I I W? - APPEAL OF P§ISONER ’ V ’ n No. W gs 3 g W ' Namengw‘imLm—n”.. Residence 3W CF“ ”1) --Age V . _ ‘ ‘ Crime No.,-'---a?==l-Q-L9§ V -------Police Station-$mn4u3essiog \ . . Trial No.--1-°-31-a-”-3$-- ~ sentenbed to .....aimiwm »a ~§..%9:231:.§L§‘1am;_0h’-_2_.%_i.9£ii‘.2.<zq£ ____ Undei section ‘ - .302 w ‘ a? «1% y ' ~ ‘ -_ Vby? ___ :.%m.€i§1§.im:;- ’gg Cg 37V) ‘ it is exp'ained io the Prisoner that if he statesior wishes to be represented by v iega‘i practitioner the Appellate Court will not proceed with the basefor seven days ess the legal practitioner appears. lf the legal practitioner does not wish to be ‘” ted by legal practitioner the oodrt may proceed at. once with the case and wil not be obliged to give a hearing to‘any legal practitioner Who should appear. . Date of Application for copy of Judgement ...................... I Date on which Appeal sent -'— ‘ 7 , . ‘ n ‘ g Date on which Appeal sent ------—.~------------.---------_-..-------------_..-----.---_----t Whether the Prisoner wishes to be represented or not — Yes/ No I Whether The Judgment copy and Pragress Report. of The Case has given to “a'ppella'n't/ counselor of‘The appellant isnawwr Nozsae ______ Namie; IiamLN/omlycam’h Confinedin -----—------Q§323«---Jail‘ 1‘35“ .C ‘97 3‘) N¢.;L--§J7£§Z§[Z:$E§L-,-Dated "4-;......9£4 is!2d05:.r.‘.---;--;t-.;----------------:. Forwarded to the CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE @T ET- 2-------------- tqgathertothe properAp’pellate'Court. - V - f ' *Wl'P‘a’s‘Ictl°S@W6SW,-t “ - a I - We . - : smite; V . cttttq-“tijrl L V . r ' -------- 3 .. I I ' (P..0.) U6 ‘ _ ~ l 4 2 l “Z -- : " ' L ‘ %“? T NO. ,Dated '2oo‘ A I Forwarded to the -- Date of receipt in Appellate Court ~- M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT BILASPEIR DIVISIoN 31mm; CORAM: HON’BLE MR. T.P. SHARMA & VERSUS HON’BLE MR. RANGNATH CHANDRAKA§ JJ. CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. 46(2006 Kumari Bai W/o Hridaya Ram Banjare, aged about 35 years,- R/O‘Village Dunda, RS. & Tah. Bemétara, Distt. Durg (C.G.). RESPONDENT State of Clmattisgarh. RIMINAL APPEAL fIN‘DER SECTION 37$2l OF THE CRIMINAL ’ROCEDURE CODE 4373. The following judggent of the Com was gasséd by T.P. Sharma, J:- Challenge in this appeal is to the judgnfent of comiiction and order of sentence dated 22/9/2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, Durg C.G. in Sessions Trial No. 107/2005 whereby and where under after holding the appellant guilty for the commission of offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder of 12 years aged child Yogesh Kumar, convicted the appeliant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced imprisonment for life and line of Rs. 2000/—, in default of payment of flne amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. Conviction is impugned on the ground that withm‘igany iota of evidence sufficient for conviction of Wappeilant, C l ‘x Court below has convicted and sentsnced th€ appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed an illegality. As per case of the prosecution, on fateful day of 15/3/2005, at about 5:00 RM. YogeSh Kumar (since deceased) along with son of appellant PW3 Lokesn, aged about 12 years were present near wood~apple tree, they were plucking wood—apple along with PWQ Roshanlal, aged about 7 years, appellant came to the place of incident and. caused fatal injuries in different parts of body of Yogesh Kumar and after causing such latal‘ injuries, she took blood from the body of Yogesh Kumar 85 drunk thereafter she iled from the spot. PWI Runrlibai,- mother of deceased Yogesh Kumar was informed ‘by witnesses. Police Station Bemetara received telephonic information of the incident which they recorded Rojnamcha vide Ex. P—13. Investigating Officer left for scene of occurrence where PWI Punnibai lodged Dehatinaiéshi vide Ex. P— 14. After summoning the Witnesses vide Ext P—2, inquest over the dead body of Yogesh Kumar was prepared Vide EX. P‘3. Spot map was prepared vide EX. P—lt Blood stained 8r. plain soil and one steel pot stained With blood were recovered from the spot vide Ex. P-5. Dead body of Yogesh Kumar was sent for autopsy to Community Health Center, Bemetara Where PW8 Dr. M.lVl. Devdhar conducted autopsy vide Ex. P-6 and found following injuries:~ lncised wound of 12 x 4 X 1/2 om. over neck. (ii) (i) (iii) (iV) Incised wound of 9 x’ 2 x 1/; cm. over neck. Internal vessels were found out. Incised wound of 5 x l x V2 com. over neck. (v) Incised wound of 4 x 2 X 1/2 c.m. 0V€r right wrist joint. (Vi) Incised wound of 3 x 1/2 x l/é c.m. over right forearm. (vii) Incised wound of 1V2 X 1/2 x 1/2 om. ovor right middle ringer. (viii) Incised wound of 5 x 5 x 1/4 om. over left cheek. (ix) Abrasion of 3 x 1/2 X 1/ 10 om. over left cheek. 7 Internal organs of neck was found cut. Mode of death was shock and death t was homicidal in nature. Sealed :3 clothes _ A of deceased Yogesh Kumar were seized vide Ex. P-4. Report vide Ex. P— 15, Marg intimation vide Ex. P—ll 86 First Information Report'vide Ex. P— 10 were recorded. Sickle stained with blood was recovered from the appellant vide Ex. P- 16. Blood stained clothes of appellant were seized from the appellant vide Ex. P— l8. Sealed articles were sent for chemical examination vide Ex. P— 19 and presence of blood over clothes of appellant was confirmed vide Ex. P—20. Statements of the Witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’). After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Durg from where learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, Durg C.G. has received the case on transfer for trial. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Accused/appellant was examined under Section 3 13 of the Code where she ‘1I WW denied the circumstances appearing against her and pleaded innocence and falSe implication in the cn'me in question, After affording an Opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, Durg CG. has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Madliu Nisha Singh, P.L. for the State/respondent are heard. Judgment impugned and drecord of the Court below perused. Learned counsel for the appellant vehementlv argued that conmction 1s based on the ev1dence of child Witnesses PWZ Roshanlal aged 7 years 8a PW3 Lokesh aged 12 years. Ev1dence of aforesaid witnesses does not inspire coniidence, trustworthy and same is not safe to rely without further corroboration from independent sources. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that even there is no motive for commission of such brutal act. 10. On the other hand, learned P.L. for the respondent/State opposed the criminal appeal and argued that conviction is based on the evidence of child witnesses PW2 Roshanlal, aged 7 years 8r, PW3 Lokesh, aged 12 years who are eyewitnesses and also son of present appellant, evidence of aforesaid witnesses are sufficient for drawing definite conclusion that appellant has brutally murdered 12 years aged child Yogesh Kumar. 11. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. in. In the preS6nt case, homicidal death as a result of fatal injuries found over vital part of Yogesh Kumar has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant on the other hand; otherwise also established by the evidence of PWS Dr. M.M. Devdhar 8r, autopsy report Ex. P—6 and death of Yogesh Kumar was homicidal in nature. As regard the complicity of appellant in crime in question is concerned, conviction is substantially based on the evidence of child witnesses PW2 Roshanlal, aged t/Zfyears 8L PW3 Lokesh, aged 12 years, after satisfying that child witnesses understand the duty to speak truth and- able to understand the question 8s answer rationally, he has examined aforesaid Witnesses. As per evidence of child witness PW2 Roshanlal, aged 7 years, they were present near wood—apple. tree, unfortunate Yogesh Kumar was plucking wood-apple from tree, after plucking wood-apple, he came down 85 standing under tree, PW3 Lokesh also plucking wood—apple, at that time, appellant came to the spot, she was having sickle and she caused injury over neck of Yogesh Kumar, after causing fatal injury, she drunk blood of Yogesh Kumar and fled from the spot. Evidence of this Witness is substantially corroborated by the evidence of another child witness PW3 Lokesh, aged 12 years, son of present appellant. PWI Punnibai, mother of Yogesh Kumar has also corroborated the evidence of PW2 Roshanlal 85 PW3 Lokesh. Defence has cross—examined these witnesses at length but has not been able to elicit anything in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony to the extent that appellant has not caused fatal injury to Yogesh Kumar. Evidence of child witnesses PWQ Roshanlal, aged 7 years 81; PWS Lokesh, aged 12 years is well corroborated by documentary evidence, Rojnamcha, Dehatinalishi, First Information Report 8r, medical evidence which inspire commence, trustworthy and safe to rely that appellant has caused fatal injury to Yogesh Kumar and caused his homicidal death. As regard the question of motive is concerned, motive is only aid in criminality and loses its importance. In case of direct evidence even otherwise motive can be inferred on the basis of the nature of injury, part of the body where injury was caused, weapon used and other like circumstances In the present case, eight injuries have been found over $ the body of deceased Yogesh Kumar; appellant has not only caused aforesaid injuries but also drunk blood of deceased Yogesh Kumar which shows her brutal act and grave intention. Conviction of the appellant is based on credible, clinching 8s reliable evidence sustainable under the law. While convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, Court below has not committed any illegality. After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, Durg CG. has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 17. On close scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Consequently, criminal appeal is devoid of merits, same is liable to be dismissed and is ‘cx ,l i I? x. hereby dismissed. ‘\ ’ Sdl- ' sw- ’ -r.P.saARMA El i i .R.N.Chandrakar Judge Judge