^(it^ !' II ~-K"RSsi ••S.Bsa"-' 'fe—-'1 1;^ •t'1' ^Vl^ i '!;-y%/ .Vl^ aii^r ?ii R;-<i+ ^Sff 5FfT^T'gTqN? 3^^ NINdl sb^lcb "4i<<i<^<<, ©•rfl'y'16,Rirti'yy ..(b.:A.:..3.S.L "^ 200 ^. sn^yr WTO (^cifgp^T) ?BIIt]IT'dfCT 311^1 APPELLANT: (in JaiS Custody) {Criminal appeal under Hon'bie Mr. T.P, Sharma, JJ. forftie Mr. V.P. Gupta, counsel Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Deputy Oral judgment dictated on D^iis. L.C. Bhadoo. J: - This appea! is directed against t sentence dated 17 June, 2002 p Jashpurnagar in Sessions Tria! No. Additional Sessions Judge after commission of offence under Seij commit the murder of Mankunwar <=si*tl<rt<fl*i *iiH(*ff ^f^^ ^FOK^K ^; aifiiiT sn^i Saganu Ram, S/o Bodhi Ram Bhuiher, Aged about 22 years, R/o ViHage- Patratoii, P.S-- Bag Bahar, Tahsil- Pathatgaon, Disfrict- Jashpur Nagar (Chhattisgarh) i/ersus - StateofChhattisgarh, Through P.S. Bag Bahar, Tahsil- Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur Nagar (Chhattisgarh) Section 374 (2) ofthe Cr.P.C.} aDpellant. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent. 'tie judgment of conviction and order of i^ssed by the Additionat Sessions Judge, f122/2001, whereby & whereunder learned |iolding the accused/appellant guilty for ttion 307 of the t.P.C. for attempting to $ai and under Section 302 ofthe I.P.C. for 3II^[^R-fi<*> ^w.antng^iw 'S^ ^l-Mlrt-q, ®Tf1^'l6,(sf<r»l'yy ...<b.;...A,3S£/. "WI. 200 an^?r ira^ ( ?®IIW^lfef 3II^[ committing the murder of Manmaitt '.I. for five years and pay a fins of| further undergo R.l. for one month pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of one month, respectively. It was fur^her run concurrently. Cass of the prosecution, in brief,| Somaru Ram Kotwar & Nawals?|i Moharsai Rawat, at that time, Man| and informed thatth®accused has iron crowbar in the street near thel Manmait Bai has fell down. Theact 5ai) with the same crowbar on left Ram left for the place of occurrent near the house of Sukri Bai and tlt reaion of iVlanmait Bai, blood was 4 Manmait Bai, byt by that time shj Patel, Sarpanch & Up-Sarpanch ^ sent for treatment to Kotba Hospita! merg intimatton Ex.P-10 in Police fl information report Ex.P-1 was regi| offence punishable under Section 3( The Investigating OfRcer ieft for inquest Ex.P-11 on the body of and took into possession plain soi <bl^ld4tT1 'W^f Tf,1^1^' <Rq+$K ^ 3TRpT <i4|^| Bai, sentenced the accused to undergo Rs.200/-, in default of payment of firie to and to undergo imprisonment for life and sayment offine to further undergo R.l. f6r directed that both the sentences shall is that on 25-3-2001 at about 11 a.m. were talking near the house of one teunwar Bai, daughter of Nawalsai, came attacked her mother Manmait Bai wlth an house of Sukri Bai, as a result of which sused had also attacked her (Mankunwar temporal region. Nawalsai & Somaru ce and saw that Manmait Bai was lying lere was a deep injury on right temporal iQzing out of the injury. Nawaisai roused » was alreadv dead. ThereTore. viilage lere called. Victim Mankunwar Bai was . Somaru Ram Kotwar immediateiy gave itation Bagbahar and based on that first stered against the accused/appsllant for 32ofthe!.P,C. (he scene of occurrence and prepared Mai|imait Bai. He prepared site plan Ex.P-12 and bioodstained soil from the place of ;a-HC—78y'sstsst 5; "'MSigSS, s 3?ET "i|l'><li?i'll, iS'ifl'y'Ko, Isi<Y>i'yy sn^i ?ii I<-)i+ ^TSTT -STT^T sh+licr» W^vil **<1* .S:..:..1SA •Wt. 200^, an^?r iraw C^?hp^T) 5. occurrence under Ex.P-13. Crovft under Ex.P-14. Clothes of the deit blood stained bandage was seized] of Manmait Bai was sent for p< Hospital, Laiiunga under Ex.P-3A,| conducted post-mortem and opine^ a resutt of compression of brain prepared report Ex.P-3. Mankunw^ injuries under Ex.P-4A to Gov^i Shailendra Upadhyay (PW-4) laeerated wound on left side of heat 5" bone deep, He prepared report| of offence crowbar was sent for (R/tf-4) under Ex.P-SA who gave hi] occurrence under Ex.P-9 was preps After completion of investigation, Judiciai Magistrate, Jashpurnagar Sessions Judge, Raigarh from w! received the case on transfer for trii The prosecution in order to establi; six witnesses. Statement of the ac( the Cr.P.C. who denied the material evidence and stated that he is inno; 'crime. Sukri Bai (DW-1) was exair^ the incident alleged to have taken p| *l<<f<"1'fl-1 ^WvS if.fezt <Pn«(i< ^sifin sii^i >ar, the weapon of offence, was seized fceased were seized under Ex.P-15. One from Mankunwar Bai under Ex.P-2. Body >st-mortem exam'nation to Government where Dr. Shailendra Upadhyay (PW-4) that cause of death was due to coma as snd death was homicidai in nature. He jr Bai was also sent for examination of her mment Hospital, Lailunga, where Dr. exahiined her and found that there was a heap at frontal bone region in the size of 2" x |Ex.P-4. X-ray report is Ex.P-5. Weapon [xamination to Dr. Shaitendra Upadhyay iijs report Ex.P-8. Sjte plan of the place of |red bythe Patwari. chjarge sheet was flled In the Court of Chief Iwho in turn committed the case to the lere learned Additional Sessions Judge jl. .|i charges againstthe accused examined tused was recorded under Section 313 of [appearing against him in the prosecution |ent, he has been falsely impticated "n the tned as defence witness in whose house |ace. Learned Additional Sessions Judge xi-fx—js-.siy^j ^' 75ET ?2TPTR5?, «iTf1yil<S, Rfdl'yy sn^i w R-)i°b ^i^l •3TT^T sfr*licb _....&>......d..:3.^ TIPTOT' **<i<*> •TF[. 200 ^ an^?T ^a^i (T3?f^?T) 8. after hearing counsel for respecti! accused as aforementioned. We have heard Mr. V.P. Gupta, Sandeep Yadav, learned Deputy resoondent. hotn <tn Mr. Gupta has not disputed the hotni Dr. Shailendra Upadhyay (PW-4) 2001 he conducted post-mortem lacerated wound on left side of hed< 6n occipital region in the size of 3" ante-mortem in nature and causecj was coma as a result of head inji doctor has further stated that on th< aged about 25 years, there was a l^ size of 2" x 0.5" deep up to bone ai 4. On X-ray it was found that th^ report is Ex.P-5. X-ray ptates are| this witness, defence has not discredits the evidence ofthis witnefes be^n Above medical evidence is cor Mankunwar Bai (PW-1) who has c^ accused attacked Manmait Bai witt' seized and sent to the doctor found on the heads of deceassd be caused by the crowbar in ques^ _./Q__---" .--- • wht> <=RT'4id41'i ^Wv^ ^f^^ <F<flt$i< ^sifgiTsii^i ie parties, convicted and sentenced the iarned counsei for the appeliant and Mr. Govt. Advocate on behatf of the State/ micidal death of Manmait Bai. Moreover, has statsd in his evidence that on 28-3- the body of Manmait Bai, there was a Id in the size of 3" x 1" & lacerated wound 1" deep up to bone. Above Injuries were by blunt & hard object. Cause of death iry. Post-mortem report is Ex.P-3. The same day he exgimined Mankunwar Bai, kcerated wound on teft side of head in the |d.X-ray was advised. His report is Ex.P- ^re was a depressed fracture and X-ray IExs.P-6 & P-7. In cross-examination of ab!e to elicit any cireumstance which l-0borated by the ocuiar evidence of a^egorically stated in her evidence that the crowbar on her head, said crowbar was examined it and said that the injuries jnmait Bai & injured Mankunwar Bai could iion. Therefore, it is established that the XI-HC— 3^q' ^i^id-i), (SiTTlu'is, isiwioy *<14dl *NI<* .c2...,.a.<is^, an^r irag; (ipf^g^g) WI, 200^- aa^t ?a Cw* '^V '3?fT^?T ^RI^ 's^aiWHtei sfi^i -£ ^bl^i^l^ iTFRff Tf.fSl3t <f^l^l< ^T siigti-311^1 11 death of Manmait Bai was homift Mankunwar Bai is concerned, Dr. that the injury was on left side of h< piates (Exs.P-6 & P-7) he gav^ depressed fracture. He has stated Learned counsel for the appellar)' independent witness and Sukri 8( atleged to have taken place,' ha| therefore, explicit reliance cannot q Bai (PW-1). He further argued daughter of the deceased, therefl evidence. On the other hand, learned Deputy of the trial Court. idal in nature. As far as the injury of ihailendra Upadhyay (PW-4) has stated ad, he advised X-ray and based on X-ray his opinion Ex.P-5 that there was a :hatthe injurywas grievous in nature. argued that in this case there is no li (DW-1), in whose house the incident not supported the prosecution case, [e placed on the evidence of Mankunwar fiat she is an interested witness being )re, reliance cannot be placed cn her Govt. Advocate supported the iudament !n the matter of Namdeo v. Statt SCW 1835, the Ap6x Court has| characterized as an 'interested' evidence however, must be scruti evidence is found to be intrinsical!'! trustworthy, conviction can bs base41 Close relationship of witness with reiect his evidence. On the contra normally be most reluctant to span innocent person. 6f Maharashtra reported in 2007 AIR held that a close relative cannot be Mtness, he is a ,'natural' witness, his ^ized carefulty. If on such scrutiny; his reliabie, inherently probable and wholly on the 'sole' testimony of such witness. the deceased or victim is no ground to |y, close relative of the deceased wouid the real culprit and falsely implicate an '.--'% XI-BC—78 1 •"is"assESI 1 TE^T -^WW^, yrfl^'IS, RliT'il'My Hl*4^1 *Mlcb G^.c\.c(^-6 W^ 200 an^?r Ttsiw (Tipf5^w) 3I^iI ?il f5;lN? ^£TT5Ti^T ^*li=n ^aiw ^ifet sn^i ^ <M*t[difti Hw<nf ^^^ <ffli^r< ^; sifip? sii^r 12. 13. In the matter of Dalbir Kaur (Mst.) SCC 158, the Apex Court held that t brother over a property dispute. E\i unprovoked' double-murder were ri therefore, contended that they were should not be accepted for holdini contention and upholding the order ( v. State of Punjab reported in (1976) 4 le accused killed his own father and real ewitnesses to the 'gruesome, brutal and ear relatives of the deceased. It was, 'interested' witnesses and their evidence 3 the appellants guilty. Negativing the ifconviction, the Court stated that "There can be no dou that the incident too^ house of Ajaib Singh,; could be pressnt to se Kaur and her mother expected to have comj by the appeilsnts relative who is a regarded as an "interested" postulates have some direct inte person is some how because he had some some other reason. Si i|bt that having regard to the fact piace at mid night inside ths |lhe only natural witnesses who |e that assault would be Jaswant @hiv Kaur. No outsider can be ife at that time because the attack wa|s suddsn. Moreover, a ctoss v^iy natural witness cannot be inferested witness. The term )that the person concerned must 1'est in seeina that the accused or the other convicted either animus wrth the accused or for tich is not the case here." in the matter of Harbans Kaur v. SCC 195, the conviction of the ac Court, inter alia on the ground thal testimony of retatives and hence it contention, the Apex Court said: [State of Haryana reported in (2005)9 |;used was challeriged before the Apex the prosecution version was based on cfd not inspire ct>nfidence. Negativing the "There is no propositi^ treated as untruthfu!] reason has to be sh<t raised to show that tht actuai culprit and false| in in law that relatives are to be witnesses. On the contrary, wn when a plea of partiality is witnesses had reason to shield y impiicate the accused." XI-IK—78i2!sgS§^.% 3^^ -^ww^, vsiS\ww, ^f>wy. t{Wv\\ (bKlcb .<h..=..a^s^ "^ 2002_ 31T^?T TIiR; (4<lf't,»l<U) SdI^T ?iT (<•<(+ ^^ ^T^T^RN? lit ^CTTW ^lfOT STI^T --7 Further, the Apex Court in the ma( testimony of the solitary witness| legislature nor the judiciary mand4< witnesses to record an order of| Justice system has always laid evidence rather that on quantity, therefore, open to a competent Cc|urt witness and record convictiop(. spite of testimony of several witnte^ses evidence. The bald contention th4 a solitary eye-witness, therefore, ter of Harbans Kaur (supra) ruted that the can be basis for conviction. Neither the l^tes that there must be particuiar number of conviction against the accused. Criminat ^mphasis on value, veracity and quality of Imultiplicity or plurality of wltnesses. It is, to fully and comptetely rely on a solitary ponversely, it may acquit the accused in if it is not satisfied about the quaiity of jt no conviction can be recorded in case of no force and must be negatived. Mas The Apex Court in the mattert Chhattisgarh, through the C^i Raipur, reported in A!R 2003 SC not a factor to affect credibility c|f relation would not conceal actua) innocent person. Foundation ha^ made. )n such a case, the Coi|irt anatyze evidence to find out whet!1er Reiying upon the decision of the Singh and others AIR 1973 SC High Gourt also held in the matfler State of Kerala 1992 Cri.L.J. 20^ evidence of relations of the dece^sed qn^Id^l-1 TTFRff '^,1^1C3^ <f<i<^i< ^aiRn aii^i of Rizan and another vs. Stete of jief Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, p76, in para 6, held that "the re!ationship is a witness. !t is more often than not a culprit and make allegations against an ^ to be laid if plea of false implication is has to adopt a careful approach and it is cogent and credible." ^tsex Court in State of U.P. vs. Paras Nath sg. 1073, the Division Bench ofthe Kerata of Sahadevan Rajan and others vs. 9 that "the straightforward and trustworthy need no corroboration for sustaining 6- sn^T?fffriTO W!T3Ti^;3iIIW ^s^ rfii<<i<«i<), «ii{|^'iis,Ricti'My ..^..:..Q....1s.£.l.. V^ 2002^ an^yr ^raq; (1j°rf^^) TCITW ^lfOT SD^T +T4i<»Fi1-1'V1^ '^^E^ <^^.R ^ 3fRpT 3TI^T the conviction. Such evidsnce ca| interestedness in the prosecution cj In the light of the above principf scrutinize the evidence of Mankun^t she has categorically stated that along with her mother went to th|i regarding her marriage, at that tirr(i her with crowbar on her head, wheln hold the crowbar, thereafter, he tri4 courtyard, atthattime, hergrand-n} her mother was passing through thj wjth the crowbar on her head 2-3 t| ground. The accused again rush^ house of Choukidar Somaru, she that time, her mother was alreadyl occurrence after attacking her motlT| (PW Testimony of Mankunvrar Bai (? accused on her mother and on her| sustained by both i.e. l\4ankunwai| (since deceased). She is an injurejd examinaSion where Dr. Shailendrj stated that there was a lacerated \A| x 0.5" deep up to bone and he ad\| Dlates are Exs.P-6 & P-7 and baseU th&re was a c^spressed fracture. h s ' nnot be discarded on the sote ground of ase." e laid down by the Apex Court, if we /ar Bai (PW-1), who is an injured witness, sn the fateful day at about 11 a.m. she e house of Sukri Bai, they were talking e, al! of asudden, the accused attacted the accused made second attempt, she •d to press her neck, she ran towards the icther hold the crowbar, in the mean time, at place, the accused attacked her mother 'mes, thereby her mother feil down on the >d towards her, but she ran towards the t:a!led Somaru & her father Nawalsai, by dead and the accused left the scene of ler. fV-1) regarding the attack made by the tetands corroborated by the fact of injuries Bsi (PW-1) & her mother Manmait Bai ^ witness. She was immediately sent for ^ Upadhyay (PW-4) examined her and lound on left side of head in the size of 2" fised for X-ray, hts report is Ex.P-4, X-ray on that, he gave hls opinion Ex.P-5 that ie has stated that the injury was grievous !. i: :i ^^ XI-HC-71 *• l<ih.- sn^lv\ Wm rfSTf 5PfT^?T ^HI^ •ygsf ^HI^, ^Tfl^lrf, Ri0i<iy VWW *HI<B (S2.....A...l^ •WI, 200s— ai^TT»a9; (^fyi^?) ^Riiwaf^f <HI^I (tt^f - ( <ti<ii<-ioi-< xiHdt^.fay'i <r»i^i* ^sffiman^i ~he doctor has furth^r stated that on 4-4-2001 the crowbar in question was brought to him foi| examination, after examination he gave opinion that the injuries sustained|by Mankunwar Bai (PW-1) & Manmait Bai (since deceased) could be caus4d by the crowbar in question. In cross- examination of Mankunwar Ba! (FTW-1), defence has not been able to elicit any circumstance which discredit^ the evidence of this witness. Moreover, there is nothing in the cross-exam|nation of this witness that this witness has any animosity or bias against the|accused so as to implicate him in a false case i.e. heinous crime tike murde4and attempt to murder. Now, coming to the evidence of Sijikri Bai (DW-1), it is admitted fact that the incident took place near the hou^e of Sukri Bai where the deceased & Mankunwar Bai (PW-1) both had feone, in the first instance, Sukri Bai has stated that Manmait Bai had attacfied Mankunwar Bai with ciub, thereafter, Mankunwar Bai picked up the cron|bar Sying in her house, she ran out of the house and attacked her mother Iwith the said crowbar. But in cross- examination and even in examinatlon-in-chief, she has stated that she had not seen Mankunvrar Bai attackinfi her mother with crowbar. Therefore, reliance cannot be placed on the e^idence of this witness, because she has stated that she had not seen Mahkunwar Bai attacking her mother with crowbar, whereas, injured eyewitn^ss Mankunwgr Bai (PW-1) hersetf hss stated in her evidence that the accu^ed flrstly, attacked her with crowbar and thereafter, attacked her mother. A| examination of Mankunwar Bai (PV^-1) defence has not been abte to e!icit any cireumstance which suggests s has been mentioned earlier, in cross- that this witness on account of any animosity or personat grudge ag^inst the accused had impticated the accused in a fatse case. ± •?SCrJ'E~SB!IPB<¥W-Hi:.-'-!!"nB!..f—i^/ :p"y-'•-., ^^^Sf^^ -^A '^ 'a>. %«..-.': ^x^ 3:5?'':qrai5!iq', BTnwis, Riwwy ..^.:..E.^^/ ^TOW ^qjq; •••••••----•-------F-—--g^ 200 2-_ an^T tire (ij«<i-yi<tir) •arTT^r ^i {tt*fi<h ^SH 37I^ff sfr*licti 2fl 21 ni|>t hals In the circumstances, we do adyanced by tearned counsel for I accused under Section 307 of mentioned earlier, the doctor lacerated wound on left side of H found that there was a depresse(| nature, the injury was caused by ^ and because of similar kind of, inj| she had already dead. There(pre;j weapon of offence and intention (j IWankunwar Bai wi'ith intention tl punishable under Section307 ofj murder ofMankunwar Bai is also For the foregoing reasons, we do judgment of the trial Court convicti under Sections 307 & 302 of the 1.1 is liable to be dismissed and it is he Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge <+t1^i<rl4t;f ttFI^f ^ffe^ <Fiq<$i< ^afld*^ ^tT^ii find any substance in the argument |he appeltant. As far as conviction of the Ithe I.P.C. (s concerned, as has been categoricady stated that there was a |ead of Mankunwar Bai, on X-ray it was fracture and the injury was grievous in deadly weapon on vital part of the body pry sustained by deceased h^anmait Bai, 1.1t is established from the nature of injury, If the accused that the accused attacked t> cause her death, as such, offence |the I.P.C. for attempting to commit the e^tablished against ths accused. not find any illegality or inflrmity in the fig and sentencing the accused/appeltanf P.C. The appeal is devoid of merit, same 1'eby dismiissed. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge