HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Raieev Gupta, C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Criminal Ap_peal No. 652 of 2003 APPELLANT Dileep Das, S/o Sachin Das, Aged 22 years, student, R/o P.V. 85, RS. Pankhajoor, District Kanker (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, P.S. Pankhajoor, District Kanker (C.G.) (Appeal under Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure) Appearance: Mr. Suryakant Mishra, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Ravindra Agarwal, Panel Lawyer, for the State. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT ( 3 08.2009) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1)‘ Appellant Dileep Das stands convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI. for 2 years, by the Special Judge under The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Session$Trial No. 459/2002 on 6th of March, 2003. (2} Te facts, briefly stated, are as under:- h Deceased Ashokf Kumar Raita was the friend of the appellant. On 15.8.2002, they had arranged a dinner in the house of Mangal Singh Achala (PW—1). Manoranjan Mandal (PW— 4) also participated in dinner. The allegations are that after the dinner, at about 9—9.30 p.rn., when deceased Ashok Kumar Raita, 3 2 Mb/ Criminal No. 652 of 2003 @ Manoranjan Mandal (PW-4) and minor daughter of Mangal Singh namely Ku. Sangeeta (PW—3) were going to the house of Ashok Kumar Raita, and they had hardly gone out of the house of Mangal Singh, the appellant attacked with a knife and gave repeated knife blows to the deceased. Seeing all this, Sangeeta (PW-3) immediately rushed back to her house and called her father Mangal Singh (PW—1), who also saw the appellant having blood stained knife in the hand. He, any how, overpowered him, Sonsai (PW-2) also came there and they tied. the appellant with a rope. The deceased died on the way to the hospital. Mangal Singh lodged a Merg intimation (EX.—P/ 1) and a First Information Report (EX.-P/2). .The Investigating Officer reached to Pankhajoor, gave notice (Ex.-P/3) to the Panchas and prepared inquest (EX.—P/4) on the body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent for its post-mortem to Civil Hos’pital, Pankhajoor, where the post—mortem examination was conducted by Dr. D.K. ’l‘urre (PW-9), who prepared his report EX.- P/ I4(A).. He noticed the following injuries on the body of the deceased : - (i) Stab wound on the left portion of chest near 3rd rib, size 2 cm x 1 cm; (ii) Stab wound on the left portion of chest on the 8th rib, size 2 cm X 1 cm; (iii) Stab wound on the left portion of chest near middle axillary line, size 3 cm x 2 cm; (iv) Incised wound on the inner portion of left elbow, size2cmx 1 cmx2cm& (v) Incised wound on the right thigh, size 3 cm x, 2 cm x 2 cm. . On internal examination, he found huge amount of blood in the thoracic cavity, there was an incised wound on the: upper middle portion of left lung, size 2 cm x 1 cm and main blood vessels going to the lungs were cut. The Autopsy Surgeon opined that the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock on account of the above injuries and it was homicidal in nature. In further investigation, shirt of the appellant was seized under Ex.-P/5, blood stained soil and plain soil were seized from the place of occurrence tinder EX.-P/6 and memorandum 3 CriminaifNg). 652 of 2003 statement (EX.-P/8) of the appellant was recorded u/s 27 of the Evidence Act, in pursuance of which, a knife was seized at the instance of the appellant under EX.—P/9. Site plan was prepared under Ext-P/ll. The appellant was also sent for\ his medical examination under EX.—P/ 13 and a report was obtained. After completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was flled u/s 302 IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes {Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in the Court' of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhanupratappur, who in turn committed the matter to the Special Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur, where the trial was conducted. The learned Special Judge acquitted the appellant from the charges framed u/s 3 (2) (v) of the Special Act, whereas, the appellant was convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced as aforementioned. (3) The conviction of the appellant is based upon the testimonies of Ku. Sangeeta ‘(PW—3), Mangal Singh (PW-l) and Sonsai (PW—2) corroborated by the evidence of Dr. D.K.‘Turre (PW—9). (4) Mr. Suryakant Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that Ku. Sangeeta (PW—3) is an unreliable witness; Mangal Singh (PW-1) is not an eye witness and version of Sonsai (PW—2) appears to be false, therefore, the appellant deserves to the acquitted. (5) On the other hand, Mr. Ravindra Agarwal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing‘ on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and suppOrted the judgment and order passed by the Special Court. (6) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the special case. (7) Ku. Sangeeta (PW—3) was a child witness. She was aged about 11 years. She deposed that on the fateful night, at about 9.30-10.00 p.m., \ 4 A9 ‘ M Criminal No. 652 of 2003 she was going to the house of Ashok along with Ashok and Manoranjan. Appellant Dileep met in the way. He, at once, caught the neck of the deceased and gave knife blows to him. She started crying and she immediately rushed to her father and told hirn that Dileep was assaulting the deceased, on which, her father went to the scene of OCCuI‘I‘ence. (8) Mangal Singh (PW—1) deposed that her daughter had gone with the deceased to his house to see some film on VCR. Just after leaving of the house, she rushed back and told hirn that Dileep has killed the deceased by knife. He immediately went to the scene of occurrence and saw that deceased Ashok was lying on the ground in pool of blood. The appellant was present there. He was having a knife in his hand. He immediately caught the appellant and called his neighbour Sonsai (PW~ 2). Both of them have tied the appellant by a rope. He had seen the injuries on the chest, thigh and elbow of the deceased. He had taken the deceased to Government Hospital Pankhajoor. The Doctor saw him and declared him as dead. (9) Sonsai (PW-2) has supported the version of Mangal Singh (PW-1). . ‘ He deposed that “after hearing the cries of Mangal Singh, he came out from his house. Mangal said him to bring a rope, on which, he brought a rope. He saw that Mangal had caught appellant Dileep. They tied the appellant with a rope. At that time, other Villagers also reached there. They had taken the deceased to the hospital and the appellant was handed over to the villagers”. We may mention that the defence has not cross examined this witness and there is absolutely no cross examination. The above witnessesnamely Mangal Singh (PW—1) and Ku. Sangeeta (PW-3) were cross examined at length by the defence but the 3 \ 5 ‘’V ‘ z Ar. 71/ Criminal NO. 652 Of2003 defence has not been able to elicit any such circumstance, on which, either their testimonies may be discarded or it may be said that they are falsely implicating the appellant in crime in question. Why a child Witness (aged about 11 years) would falsely implicate a person leaving the actual culprit of the crime. Nothing has been brought on record to show that either these Witnesses were inimical to the appellant or they had any reason to depose against the appellant. On the contrary, it comes in the evidence that the relations between all of them were cordial and in fact, the dinner was arranged at the instance of the appellant in the house of Mangal Singh 85 Ku. Sangeeta and all had enjoyed the dinner. Version of Mangal Singh (PW—1) was fully corroborated by the Merg intimation (Ex.—P/ 1) and the F.I.R. (Ex.—P/2) which contain the details of the incident. Version of Ku. Sangeeta (PW~ 3) is further corroborated by the post—mortem report (ExnP/ 14(A)) and the evidence of Dr. D.K. Turre (PW—9) who noticed the above injuries on the body of the deceased. (10) In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not flnd any infirmity or illegality in the judgment of the Special Court convicting the appellant u/s 302 IPC. The conviction of the appellant is based upon the cogent, clinching and reliable evidence and the same deserves to be sustained. ¢ (11) The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sci/7% Sdl- V\fichief J\usfiCe ,. SunilKumar Sinha if: Judge 1 ’ \\ 5 N i {t H vatti