j J f 't"s'":*^.^WS "?3"~ -^^2- '^~>'tj HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.8.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha and Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhe Shyam Sharma Criminal Appeal No.297 of 1996 T <^&1 Jansingh versus State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh) <iwl JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATION Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge Hon'ble SliriAunil Kumar Sinha, J.: Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge Postfor /2 Sd/- juDce- /Z -09-2011 % HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hpn'ble Shri Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha^nd Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhe Shvam Sharma Criminal Appeal No.297 oM996 Appellant versus Respondent Jansingh, son of Suklal Gond, aged about 28 years, resident of Makhanpur, P.S. Pali, District Bilaspur (Now District Korba) (Chhattisgarh) State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh) !-i....i,-..l<B?. Present: Smt. Savita Tiwari, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ashish Shukla, Government Advocate for the State/respondent. Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure JUDGMENT (Delivered on 13'(h September, 2011) Per Radiie Shvam Sharma, J.: This appeal is directed agairist the judgment dated 20-1-1996 passed by 7 Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur in Session Trial No. 164/1994. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Jansingh has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: Deceased Dhansingh, younger brother of complainant Chainsingh (PW-1), used to level allegations on the appellant that he had illicit relationship with a girl. On this account, on the fateful day, i.e., 18-1-1994, the appellantcommitted murder ofthe deceased in his own Aangan (courtyard of the appellant) with a Sabbal (crowbar). li.'.. ,,;.r:^ .t:AK3 ^.-1--.' ^ Chainsingh (PW-1) lodged First Information Report (Ex.P-10). Merg- Intimation (Ex.P-11) was also recorded. The investigating officer reached the place of occurrence, gave notice (Ex.P-12) to Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.P-4) on the body of the deceased. Dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination to Primary Health Centre, Pali vide Ex.P-13. The post mortem was conducted by Dr. G.P. Naidu (PW-9), who gave his report Ex.P-9, in which he found incised wound on left side of skull (parietal region) of 2inchesx%inchx1/2inch, incised wound on left side of skull just above the left eye of %inchx1Ainchx1/2inch and incised wound on right side of skull at the forehead of 3%inchesx1 inchxl inch on the body of the deceased. The skult bone was fractured and the brain was damaged. He opined that cause of death of the deceased was injury to the brain and it was homicidal in nature. In further investigation, plain earth and blood stained earth were seized vide Ex.P-5. Memorandum statement (Ex.P-1) of the appellant was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 16- 2-1994 and at his instance, a Sabbal (crowbar) was seized vide Ex.P-2. White Shirt and Badami Full Pant were also seized from the appellant vide Ex.P-3. Site-Plan (Ex.P-8) was prepared by Patwari Tirithlal Kashyap (PW-8). After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Couri: of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, from where it was received on transfer by the 7 Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. ilSMi 3. Smt. Savita Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution examined Fulbai (PW-4) as an eye-witness, but she did not witness the incident. Rampyare (PW-6) and Samar Singh (PW-7) did not support the case of the prosecution. Fulbai (PW-4), who is widow of the deceased, deposed in the Court as an eye-witness, but, in her police statement, she did not state anything about her witnessing the incident. The independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, she claimed that the appellant deserves to be acquitted. 4. On the contrary, Shri Ashish Shukla, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, do not warrant any interference by this Couri:. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the impugned judgment as also the record of the session case. The conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of Fulbai (PW-4), Rampyare (PW-6) and Samarsingh (PW- 7). 6. Fulbai (PW-4) deposed that her husband Dhansingh (the deceased) had gone to work as a labourer under one Dalpat Singh one day prior to the date of incident. Her husband returned home with Dalpat Singh in the late evening. After an hour of return of her husband, the appellant came to their house. He had come on a t?°y1 ,p>- ;:L;f.^.'''" "' V^ bicycle and kept it in their courtyard. On being asked by the appellant, her husband had gone along with hjm to his house. The house of the appellant was situated after two houses from her house. As soon as her husband and the appellant had gone out of her house, she had also come out of the house behind them along with her child. As soon as her husband entered in the courtyard of the house of the appellant, the appellant assaulted him. In cross- examination, Fulbai (PW-4) deposed that she had stated in her police statement that she, along with her child, had witnessed the appellant assaulting her husband from the street. ->a;4^) 7. Fulbai (PW-4) did not state before the police about her witnessing the incident, but in the Court, she deposed that she had witnessed the incident. Now, we shall examine whether her evidence is trustworthy. 8. Perusal of the evidence of Fulbai (PW-4) shows that she made exaggerative statements in the Court. But, in Fa/sus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus (False in one, false in ali) does not apply in criminal cases in India, as a witness may be partly truthful and partly false in the evidence he gives to the Court and the Couri: has to assess to what extent the deposition of witness can be relied upon. The Court has to separate the falsehood from the truth and it is only in exceptional circumstances when it is not possible to separate grain from the chaff because they are in-extricably mixed- up, that the whole evidence of such witness can be discarded. 9. Fulbai (PW-4) specifically deposed that on being asked by the appellant, her husband (the deceased) had gone along with him to his house. The house of the appellant was situated at the distance of two houses from her house. As soon as her husband and the appellant had gone out of her house, she had also come out of the house behind them along with her child. As soon as her husband entered in the couri:yard of the house of the appellant, the appellant assaulted him. It is true that Fulbai (PW-4) made exaggerative statements in Court and there are some contradictions in her police and Court statements, but, for this reason only, her entire evidence cannot be discarded as it is corroborated by evidence of other prosecution witnesses. 10. Rampyare (PW-6) deposed that on the fateful day, at about 8 P.M., the appellant was shouting Daudo Daudo (run). When he went to the house of the appellant, he saw that dead body of the deceased was lying in the courtyard of the appellant. He fled towards his house. The appellant chased him. Hewas chasing him to assault him. At thaf time, the appellant was drunk. At the time when he had reached the house of the appellant in the night, the appellant was having a Sabbal (crowbar) in his hand. 11. Samarsingh (PW-7) deposed that in the house in which the incident had taken place, only the appellant and the deceased were present. After some time, noise of Marpeet was heard from the house of the appellant. On this, he and Rampyare (PW-6) went to the house of the appellant and saw that dead body ofthe decease 'Co ^.A:=-^-;s!C' •^'"'"'•E^, was lying in the courtyard of the house of the appellant and the appellant was standing near the dead body with a thing like long rod. Having seen them, the appellant threatened to kill them. Due to fear, he (Samarsingh-PW-7), along with his family, left the house of Rampyare (PW-6). 12. Chandansingh (PW-5) deposed that deceased Dhansingh was his younger brother. He was not aware of anything about the deceased in the night. His daughter-in-law Fulbai (PW-4) told him about lying of dead body of the deceased in the house of the appellant. He had seen the dead body of the deceased in the courtyard of the appellant. He had informed Chainsingh (PW-1) about it. He had seen injuries on the head and near the waist of the deceased. Excessive blood was present there. Chainsingh (PW-1) deposed that on the fateful day, Chandansingh (PW-5) came to his house and told him that the deceased was lying dead in the courtyard of the appellant. He, Kapilsingh (PW-2) and Chandansingh (PW-5) went to see the deceased. They saw that dead body of the deceased was lying in the courtyard of the appellant. Incised injuries, appeared to have been inflicted with a Tangi like weapon, were present on the head and temporal region of the deceased. Ganeshram (PW-3) deposed that dead body of the deceased was lying in the courtyard of the appellant. He saw injuries on the head and temporal region of the deceased, which appeared to have been inflicted with a Tangi like weapon. 7 13. From the evidence of Fulbai (PW-4), it is evident that the appellant had taken the deceased to his house at his own and from the evidence of Chainsingh (PW-1), Ganeshram (PW-3), Chandansingh (PW-5), Rampyare (PW-6) and Samarsingh (PW-7), it is also evident that the deceased was lying dead in the courtyard of the house of the appellant and the appellant was standing there with a Sabbal (crowbar). When Rampyare (PW-6) and Samarsingh (PW-7) went near the dead body of the deceased, the appellant threatened to kill them. The evidence of Fulbai (PW-4) is duly corroborated by the evidence of above prosecution witnesses, therefore, her evidence is reliable and trustworthy. 14. It is evident that the deceased had gone to the house of the appellant along with him and thereafter the deceased was found dead in the coyrtyard of the house of the appellant. There is no reason why the prosecution witnesses will falsely implicate the appellant. The time-gap between the point of time when the appellant and the deceased were last seen together alive and the deceased was found dead is very small. The appellant did not give any explanation as to how the deceased, who accompanied him, died homicidal death in his house. In these circumstances, it is crystal clear that it is none else but the appellant, who committed murder of the deceased. 15. Dr. G.P.Naidu (PW-9) deposed that he found incised wound, on left side of skull (parietal region), of 2inchesx%inchx%inch, incised wound, on left side of skull just above the left eye, of %inchx1/2inchx%inch and incised wound, on right side of skull at the forehead, of 3%inchesx1 inchxl inch on the body of the deceased. The skull bone was fractured and the brain was damaged. He further deposed that in his opinion, cause of death of the deceased was injury to the brain and it was homicidal in nature. ,1?" 16. The evidence of Fulbai (PW-4) is corroborated by circumstantial evidence and medical evidence also. Therefore, her testimony is cogent, clinching and trustworthy and can be based for conviction of the appellant. ^^t Gopai 17. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned Additional Session Judge that it was none else but the appellant who caused injuries on the body of the deceased with the Sabbal (crowbar) apd the deceased died on account of the injuries caused by him. 18. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeal, which deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge E.a^sas^a^illi ^.itn