HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram: HON’BLE MR.T.P.SHARMA& HON’BLE MR. R.N. CHANDRAKARYJJ. 1.: ,- G Criminal Appeal No. 1109 of 1995 I Appeilant Lateluram son of Bhagatram, aged 43 years, Occupation Choukidar in Forest _. Department residence of village Thana : Arjunl Tahsilv : (CRMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE) Present:- - Mr Awadh Tnpathl counsel forthe appellant Ms Madhumsha Smgh Pane! Lawyerforthe State JUDGMENT (Delivered on 15“ November, 2011) PerT.P.Sharma, J;- 1. ¢hailenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction & order of eentence dated 11.07.1995 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, District Raipur, in Sessions Trial No.128i1994, whereby & whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of Latkhor Sinhaisince deceased) convicted under $ection 302 of the l.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/—, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.l. for one year. V ‘ Dhamtan Dist-t Ranpur (C G) Versus Respondent . State of Madhya Pradesh gNow Chhattisgarh) 'V i 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence, the tria! Court has convicted 8: sentenced the appeliant as r aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 3. As per the case of prosecution, appellant was working as Choukidarzin Forest Department. On 10.09.1 993 at about 9.00 p.m. deceasedvLatkhor Sinha along with PWI3-Santosh PWI6-Arjun and PWH-Dhansai went to forest for collecting fuel wood Appellant assaulted Latkhor and caused fatal injuries Other Witnesses came back to Village and Informed the Villagers, thereafter Villagers went to forest and took the Injured Latkhor. Sinha from forest and during course of journey he died. PWI4—Durian Smgh went to police station and lodged FIR Vide Ex P/3 and merg was recorded Vide Ex P/6 Investigating officer left for scene of occurrence, after summoning the Witnesses vide Ex.PI1, inquest over the dead body of deceased was prepared vide Ex.Pf2. Blood stained soil, plain soil and one stone were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P/4. Dead body of deceased was sent for autopsy to Govt. Hospital, Dhamtari vide Ex.P/7. ‘ Dr. H.C. Godheja (PW/5) conducted autopsy vide Ex.PIS and found foltowing injury: 1 i) Lacerated wound over right ocCipital region of 2 V2cm x 1cm. 0 into skin deep Skull bone was crack and fractured ii) Contusion of 6cm x 30m over right face iii) ContuSIon of 4cm x 3cm over left side of chest Eochymosis over left eyebrow i iv) Abrasion over left thigh of 4cm x 3cm. Hematoma over occipital region. Mode of death was coma‘and shock. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/10. Clothes of appellant was seized vide Ex.PIB. Seized articles i were sent for chemical examination. Presence of human blood was» confirmed on the clothes of appellant vide EXP/1 t. m w @ ‘ Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the ‘Code’) and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Court of Judicial‘lVlagistrate First Class, Dhamtari, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Raipur where learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. . ln order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, prosecution examtnéd as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code where he denied the circumstances appearing against him and innocence and false implication in the crime in question is claimed. . After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, teamed Additional Sessions Judge,- Raipur convicted & sentenced the appellant as l aforementioned. . Shri Awadh Tripathi, counsel for the appeilant and Ms. Madhunisha Sing‘h, Panel Lawyer for the State are heard, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court. Q . Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that present appeilant was Choukidar in Forest Department and was on duty at the time of commission of offence. On 10.09.1993 at 9‘00 pm, deceased 'along with PW/S-Santosh, PW/6-Arjun and PW/7-Dhansai went inside the forest for stteaiing fuel'yvood. They were challenged by appellant ¥ O then they fiee from the forest. During the course of running, deceased fail down in the pit and received injuries, as a result of which deceased died. He also submits that present appellant has not committed any offence and has not caused any injury to deceased. Evidence of PWIS-Santosh, x @é PW/6-Arjun and PWI7-Dhansai do not inspire confidence and trustworthy and same is not sufficient for conviction of the appenant. He further submits that even if the case of prosecution and evidence of. v‘vitnesses is considered in its face value then the act attributed to the appellant does notltravel beyond the scope of Section 304 Part-ll of the IPC. Present appellant was in custody for more than seven years and seven months, which may be sufficient sentence to the appellant. g s. Onl the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the t appeal and submits that appellant has deliberately and intentionally caused‘homicidal‘death of deceased On thegbasis of evidence adduced l on behalf of prosecution, trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced theiappellant aforementioned. w. 10.ln order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the partiesi we have examined the evidence available on record. 11in the present case, homicidal death of deceased Latkhor as a result of fatal injuries found over the vital parts of deceased has not been substantiaily disputed on behalf cf the appellant, on the other hand, also ‘ established by the evidence of Dr. H.C. Godheja_(PWf5) and autopsy es report EXP/5 that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 12.As regard to complicity of appellant in the crime in question is concerned, l ' conviction of the appellant is substantially based on evidence of eye witnesses PW/3-Santoshpf1VV/6-Arjun and PWf7-Dhansai. As per their l l i evidence, they were accompanying deceased in forest. At about 9.00 pm they had gone to forest for collecting fuel wood where appellant was present and has caused repeated injuries by stone to deceased Latkhor, as a resuit of which he fell down then PW13-Santosh, PW/6-Arjun and PW/7—Dhansai immediately rushed to the viilage and informed the villagers. Defence has cross-examined these witnesses‘ét Iength but has not been able to elicit anything in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony to the extent that they have not seen the incident and aopeuant has not caused injuries to deceased. Injuries found over the bedy of deceased shows that it was not possible by falling down“ EVidence of eye witnesses PW/3-Santosh, PW/B-Arjun and PW/ih Dhansai inspires confidence and trustworthy and same is Sufficient for drawing inference that appellant has caused homicidal death of deceased. 13.As regards the question of intention and motive is concerned, prosecution has not proved any motive or cause for causing such homicidal death of deceased Appetlant was not havxng any weapon As per evidence of PWI3-Santosh, PW/6-Arjun and PW/7-Dhansai they had gone to forest for collecting fuel wood. Appellant was working as Choukidar in Forest Department and was under obligation to make watch over the forest. This circumstance shows that ate the time of duty of appellant deceased along with other persons went-We forest for stealing and collecting fuel wood. They were challenged by appellant, thereafter they rushed. lt can be safely inferred that appellant has caused aforesaid % l injuries to deceased at the time of discharging his duty but it would not t with intent to cause hothtcidal death amounting to murder of deceased tatkhor. Evidence collected on behalf of-prosecution is not sufficient for drawing inference that appellant has committed'rnurder of deceased but i