-IS-^viif HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHWENIWA MISHRA. & ^TON'Bi^Sl^RXCHANDRAKMejJ CrA.No.S06of2002 ^ Present: Ms. Nirupma Bajpai, counsel fpr the appellant. Mr. G.D. Vaswani, Govt. Advocate Tor the State. Oral Juctament (201n July, 2016) PerDhuendra Midwa, J 01. The appeltant has preferred this appeal under Section 374^) of the Code of Criminal Procedure again^ the judgment of convtetion and order of sentence dated 5th Mareh, 2002 passed in S.T.No.285/01, whereby teamed IV AddiBonal Sessions Judge, Durg, has convictBd the appellant under Section 302 <rf the IRC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life, for causing homicidal death of his aunt - Suijabai. 02. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that the appellant resided with his wife and children separatety andahways used to quarrel with his wife, on account of which, on 9.7.2001 his wife left him and started residing in her f»rental home. For this reason, on 10.7.2001, the appellant picked up a quarrel with his father (PW-2) and from there, he went to Uie house of the deceased and quarreted with her alteging that she was responsibte for his wife deserting him, and committed her murder by pressing her neck. When Sonauram tried to inteivene, the appellant atso pushed him down. Sonauram narrated about the incident to the villagere and also lodged the report of Ex.P/6 on the same day at 21:00 hours, just after 1 % hour <rf the incident 03. Learned triat Court, on the basis of evktence <rf Dr. S.K. Agrawal (PW-7), who conducted postmortem on the person of the deceased and proved his report of Ex.P/11, hekl that Suqabai died Apoettant (In Jail) Siyaram Patet, 36 years Age S/o Sonauram Pat®l,R/o Vrilage Telagundra, P.S. Patan, Distt. Durg (CG) Vereus Respondent < State of Chhattisgarh ^.•-.w^^ ,^^f~"?f^ S Sh. ^ %%•-,.. ' ^ '"eSfS^ as a result of pressing of neck and the deatti was homictelal in nature. 04. From the evklence of Sonauram (PW-2), who is a witness (rf the fact that the appellant had mounted on the chest of the deceased and was pressing her neck, and further from the evidence of Dr. S.K. Agrawal (PW-7), who conducted postmortem over the person of the deceased and proved his report of Ex.P/11, wherein he found that eyes vaere closed, mouth was partly open, tongue was protruded, there was bleeding from nose and mouth, lacerated wound of size 2" x 1" x muscte deep on left side of face at lcwer side, abrasion of size 1" x %" over right face betow right ear, 5 abrasions reddish brown on back side of the neck, 3 abrasions of size 1" x %", 2 abrasions <rf size %' x %", marks of finger on right side of neck and mark of thumb on teft side of neck, tracheal ring and thyroid cartilage were fractured and neck muscles vrere tacerated and opined the cause of death as asphyxia due to antemortem throttling, we are of the opinion thatthe finding of the trial Court that the deceased died homicfdal death, is based on the evidence available on record. ' 05. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that conviction of Uie appellant is based on the solitary testimony of Sonauram, who claims himsetf to be an eyewtoess of the incident, however, the evidence of this witness does not inspire confidence as there is material omission and contradicBons from his report of Ex.P/6 and diary statement of Ex.D/1. 06. On the other hand, leamed counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment of Vne trial Court. 07. We have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as also impugned judgment. 08. The appellai^.is the elder son of PW-2 Sonauram, whereas deceased Surjabai is appellant's sister-in-law. They all reside separately. The appellant resided separately with his virtfe and children. This witness has deposed that on the date of inchtent, the appellant came to his house in the evening when the sun was setfing. He was dfered tea by his chiklren. After taking tea, he left for his house. However, before leaving his house, he was abusing them and muttering that he would beat them. After some time, he heard commotion that Siyaram is beating the old lady Surjabai, whereupon he reached the house of Surjabai and saw that e appellant after throwing Surjabai on ground had mounted on her chest and was pressing and twisting her neck. Thereafter, he (appellant) caught him also and felt him on ground and mountect on his chest. However, Siyaram slipped and felt down, and he could somehow come out of his clutches. He was taken to his house and information about the incident was given by Sarpanch of the vitlage on phone to the police. Thereafter, the villagers took him and Siyaram to police station, where he lodged the report (Ex.P/6). This witness has been cross-examined by ttie defence at length. However, from close scrutiny of his cross-examination, we find that the defence was not able to bring any material inconsistency in the evidence of this witness. 09. PW-1 Kamlesh is Sarpanch of Wllage - Teli Gundra. He has also deposed that on the date of incklent, Raghunath Seth - brother of the appellant - and the Kotwar came t6 him and told that the appellant has committed murder of Suqabai by pressing her neck. After committing murder, he also ran after them to beat and pushed his father on the ground. After receiving the informatton, he went to the house of Siyaram and found Siyaram standing outside his house with a club and he was asking to bring his wife back, and was also threatening that he would beat Sarpanch and Patet of the village and he has murdeced his aunt by pressing her neck. 10. Similar is the evidence of PW-3 Raghunatt, who is real brother of the appellant He has deposed thatthey resided separatety. On the date of incident, in the evening at about 6.30-6.45 pm, he and hte father were present in the house. His elder brother Siyaram came to there and he was agitated as his wife had left him. Thereafter, Siyaram refaimed to his house. After hearing the shoute of villagers, he and his father went to the house of ttie deceased. When they entered the house, Siyaram threatened him, however, his father remained inside the room. Though this witness has been declared hostile and cross-examined by the defence, in which he \ue^—-.,-1. has denied his diary statement of Ex.P/9, however, he corroborates the evidence of his fether in material partteulars. 11. PW-5 Narendra Kumar Sharma is also a witness <rf the fact that oh the date of incident at about 7 pm, the appellant was standing in front of the house of Surjabai and was shouting that hs has murdered Surjabai. PW-9 Ramchandra is Kotwar of ttie village. He has also deposed that Raghunath and his father Sonauram came to him and informed that Siyaram has murdered Suijabai. Thereafter, he gave the information to police by phone. 12. Thus, from the evidence of Sonauram, who is an eyewitness of ttie incident and is none other than father of the appellant, involvement of the appellant in crime ln question is established. The evidence of Sonauram is further corroborated, in material particulars, from the evidence of PW-1 Kamlesh, PW-3 Raghunath, PW-5 Narendra Kumar Sharma and PW-9 Ramchandra. His version is also corroborated from the postmortem report of Ex.P/11, wherein cause of death has been mentioned as asphyxia due to throttling, and it is further corroborated from the FIR of Ex.P/6 todged by him, wherein he has mentioned that the appellant committed murder of Surjabai by throtUing. 13. On the basis of aforesaid analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecitrtion has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence of eyewitness S&nauram, and conviction of the appellant by the impugned judgment is based on proper appreciation ofthe evidence available on record. There is no substance in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. ^~1^. ^) Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge X/