^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta. C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. ^^ Criminal Appeal No. 864 of 2004 Topi @ Faguram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh JUDGMENT HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA For consideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge J ^^yeA- • Sd/- Chief Justice Post for Judgment :2.^/07/2009 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ..^T^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta, C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. Criminal Appeal No. 864 of 2004 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Topi @ Faguram S/o Chaituram Gandharva, aged 42 years, R/o Ghontha, P.S. Navagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Navagarh,Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Appeal under Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure) Appearance: Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, Panel Lawyer, for the State. JUDGMENT W .07.2009) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) Appellant Topi @ Faguram stands convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.l. for 6 months, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 187/2003 on 22nd ofJanuary, 2004. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Deceased Samund Singh was the cousin (brother) of the appellant. He was a village Kotwar. There was a land dispute between them. The allegations are that on account of Criminal Appeal No. 864 of 2004 the said land dispute, on 10.8.2003, at about 7.30 a.m., the appellant assaulted the deceased by giving repeated danda blows, who received many injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The matterwas reported by Shyam Bihari (PW-1)to the concerned police station, where the First Information Report (Ex.-P/1) and the Merg intimation (Ex.-P/2) were recorded. The Investigating Officer reached to the scene of occurrence, gave notice (Ex.-P/3) to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.-P/4) on the body of the deceased. Blood stained soil, plain soil and a piece of danda were seized from the place of occurrence under Ex.-P/6. Another piece of danda was seized from the appellant under Ex.-P/5. Site plan was prepared under Ex.-P/7. The dead body of the deceased was sent for its post-mortem to Community Health Centre, Navagarh under Ex.-P/10, where the post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Satish Kumar Sharma (PW-10), who prepared is report Ex.-P/11. hle noticed the following injuries on the body ofthe deceased:- (i) Lacerated wound on lateral aspect of left eye and upper cheek, size IVz inch x 2 inch having multiple fractures of left orbit and upper jaw. Eye dislocated inside; (ii) Lacerated wound on the base of the nose, size 2 inch x Vz inch x bone deep having fractures of corresponding bone, brain matter comeout; (iii) Lacerated wound at middle of the head, size 2 inch x Vz inch x skin deep; (iv) Lacerated wound above injury No.3, size ^ inch x 7z inch x skin deep; (v) Lacerated wound on the left temporal region, size 1 1/2 inch x 1 14 inch having fracture of underline bone, brain matter visible and lacerated; (vi) Lacerated wound on left parietal region, size 3 inch x V2 inch; (vii) Lacerated wound on occipital region, size V/2 inch x1 inc havingsub-dural haematoma; (viii) Lacerated wound on the left thumb tip; / / •— Criminal Appeal No. 864 of 2004 (ix) Lacerated wound below the ring finger, size 1 inch x 11/2 inch with fracture of metacarpal bone & (x) Reddish dry abrasion on the left cheek, size Vi inch x Vz inch. ^, The Autopsy Surgeon opined that the cause of death was multiple head injuries caused by hard and blunt object and it was homicidal in nature. The seized articles were sent for their chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur under Ex.-P/17, from where, a report Ex.-P/18 was received. According to the F.S.L. report, blood stains were found on all the artictes, including danda except the plain soil. After completion of usual investigation, the charge- sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bemetara, who in turn committed the matter to the concerned Sessions Court, from where it was received on transfer by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetar, District Durg, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as aforementioned. (3) Though there were many eye witnesses in this case but the conviction of the appellant is based on the testimonies of 3 eye witnesses namety Dhanush Ram (PW-3), Shankar (PW-6) & Gautarhin Bai (PW-8). (4) Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has not disputed the homicidal death of the deceased. Moreover, it comes in the evidence of Dhanush Ram (PW-3), Shankar (PW-6) & Gautarhin Bai (PW-8) that the deceased was assaulted by the appellant by a cfancfa causing multiple injuries. Dr. Satish Kumar Sharma (PW-10) also noticed the above injuries on the body of the deceased and /--^.. "'w Criminal Appeal No. 864 of 2004 opined that the cause of the death was multipte head injuries caused by hard and blunt object and it was homicidal in nature. Therefore, it was established that the death ofthe deceased was homicidal in nature. (5) Mr. Pandey then argued that the complicity of the appellant in crime in question has not been established beyond reasonable doubt and the version ofthe eye witnesses appear to be unreliable. (6) We are unable to accept the said argument advanced by Mr. Pandey. PW-3, Dhanush Ram, deposed that deceased Samund Singh died on 11.8.2003. He died on account of beating of the appellant. The appellant had assaulted him with a danda. He had seen the appellant assaulting the deceased. The incident took place in front of the house of Gautarhin Bai (PW-8). Radhe, Bhaiyalal Shrivastava and many other persons had seen the occurrence. He had gone to the police station with Shyam Bihari Patel (PW-1) to lodge the F.I.R. Shyam Bihari had lodged the F.1.R. The incident took place on account of a dispute regarding fencing of the khaliyan. (7) PW-6, Shankar, deposed that the deceased died on account of beating given by the appellant by a danda. He had seen the occurrence. The incidenttook place in front of the house of Gautarhin Bai (PW-8). He does not know the reason as to why the appellant committed murder of the deceased. The appellant assaulted the deceased who fell down on the ground and then, he ran away from the place of occurrence. He had made hue and cry after seeing the assautt, on which, the villagers had gathered. '^. Criminal Appeal No. 864 of 2004 (8) PW-8, Gautarhin Bai, deposed that she had seen the occurrence. Appellant Faguram assaulted deceased Samund Singh by a danda,due to which, deceased died. The incident took place in a gali in front of her house. There was a dispute between the brothers on account of fencing of the khaliyan. (9) These witnesses have been cross examined by the defence at length but the defence has not been able to bring any such circumstance in their cross examination, on which, either their testimonies may be discarded or it may be said that they are falsely implicating the appellant in crime in question. These witnesses are the natural witnesses, as they are the residents of the same village and they were knowing the appellant and the deceased since long back, The incident took place in morning time in the gali in front of the house of Gautarhin Bai (PW-8). In such aplace the presence of the witnesses cannot be doubted unless some foundation is laid down for the same. Saying in a general manner to disbelieve the testimony of an eye witness without laying down the foundation for the same cannot be accepted. (10) The above evidence of the eye witnesses was fully corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Satish Kumar Sharma (PW-10) who noticed as many as 7 lacerated wounds on the skull of the deceased and opined that the cause of death was multiple head injuries caused by hard and blunt object and it was homicidal in nature. (11) In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity, illegality or irregularity in the judgment and finding recorded by Criminal Appeal No. 864 of2004 the Sessions Court. The conviction of the appellant is based on the cogent, clinching and reliable evidence. (12) There is no substance in the appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti