex.P/7. Dr. R.K. Sharma (PW/7) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P/8 and found foliowing injurles:- i) Stab wound over left scapuEar region of 2 1A" x 1 1A", mussels were visible. II) Stab wound of 2x1 14" over abdomen, ornentum was visible from the injury. 5. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/12. Sealed ciothes of deceased 'were seized vlde Ex.P/11. Spot map was a!so prepared vide Ex.P/14. One Rico watch, currency total Rs.70/- and one letter were seized from the body of deceased vide Ex.P/4. Selzed articies were sent for chemicai examination vide Ex.P/15. Presence of human blood was confirmed over the dothes of deceased vide Ex.P/16. 6. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code'). After compEetion of investigation, charge shest vvas flled before the Court of JudidaE Maglstrate First Class, Baikunthpur, who In turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ambikapur. Learned Additlonal Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur received the case on transfer for trial. 7. In order to prove the guiit of the accussd/appeliant, prosecutlon has examlned as many as 15 witnesses. Statsment of the accused/appellant was recorded undsr. Section 313 of the Code where he denied the /-" ^,. ^ si» s %^ ^ "<"'^??fe< y/ \ G ^ circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and faise Implication in the crime in question. 8. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additionai Sessions Judge, convlcted & sentenced the appailant as aforementioned. 9. Mr. A.K. Prasad, counsei for the appellant and Mr. J.A. Lohani, Panei Lawyer for the State are heard. Perused the judgment impugned and record of the tria! Court. tO.Learned counse! for the appellant vehementiy argued that although conviction of appellant is based on alleged eye witnesses PW/1 2-Raniya and PW/13-Rajkumar, daughter and son of deceased, but as per evidence of PW/1-Shriram, PW/6-Lalji Prasad, PW/8-Rlyaj AII, PW/12- Ranlya and PW/13-Rajkumar they have not seen the Incldent. Inter aisa were informed by PW/6-Laiji Prasad and PW/8-Riyaj Aii about the incident, but they have exaggerated their statement and produced themselves as eye witness even othem'ise their evidences are contradlctory to each other and there Is materia! contradlction, omission and exaggeration in thelr statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code. In these circumstances, conviction of the appellant on the basls of aforesaid evidence of eye witnesses is not safe to reiy. He aiso subrnlts that there was previous enmity but prosecution has failed to prove the motive for commission of offence. On the date of iRcident, appellant caused oniy two injuries, he has not taken the undue beneflt and has not caused multiple Injuries to deceased which show that even evidence of PW/12-Raniya and PW/13-Rajkumar, daughter and son of deceased is considered as credibie evidence then the act attributed to the appellant does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 part II of the IPC. He further submits that present appeIEant Es in custody for the iast six years and this wou!d be sufficient sentence for appeilant under Section 302 of the IPC. 11. On the other hand, learned Panel lawyer for the State opposed the petstlon and submits that conviction of the appeliant is based on evidence PW/12-Raniya and PVi//13-Rajkumar, daughter and son ofdeceased and eye v,/itnesses who had specifically and categoricaliy deposed the .J^-^... :'-""^'~-^ ./ -^ ^^SiS^ ;'i ^K^}-^^\ ^ ^-•y &. incident. They have deposed that appeiiant has caused fatal injuries resulting into Instantaneous death of their father Sitaram. After appreciating the evidence, Court beiow has rightiy convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 12.In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf pf the partles, we have examined the evldence available on record. 13.1n the present case, homicidal death of deceased as a resu!t of fatat jnjury found over scapuiar and abdomen region of the deceased has not been substantially disputedon behalf of the appsllant, even othep</vise same is aiso established by the evidence of Dr. R.K. Sharma (PW/7) and autopsy report Ex.P/8 that death of deceased was homicidaj In nature. 14.As regards compjicity of the appeliant in crime in question is concemed, conviction of the present appellant is substantiaiiy based on evidence of PW/12-Raniya and PW/13-Rajkumar, daughter and son of deceased. As per evldence of both t'ne witnesses there was previous enmity between appe!!ant and their father. On the date of incident at about 9:00 am father Sitaram of the aforesaid witnesses went to post office for dispatching letters, whlch was situated in the house of PW/6-Lalji. PVV/12-Raniya and PW/13-Rajkumar were aiso follov/ing their father. They saw that appe!iant assauited their father by knife, deceased Sltaram shouted then they ran towards the spot and appeliant managed to fiee avv'ay from the spot. As per evidence of PW/1-Shrs Ram, he was informed by his slster PW/1 2-RanEya and brother PW/13-Rajkumar about the incident then he iodged FIR vide Ex.P/1. PW/6-LaEji Prasad has not supported the case of prosecution and prosecution has declared him hostiie. In his cross-examination he has admitted the presence of deceased at the time of incldent. He has also admitted that he heard the sound of deceased which was not clear. In para 8 of his cross- examination he has sent Rlya] Ali to the house of deceased forinforming them, thereafter PW/12-Raniya and PW/13-Rajkumar, daughter and son of deceased came to the spot: On being asked he Informed the incident. Another witness PW/8-Riyaj ASI has deposed as directed by the PW/6- Laiji Prasad. He proceeded to the house of deceased by bicycle for informina the incident to the family members, PW/12-Raniya and PW/13- .^^' ^ ^..^•^:, ^-^•.' Rajkumar, daughter and son of deceased met him on the way, they asked where incident took place then he informed them that their father deceased Sitaram was lying in unconscious condition in the house of PW/6-Laiji Prasad. Evidence of PW/8-Riyaj Ali reveals that PW/12- Raniya and PW/13-Rajkumar, daughter and son of deceased met him on the way and they asked where the Incident took place this deariy reveais that they were already having information of the incident. Prosecution deciared PW/6-Lalji Prasad hostiie. His evidence is just to the extent that he has sent PW/8-Riyaj Ali to the house of deceased for informing their family members and the fact that he has heard the sound which was not clear even he came out from the house and saw body of injured Sitaram. 15. As per evidence of PW/12-Raniya and PW/13-Rajkumar, daughter and son of deceased they have categoricaiiy deposed that there was previous enmity between appeilant and thelr father deceased Sitaram. They were following their father and they had seen that incident from quite reasonable distance then they reached to the spot, they have disclosed the fact that they were informed by PW/8-Rjyaj Aii or PW??6- Laiji Prasad even otherwise as per initiai case of prosecution, PW/6-Lalji Prasad and PW/8-Riyaj Ali have informed both the witnesses when they were coming towards the place of incident which they have admitted in thsir statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code. Evidence of these witnesses and evidence of PW/6-LaIji Prasad and PW/8-Riyaj Ali dearly reveai that PW/12-Raniya and PW/13-Rajkumar, daughter and son of deceased were already coming towards the spot. Thls shows that these witnesses have not reached to the house of PW/12-Raniya and PW/13-Rajkumar but they met on the way. As per evidence of PW/12- Raniya and PW/13-Rajkumar, daughter and son of deceased after seeing the Incident they were coming towards the spot, otherwise there was no cause and propriety for them to proceed towards the house of PW/6-La!ji Prasad or towards the spot. Evidence of PW/12-Raniya and PW/13-Rajkumar are mutually corroborated. They had specificaily deposed that they were com'sng towards their father deceased Sitaram, they have seen the incident from quite reasonabie distance then they went to the spot. Evidence of these witnesses inspired confidence and ^'y^ ^ .•:<• h^. trustworthy to the extent that they have seen the incident. Their evidences are sufficient to estabiish the fact that appeliant has caused two repeated injurles to the deceased and has caused homicidai death of deceased. 16.As regards the question of intention and motive, in case of direct evidence motive iosses its importance, even otherwise, motive oniy aids in criminality and can be inferred on the basis of nature of injury, kind of weapon used, part ofthe body effected and other similar circumstances. 17. in the present case, appellant has caused two successive injuries by dangerous weapon knife upon the scapular region (back part of chest) and abdominai region. Both the parts are vita! parts. Knife itseif is dangerous weapon and causing repeated injury by dangerous weapon upon vita! part resuiting into instantaneous death of deceased is sufficlent to establish the intention of the appeiiant of causing homicida! death with Entent to cause his death. 18. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the Searned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appeiiant as aforementloned. 19. On close scrutiny of the evidence adduced on behalfofthe prosecution, we do not find any 'illegality or Infirmity in convicting and sentencing the appe!!ant. 20. Consequentiy, the appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Present appeilant ss on bail. He is directed to surrender immedlateiy before Additlonal Sessions Judge/successor of his office at Baikunthpur in S.T.No. 99/1994 for ser</lng the remaining sentence. Sd/- V'jay Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge R.N. Chandrakar Judge