Wm (W) WWW mmifwm $a‘f‘mm Criminal A Deal No.577l2001 i APPELLANT Tukaram S/ o Banshjlal Marar, Aged RS Villa‘ ‘ V , r Dis RESPONDENT Stat Thro P. S. CRIMINAL APPEAL u/s 3' PR‘ D.B.: HON’BLE SHRll L.C BHADOO, J. 85 HON’BLE SHRk SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. l2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL )CEDURE ORAL JUDGMENT 09.2007) L.C. Bhadoo, J:- Shri Anant Bajpayee, Shn’ U.K.S. Chandel, P Heani. Counsel for the appellant. anel Lawyer for the State. 28 years R/ o Vlllage Khapan e 'ct RaJnandgaon Salbagh Presently res1dmg at Matekata PS Dongargarh of Chhattisgarh, gh the Station- House O$cer ngargarh, District Rajnandgaon., (26. 7 o mm WW (13W) WWW ammm ) mmitwm ,. §i3i1%m$n%¥l WWW This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction d 19th May 2001 passed by the ‘ , in Sessions Tn'al No.09/2001, whereby, the learned Se sions Judge after holding the iaccused/ appellant guilty o ' the od‘ence punishable under §éétion 302 of the IPC, sente ced him to undergo imprisonment for life. r Case of‘the prosecutio in brief is that in the intervening night of 26-27th November 2 00, accused/appellant was in the ‘house of his father-in-law n all the family members wen night, accused] appellant aftei Samundar Bai, Durdeshiiam informed them that he has c law. When they came to knt near the cot where Roopram was sleeping, they found that there t and head of the deceased, teeth ng out of the injuries, on which, they asked accused/appellant as to why he has attacked Roopram, then, accused/apps was having illicit relations Roopram, he has committed . cries, hearing their cries, PW Roopxam), came there, otier persons also came there. Thereafter, the .accused/ appellant ran away towards the forest. \ and order of sentence date Sessions Judge, Rajnandga ely Roopram (since deceased) and sleeping. At about 12:30 in th ‘ giving beating to Chandrakumar, etc. asked them to wake up and ommitted murder of his father—in- xw about this, these persons went were cut injuries on the nec] were broken, blood was oozi Hant disclosed that since Roopram with his wife i.e. daughter of his murder. On this, they raised -2 — Dhruvram (cousin brother of e W m................................u. 200 mm (W) ’mmwmrwwm mww ‘3 wrmm . . T‘he village Kotwar was informei. The matter was reported to f’olict Station — Dongargarh by Chandra Kumar under EX.P[ 1. Afmr mgistéring the case agéinst the accused/appeHant for Committing murder of Roopram, under Section 302 of The IPC, ‘ g ‘ the Ihvestigatin’g Officer left for the scene of occurrence and after giving notices to the Panchas, prepared inquest (EX.P/ 3) on the bodywf deceased -Roopram. He prepared Site Plaid under EX.- §/4 of the p1ace"of occurrence, one blood stained sari Was seized under EXP/6. The site plan wasprepared' under EXP/7 by I-lalka Patwan'. While in police custody, accused/appellant gave niemorandum under Ex.-P/8 re garding the place where spade was lying and in pursuance of at, he got recovered the spade under Ex—P] 9. Body of Roo was sent for postmortem to the Government Hospital, Dongarg h under Ex.-P/ 10, where, Dr. M.L. Jaiswal (PW- 7) 'conducte postmortem and opined that cause of death was shock haemorrhage. He prepared postmortem report (Ex-P] lO-A) After completion of the estigation, charge sheet was tiled in the Court of Additi a1 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dongargarh, who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon. W The prosecution in order to establish charge against accused] appellant examined 10 witnesses. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 3 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Vinrwhich, he denied the material appearing against t \ J ,jp i : p d . v XI—HC 78 him in the prosecution evidt and has been implicated i1 T stated against him on accou Learned Sessions Ju respective parties, co: ‘ "* accused/ apyellant as aforeu We‘ have heard Shn' aypellant and Shri U.K.S. C Shri Bajpayee has nc Roopram. Moreover, Dr. M t i postmortem on the body of q that there were 6 lacerate ‘ There was a linear abrasion‘ bone was &actured, ca1 haemouhage. The injuries v is Ex.-P/ 10-A. Therefore, in it is established that the d1 nature. As far as involvemenh question is concerned, in th evidence The case rests 0] extra judicial confession ma place of occurrence itself bei Durdeshiram (brothers-invla deceased) and PW-2 — D tnce and stated that he is innocent ‘1 a false case, the Witnesses have at of animosity. dge after hearing counsel for the hvicted and sentenced the Lentioned. Anant Bajpayee, Counsel for the handel, Panel Lawyer for the State. It disputed the homicidal death of \_ L. Jaiswal (PW-7), who conducted eceased on 27/ 1 1/2000, has stated id wounds on the neck and head. below the neck and the left frontal shock and iere homicidal in nature; his report view of the above medical evidence, eath of Roopram was homicidal in lise of death was )f the accused/ appellant in cn'me in is case, there is no ocular or direct i the circumstantial evidence i.e. Lde by the accused/ appellant at the ‘ore PW-l — Chandra Kumar, PW—4- W of the accused and sons of the hruvram (cousin brother of the XI-HC—78 \ 3W W, m,W W m CYA r9. . wt ‘ 200 mum (W) WWW mum'iwm m miranm 5' deceased). In order to pla‘ce reliance on the extra judicial iconfession, r as' per the set1led law, there must be clear cut ‘evidence that the extra Judicial confession made by the 3 accused] appellant was voluliwy, true and prompt: y / Mr. Bajpayee argued that all these 3 Witnesses are closely —l — Chandra Kumar and PW—4 - deceased, whereas PW—2 ~ Dhruv deceased and no independent ‘witness has 'Heen adduced, refore, no reliance can be placed i on their evidence. It is an admitted po 'u'on that PW—l — Chandra Kumar and PW-4 - Durdeshiram are sons and PW-2— Dhruvram is cousin bmther of the decea ed —- Rooprarn and uncle-in~law of the accused] appellant. It is a settled law that evidence of close relatives cannot be out Iigh y rejected merely on the basis that they are closely related to ‘ u f j related‘to the deceased i.e. Durdeshjram are sons of 3Ra1h is cousin brother of deceased. However, in such case, it is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the evidence of such Witnesses with great care and circumspection in order to ascertain the veracity of the' evidence. PW~1 -— Chandra K 'ar has stated that on the fateful night, at about 12:00 O’ C ck, in one room he alongwith the accused! appellant and his y unger brother were sleeping and in another room, his mother his sisters were sleeping. His W e e e d ‘ XI-HC 78 WW,WW @@ m m éx . / YMJOI v1 200 mm (W) m WW m 1 ‘ ’ mmaaném (a WWiwm Qwifanm fathcr was sleeping outside the house. The accusediappellant after attacking his father as ed them to wake up and said that he has committed murder‘r Roopram and whatever they want to do, they may do it. In ‘ e meanwhile, villagers came there i V and in front of them also, he made extra judicial confession that he has committed murder of Roopram. Thereafter, they saw Roopram lying dead. There {Vere injuries on the neck and head. léis also stated that Dhruv Ram, Lilhare, Sinhaji, Sarpanch also came on the spot and thereafter, a report was made to this effect. The above evidence “of Chandra Kumar is also corroborated by the evidence of PW—4—Durdeshiram (son of the deceased and brother of PW-l a Chandraknmar), who has stated that on the fateful night, the accused was in their house. In the night, when they were sleeping, accused asked them to wake up and said that he he s committed murder of their father. PW-2 -— Dhruvram, cousinbrother of the deceased, has stated that when he was slerping in his house, at about 12:00 in the night, Samundar Bai, wife of Roopram, came and called him, on which, he went to 1er house and saw that there were L- injury on the neck of Roop am and he was dead. On enquiry, accused disclosed that he h s committed murder of Roopram. In cross-examination of these 3 witnesses, the defence has not been able to elici any circumstance regarding extra judicial confession made by the accused before them, therefore, XI 8 —HC 7 WW 3a W, Wig mm? - .....ég’fgg/QWIL 200 3mm (W) WW m Wwm A WWIWW *Wm evidence of these 3 Witnesses regarding exira judicial confession by the accused befom them remains unchallenged. All three Witnesses immediately after committir a fasked them to wake up and before them. They all have s sleeping with them and éommissio‘n of murder of Roc Roopmm. ’i‘hey saw Roopram coming on record in the cn these witnesses had inimical they had any grudge against him in a false case, that too f( They were also closely related than the brother—in-law of th one Witness. It is dinicult to digest t' have categorically stated that .g murder of Roopram, accused he made extra judicial confession tated that accusedfappellant was after accused disclosed about npram, they went near the body of lying dead on the cot. Nothing is " )ss-examina'tion to establish that relationship with the accused and the accused in order to implicate tr murder of his own father-in-law. to the accused, who is none else 3 two witnesses and son—in—law of lat such Witnesses, who are close relatives of the accused] appeilant, will try to implicate him in a criminal case that too in a serious crime like murder, therefore, the evidence of these 3 witnesses inspires the conndence of this Court that accused/appellant made extra judicial confession before them regarding commission of murder of Roopram by W ‘k. )H—HC—78 ' W W L ........g‘g,’y9%/g ........................................ .. .. 200 @ anaw «m; (1mm) mm y mwgm k IA i Mo‘do not fmd any illegaLity or im‘irmity in the judgment of 1 thc tu‘al Court. V The appeal being devoid of men'ts is liable ‘ liable tosbe dismissed alid is accordingly disinissed‘ « issidl. A:L.¢w ‘ 7 i Sci wire Sunil Kumar Sinha £ ‘ L.¢.BHADoo ‘ Judge ‘ h m Judge r r ‘ 1 3 \. ’: i i