j&ia5s, ;i;;"ia|! .-j^ ^u^ .^- 'w HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha and Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhe Shyam Sharma Criminal Appeal No.1512 of 1995 Ramphal Sahu versus State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh) JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATION Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. ,7 <^rC-e- Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^2-09-2011 '*.»- Postfor/3 -09-2011 Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge :Illf. :|i{|E[!15[l;]'!]:waiiai!ipt ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha and Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhe Shyam Sharma Criminal Appeal No.1512 of 1995 Appellant versus Respondent Ramphal Sahu, son of Narayan Sahu, aged about 40 years, occupation farmer, resident of Village Gorta, P.S. Lakhanpur, District Surguja (M.P.) (Now .Chhattisgarh) State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh) Present: Shri Raj Kamal Singh, 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 S^i. September, 2011) Per Radhe Shvam Sharma, J.: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-10- 1995 passed by 1 Additional Session Judge, Ambikapur in Session Trial No.274/1993. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Ramphal Sahu has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for ,. / • six months. '•iisa~ -2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: Qn the-fateful day, i.e., 16-5-1993, at about 8:30 A.M,, complainant Ramdhani (PW-1) and his wife Bhagmaniya (deceased) were gping .to attend marriage ceremony in Village Korza. i'lt. rs'ii(^iPii i^m^^es-vs^^ i ii»u»^Un*suyi!iw-«u"'".-•^.«'..;: ^^-s.^y^^^^' , Ramdhani (PW-1) was going ahead and the deceased was going behind him. When they were crossing Chulhat Culvert, the accused/appellant, who was already sitting near Chulhat Culveri: armed with a Lathi, started assaulting the deceased with the Lathi. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The •» accused/appellant also tried to assault Ramdhani (PW-1), but he fled. Ramdhani (PW-1) came to his ftouse and narrated the incident to his son Ramprasad (PW-2). He also narrated the incident to Santlal (PW-3) and Nandlal (PW-7) on the way before arriving his house. Ramdhani (PW-1) lodged the First Information Report (Ex.P-1). The investigating officer reached the place of occurrence, gave notice to Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex. P-7) on the body of the deceased. Dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination to Primary Health Centre, Lakhanpur vide Ex.P- 8. Post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. A.R.Jayant (PW- 4), who gave his repori: Ex. P-2. He found fracture of right and left parietal bones. There was also a fracture on occipital region of skull. He opined that cause of death of the deceased was coma due to compression of the brain and fracture of skull bones and it was homicidal in nature. In further investigation, plain earth, blood stained earth and a Danda (a piec^ of Bamboo) were seized vide Ex.P-13. . / - Memorandum statement (Ex.P-11) of the accused/appellant was ^-»>- recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 18-5-1993 and at his instance, a Danda (a piece of Bamboo) was seized vide Ex.P-12. Lungi of the accused/appellant was also seized vide Ex.P-14. Site- Plat1(Ex.P-10) was prepared by Patwari Awadhesh Singh (PW-8). ?:«•• 'J;?'t)!t4!i:il;':'^'3s|;=s^'::';'?s^^;1^7;:^^'7"?L;"1" '^iaetae'..-;'-; ^ The seized articles were sent for chemical examination to Assistant Chemical Examiner, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur vide Ex.P-16 and a report Ex.P-19 was received. In the FSL report (Ex.P-19), article A - blood stained soil, article C - Danda (a piece of Bamboo), article D - Saree, article E - Petticoat (Saya), article F - Lathi, which was seized from the accused/appellant and article G - Lungi of the accused/appellant were.found stained with blood. The Assistant Chemical Examiner sent the above articles for serological examination vide Ex.P-20. The Serologist found that articles A, C (Danda), G (Lungi) and 1-1 (Saree) were stained with human blood. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, from where it was received on transfer by the 1 Additional Session Judge, Ambikapur, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 3. Shri Raj Kamal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was no independent eye-witness. Ramdhani (PW- 1) is husband ofthe deceased. He is a relative and highly interested witness. At the time of incident, his eyesight was very weak and he could hardly identify the person standing 3-4 steps away from him. He was suffering from cataract, hence, it was not possible for him to identify the assailant. ""Therefore, the conviction of the accused/appellant cannot be based on the solitary evidence of Ramdhani(PW-l). iss-asssssSi^ssiaiiia* ^WWS^'VKS "..-tiirnBrffiAr='^i'J''rt') w»*stt :aa» 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 Court. •» 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at tength and have perused the impugned judgment as also the record of the session case. The conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC is based on the solitary testimony of Ramdhani (PW-1). 6. It is no-t disputed that Ramdhani (PW-1) is husband of the deceased. It is not the law that the evidence of an interested witness should be equated with that of a tainted witness or that of an approver so as to require corroboratior^ as a matter of necessity. The evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the Courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinized with a little care. Once that approach is made and the Court is satisfied that the evidence of the interested witness has a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboratiop. The fact of being a retative cannot by itself discredit / - the evidence. When the eyewitnesses are stated to be interested s"». and inimically disposed towards the accused, it has to be noted that it would not be proper to conclude that they would shield the real culprit and rope in innocent persons. !"! F F 'k 7. Ramdhani (PW-1) deposed that on the fateful day, he and his wife (the deceased) were going to attend a marriage ceremony in Village Gorja. At about 8 A.M., when they were going, the accused/appellant came on their way near Chulhat River. He was armed with a Lathi. He further deposed that he was going ahead and his wife was going behind him. The accused/appellant caught hold of hand of his wife, dragged her, caused her to fall down in the agricultural field of Korja andassaulted her with the Lathi. His wife sustained injury on her head and stari:ed to wriggle. He requested the accused/appellant with folded hands not to assault his wife, but he did not stop. The accused/appellant said that today he could caught the enemy and he will kill her. After assaulting his wife, the accused/appellant ran to assault him. He threatened to kill him too. Running away from there, he came home. His son Ramprasad (PW-2) was going out on work to Lakhanpur. He narrated him the incident and told that his mother (the deceased) has been killed by the accused/appellant. 8. Now, we shall examine whether evidence of Ramdhani (PW-1) is cogent, clinching and trustworthy. Ramdhani (PW-1), immediately after the incident, came to his house and narrated the incident to his son Ramprasad (PW-2). He had also narrated the incident'tO Santlal (PW-3) and Nandlal (PW-7) on the way before s««- arriving his house. Though Santlal (PW-3) and Nandlal (PW-7) did not support the case of the prosecution, they admitted in their evidence that Ramdhani (PW-1) had come to them and had told them thaf his wife (the deceased) was murdered. ^ ni;E);i!iK: 9. Ramprasad (PW-2) deposed that on the fateful day, his father Ramdhani (PW-1) had told him at home that his mother (the deceased) was murdered by the accused/appellant near Chulhat Culvert. Having come to know this, he had gone to the place of occurrence. He saw his mother lying dead there, and also saw that she had sustained multiple injuries pn her person. 10. Ramdhani (PW-1) lodged the First Information Report (Ex.P-1) on 16-5-1993 at about 12:15 P.M. The date and time of incident are 16-5-1993 at about 8:30 A.M. The distance of police station from the village is 10 Kilometres. According to Ramprasad (PW-2), firstly, he and his father Ramdhani (PW-1) rushed the place of occurrence, which is 1 Kilometre away from their house, and thereafter they went to the police station for lodging the First Information Report (Ex.P-1). The First Information Report (Ex.P-1) was lodged within four hours of the incident. In the First Information Report (Ex. P-1), it is mentioned that when Ramdhani (PW-1) and his wife (the deceased) were going ahead, after crossing Chulhat Culvert, the accused/appellant assaulted his wife with Lathi. Since the First Information Report (Ex.P-1) was lodged promptly and it contains name of the accused/appellant as assailant, therefore, evidenc&o/Ramdhani (PW-1) appears to be trustwori:hy. '*.»- 11. So far as identification of the accused/appellant by Ramdhani (PW-1) is concerned, Ramdhani (PW-1) deposed in cross- examination that he could see things 2-3 hands away. Sometimes, wBen he went outside the village, someone accompanied him, but (.Z' E' p4ii^^^^j ma! sometimes he went all alone. From this, it appears that Ramdhani (PW-1) could go outside alone too and he could see things clearly in the daylight. He further deposed that at the time of incident, his wife was 5-6 hands away to him. It is true that when Lathi blow was given to his wife, she had cried, then he saw towards his wife. He saw that two Lathi blows were given by the accused/appellant to his wife on her head. He specifically,.deposed that distance between him and the deceased was hardly 5-6 hands and when he tried to save his wife, the accused/appellant tried to assault him also. Then, due to fear, he fled towards his home. 12. The incident took place in daylight in the month of May. It appears that Ramdhani. (PW-1) and the accused/appellant talked with each other and Ramdhani (PW-1) was also threatened and intimidated by the accused/appellant. Ramdhani (PW-1) and the accused/appellant were residents of same village, i.e. Gorta. The accused/appellant was well acquainted with Ramdhani (PW-1). When the accused/appellant was well acquainted with the witness Ramdhani and they talked with each other, recognition of the accused/appellant by Ramdhani (PW-1) appears to be natural. 13. Dr. A.R.Jayant (PW-4) deposed that on post mortem examinatioh of dead body of the deceased he found fracture of right and left parietal bones artti'-there was also a fracture on occipital region of skull. He deposed that cause of death was coma due to compression bf the brain and fracture of skull bones and it was homicidal, in nature. Ramdhani (PW-1) also deposed that the III I, ^riiSF.^.ntotffSD)^ •^f^isfMf^KWf^yealf accused/appellant had given Lathi blows on the skull of the deceased. The evidence of Ramdhani (PW-1) is well corroborated by the medical evidence. There is no material on record to show that Ramdhani (PW-1) had any motive to falsely implicate the appellant. K9» 14. We have perused the evidence of Ramdhani (PW-1) with utmost circumspection. His evidence is cogent, clinching and trustworthy and corroborated by the medical evidence. The doctor has opined that cause of death of the deceased was coma due to compression of the brain and fracture of skull bones and it was homicidal in nature. 15. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the trial Court that it was none else but the appellant who inflicted injuries on the skull of deceased with the Lathi and the deceased died on account of the injuries caused by him. Gopal 16. Consequently, the judgment under appeal is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Jtfdge Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge •«». ;i 1 :.i:; i' M