- ..^ APPELLANT: (In Jail) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.676 of 2002 Subal Budek S/o Anandram Soura aged 38 years Labour R/o Village Barihapali PS Saraypali Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) RESPONDENT: Versus State of Chhattisgarh through PS Saraypali Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) {Criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr. Ratindra Mishra, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent. Division Bench: - Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma & Hon'ble Mr. R.L. Jhanwar, JJ ORALJUDGMENT (23-11-2009) 1. By this appeal the appellant has challenged legality & propriety of the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 24-4-2002 passed by the 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Sessions Trial No.28/2002, whereby & whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appellant guilty for commission of the offence of causing homicidal death amounting to murder, cpnvicted him under Section 302 ofthe I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life & pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.l. forthree months. 2. Judgment of conviction & order of sentence is challenged on the ground that without any clinching evidence learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted & sentenced the appellant in the aforesaid manner and thereby committed illegality. 3. Case of-the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10-11-2001 at about 9.30 a.m. on the dispute of money of Rs.32-50 ps. due to the accused/ ^^•i. ^ 1 y S '2P j appellant, the appellant assaulted deceased Ramlal by crow bar and caused injury over head, cheek & other parts of the body. The deceased fell down and became unconscious. Persons of the vicinity took the deceased to the hospital in a tractor and during the course of treatment, the deceased died. The Police recorded merg intimation Ex.P-11 given by Barnu (PW-2) and on the basis of the same, F.1.R. Ex.P-1 was registered. One crow bar was recovered vide Ex.P-2. One lungi was recovered vide Ex. P-3 from the dead body ofthe deceased. The Patwari prepared the spot map Ex.P-4. After summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P-12, inquest over the dead body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex.P-13. Dead body was sent for autopsy vide Ex.P-SA to Community Health Centre, Saraipali and Dr. Amrit Lal (PW-7) conducted autopsy vide Ex. P-8 and found following injuries: - (i) lacerated wound of 4 cms. x 1 cm. x 1 cm. on right side of frontal region; (ii) lacerated wound of2cms. x 1 cm. x 1 cm. over right cheek; (iii) lacerated wound of 5 cms. x 0.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. over left ear; (iv) lacerated wound of 6 cms. x 1 cm. x 1 cm. on right side of occipital region; (v) lacerated wound of 7 cms. x 2 cms. x 2 cms. on lower part of mid occipital region; (vi) lacerated wound of4cms. x 1.5 cms. x 1.5 cms. on upper part of mid occipital region; and (vii)lacerated wound of 5 cms. x 1 cm. x 1 cm. on ieft mastoid region. On internal examination, fracture of temporal & parietal bones was found and the death was due to shock as a result of excessive haemorrhage. 4. The crow bar was examined by the doctor. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 ofthe Cr.P.C. and after completion of invfestigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistfate First Class, Saraipali, who in turn committed the case to the / '""'7 'asSS!Wn i? "® B ./f" A Couri: of Sessions, Raipur, from where the 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund received the case on transfer for trial. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses. The accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence & false implication. 6. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trialCourt. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that though the case of the prosecution rests on the statements of the eyewitnesses, but they have admitted in their evidence and even it reveals in the F.1.R. that there was previous dispute of money of Rs.32-50 ps. due to the appellant, when the appellant demanded money from the deceased, the incident took place on sudden provocation and the appellant has not caused any injury with intent to cause homicidal death of the deceased amounting to murder, therefore, at the worst the act of the appellant does not travel beyond Section 304 Part-1 of the I.P.C. Learned counsel further argued that the accused/appellant is in custody since 12-11-2001 , thereby he is in custody for more than 7 % years which is sufficient punishment for the offence under Section 304 Part-1 of the I.P.C. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the appeal and vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved this case beyond all ~ reasonable doubts by adducing the evidence of eyewitnesses who have seen the incident. The accused has caused repeated injuries over vital ' parts of the body of the deceased resulting into death of the deceased. This is sufficient for drawing inference that the accused has caused fatal injury to the deceased with intent to causing the homicidal death of the deceased amounting to murder. 10.1n order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalfofthe prosecution. 11.At the outset, homicidal death of deceased Ramlal is not substantially disputed by the appellant, even otherwise, it is proved by the statements of Phulturi Bai (PW-1), Barnu (PW-2), Sunder Singh (PW-3), Devdhar (PW-4), Dr. Amrit Lal (PW-7), F.I.R. Ex.P-1, autopsy report Ex.P-8, merg intimation Ex.P-11 & inquest report Ex.P-13, that the appellant died as a result of fatal injuries over his body which are sufficient for causing the death of a person in ordinary course. 12.The prosecution case rests on the evidence of eyewitnesses Phulturi Bai (PW-1), Barnu (PW-2) and child witness Devdhar (PW-4). Phulturi Bai (PW-1) has stated in her evidence that on the fateful day the appellant went to the house of Ramlal and called him, they scuffled with each other near the hand pump and thereafter, the appellant threw the deceased on the floor and assaulted him with crowbar. She (this witness) shouted for help, other persons came to the spot and the appellant fled away from the spot. Barnu (PW-2) & Devdhar (PW-4) have corroborated the evidence of Phulturi Bai (PW-1). Defence has cross-examined these witnesses at length, but it has not been able to elicit anything in their statements to discredit their testimony. Statements of these witnesses supported by medical evidence are sufficient for drawing inference that the appeilant is the person who has caused repeated fatal injuries over the body ofthe deceased causing his homicidal death. @ 13.As regards the question of motive, in case of direct evidence motive loses its importance, even otherwise, motive is aided in criminality and it can be inferred on the basis of the nature of injuries, part of the body effected, weapon used and the manner in which the offence was committed. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosscution shows that the appellant went to the house of the deceased for calling him, he quarrelled with the deceased near hand pump and after throwing him on the land, when virtually the deceased was helpless, the appellant assautted him with crowbar, the dangerous weapon, and caused repeated injuries over vital parts of the body which shows the grave intention of the accused of causing homicidal death amounting to murder. 14.After appreciating the evidence available on record, the Court below has convicted & sentenced the appetlant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. for committing the murder of Ramlal. On close scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find any iltegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned warranting any interference in appeal. 15.For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeal, same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. ;oma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge