y ^ ^.- ^y —i:.t.^,.,,.;^^^^^^1-^ CFO-OO'O'O'a1 ^r ^ ^ ^•1 }-^i;y •k ..v'" .^-''' "allotteci by the High Court lega! Services Committee IH THE HIGH C013RT GF JUBICATUBE AT JABALPUR:K.P. •• '• < •. / ••• - / •- • .„ •• •• .: . •. ...•••.- • - '! • •-: .' ••".' -. • <•.' ••" .c Criiainal ippeal Moo_^V^^ of 1999. ^' . < iraii S/o Jaaak Ram Pargnifaa , / . '. _ .' ^ f aged, abo^it 30 years, R/@ Village- Patel Para, Ghatgaon, Thana-Lelooaga, Distt. Raigarh»(M.P.). Appellant: tln Jaii) ,r- \ N' ^ \.,.,'" ¥s. RespA^dents State of H.P. tKrough! P.S^ Leloonga,/ Mstt. Ra.jgarh. CRIIIIAL APPEAL UNBBR SECTION 57^(2) OF .4 ^ C&IHIHAL HIGC@M3RE. Z-A^^___^___ OF ^^^^^^i^g^^^^^a^.^^^l.-^ — ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR CriminalAppeal No. 1732 of 1999 Ghurau - Versus - State of M.P. (now Chhattisgarh) JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATIQN Sd/- HOirBUBMR._JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA ^. cMefJustice 18-1-2007 CL£>p^x. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge POST FOR JUDGMENT GN 19TH JANUARV. 2007 Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice HIGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.1732 of 1999 Ghurau -Versus- State of M.P. (nowChhattisgarh) Present: Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate: For the appellant. Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Additional Public Prosecutor: For the State/respondent. Division Bench: Hon'ble Mr. L.C. Bhadoo, Ag. CJ. & Hon'ble Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. JUDGMBNT rDelivered on 19th Januarv. 2007) The followjna iudament of the Court was delivered bv L.C. Bhadoo. Aq. C.J.: - 1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17th May, 1999 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No.96/97, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appellant guitty for commission of offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C., sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Janakram (R/V-1), father of the accused/appellant, lodged a report (Ex.P-1) in Poiice Station: LaUunga on 1.3-1997 at about 7.50 a.m. to the effect that he is resident of Village: Ghatgaon, he has only one son Ghurauram, three years back his son was married to Pushpa Bai, since then she is residing in his house, his son was doubting her fideiity, therefore, he used to wateh her movements and in that connection he used to beat her also. 4-5 months back after giving beating to his wffe, his son ran away and retumed to the house day before yesterday. Yesterday night after taking meal he along with his wife were sleeping in a room, his son Ghurauram and his wife Pushpa Bai were lying in the Verandah along with their two month's chitd. All of a sudden, at about 11 p.m. he heard a sound of thud in the said Verandah and also 2 w heard tiie cries of two month's child, therefore, he along with his wife came out from their room in the Verandah and sawthat his son Ghurau was attacking his wife with the iron part ofthe plow and thereafter, after throwing the Jron part of the plow, his son ran towards the street on which h©raised cries. He also chased Ghurau saying that Ghurau is running away after assaulting his wife. After hearing his cries, his neighbourer Firu Nagvanshi came there. He saw Ghurau while running away. They came and saw that Pushpa was lying dead in the Verandah and blood was oozing out of her injury. 3. Receh/ing this report, the Station House OfRcer, Police Station: LaHunga registered first information report Ex.P-1 for commission of offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and left for the scene of occurrence. After glving notice Ex.P-2 to the Panchas, he prepared the inquest Ex.P-3 on the body of Pushpa Bai. Iron part of the plow as wel! as plain soil, bjood stained soij and chappals were taken Into possession under Ex.P-4. Clothes and bedding were also taken into possession under Ex.P-5. The body of Pushpa was sent for post-mortem examination to Community Health Centre, Lailunga, where Dr. Shailendra Upadhyay (PW-7) eonducted post- mortem on the body of Pushpa Bai. He noticed three lacerated wounds on the head and opined that the death was as a result of coma due to excessive haemorrhage and head injury. The death was homicidal in nature. 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was fded in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gharghoda, who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Raigarh, form where learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge receh/ed the case on transfer for trial. 5. The prosecution in order to establish charge against the accused examined 11 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and stated that he is Innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the crime. He further steted that at the time of incident he was under Sntoxication as he consumed llquor, therefore, he does not know what happened. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearins the Gounsel for respective parties and perusal of the record, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned. 6. We have heard Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, tearned counsel for the appeltant and Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Additional Publfc Prosecutor on behalf of the State/ respondent. 7. Mr. Chatterjee has not disputed th©homicidal death of Pushpa Bai. Apart from that, Janakram (PW-1) & Sanmet (PW-5) have stated in their evidence that they witnessed the accused assaulting deceased Pushpa with an iron part of plow. Dr. Shailendra Upadhyay (PW-7), who conducted post- mortem on the body of Pushpa, has stated in his evidence that there were three injuries on the head of the deceased, even temporal bone, parietal bone, beneath the injuries, were found fractured and cause of death was coma as a result of excessive haemorrhage and head injury. The deatii was homicidal in nature. Therefore, in view of the above ocular and medical evidence, it is establlshed that the death of Pushpa Bai was homicidal in nature> 8. As far as involvement of the accused In the crime in question is concemed, Mr. Chatterjee, leamed counsel for the appellant, argued that as there wa® piteh dark night and Janakram (PW-1) & Sanmet (PW-5). father & mother of the accused, respectively, were sleeping inside tiie room, therefore, it was not possible for them to identify the assailant. The accused has been convicted without any eviderice. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Deo, learned Addittonal Public Prosecutor, supported the judgment ofthe frial Court. 10.1n order to appreciate the augments advanced by tearned counsel for the parties, we have perused the evidence. Janakram ^3W-1) has categorically stated in his evidence that on the fateful night he along vwth his wife were steeping In their room after taking meal, whereas, the aecused and his wife along with their two month's child were sleeping in the Verandah, the accused after snatehing the child form his wife thrown him on the ground as a result of which he started crying, thereafter, the accused picked up the iron part of the plow and assaulted Pushpa with that weapon on her head as a re^ult of which the head of Pushpa was burst and after throwing the weapon of offence, the accused ran away. He (PW-1) raised cries on which Firu Nagvanshi came and he saw the accused running awsy form the house. Thereafter, Panchas of the village were called. Next day, the matter was reported to Police Station: Lailunga under Ex.P-1. He has further stated that the accused used to doubt the fidelity of his wife therefore, he used to beat her also. Sanmet (PW-5) has also corroborated the above evidence. In cross-examination of these witnesses defence has not been abte to elicit any circumstance which discredits the evidence of these witnesses. They are father & mother of the accused and there was no occasion forthem to implicate their own son in a false case. Moreover, they have categorically stated in their evidence that the accused and the deceased were sleeping in the Verandah and they themselves saw the accused attacking the deceased with the iron part of plow and running away. There is no reason before the Court to disbelieve the evjdence of these two witnesses. Moreover, Firu (RA/-2), who came after hearing the cries of Janakram, has stated in his evidence that he saw th®accused running swsy in the street in the moon llght and on suggestion of counsel for the accused he has categoricalty stetedl that he was knowing th© accused, therefore, he identtfied the accused in the moon light. Further, he stated that when he was coming to the house of Janakram, the accused met him on the way and on enquiry, the accused said that he has committed the murder of his wffe. Therefore, the accused made extra judicial confession before this witness also. The accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has stated that he was under intoxication, therefore, he does not know what had happened. In view of the above evidence, it is established that the accused was author of the crime in question. 11 .Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that as there was a dispute between the father (PW-1) of the accused and the accused, therefore, the father has implicated the accused in a false cas©. 12.1n order to appreciate this argument, we have perused the evidence. it is true that Janakram (PW-1) has stated in his evidence that once Ghurau assaulted him as a result of which he sustained fracture in the palm of his hand and he reported that matter also. This fact has been stated by Firu (PW-2) also. Merely because, the accused attacked his father and the matter was reported, only on this ground it cannot be held that ttie father of the accused namely, Janakram (PW-1) wanted to implicate the accused in a false case. Even Sanmet (PW-5), mother ofthe accused, has also stated in her evidence that the accused assaulted his wif®Pushpa. Rather this fact shows that the accused was a man of quarrelsome nature, he used to quarrel wjth his parents, and atso he used to beat his wife on suspicion as he used to doubt the fidelity of his wife. Therefore, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant Mr. N.K. Chatterjee is devoid of merit and in the circumstances, involvement of the accused in the crime in question is established. 13.The medical evidence of Dr. Shailendra Upadhyay (PW-7) shows that there was a crushed injury on the forehead of the deceased near left eye in the size of 1" x 5" deep up to bone, another injury was on parietal region behind teft ear in the size of 4" x 2" deep up to brain, brain material was coming out and the bone was fractured. Third injury was on left ©yebrow in the size of 4" x 2" deep up to bone and the bone was fraetured. The doctor has stated that on account of the above injuries Pushpa died. The manner in which the accused attacked the deceased, skull bone was fractured and Pushpa died instantaneously which shows that the accused attecked the deceased with intention to cause her death. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons we are of the considered opinion that there is no jllegality or infirmity in the judgment ofthe trial Court. 14.1n the result, the appeal is devoid of merit, same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. ; Sd/- Sd/- i Sunil Kumar Sinha Ag. Chief Justice ! Judge Soma