HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 2002 APPELLANT Roop Singh son of Fagnuram Gond, aged about 35 years, Occupation Cultivation, resident of village HarbeL Saraibeda, Chowki Bishrampuri, P.S. KeshkaL Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Chowki Bishrampuri, P.S. Keshkal, Distt. Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.) (Appeal under Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure) Appearance: Mr. V.P. Gupta, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, Dy. Govt. Advocate, for the State. JUDGMENT (5 .07.2oo9) (1) to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay’ fine of Rs.500/—, with default sentence, by the Sessions Judge, Bastar, Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No. G 397/2001 on 315' January, .2002. Following judgment of the Court was delivered by» Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Appellant Roop Singh stands convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Deceased Farshuram was the adopted son of complainant Renuram (PW-3). On 17.5.2001, he had gone to the fields. When he did not return, Renuram went towards the fields and saw that his dead body was lying in the field in pool of blood. Deceased had sustained injuries on his neck. Renuram immediately rushed to the RESPONDENT Criminal Appeal No. 3 1 3 of 2002 " village and narrated the story to the villagers. They also went to the spot and saw the dead body. Later on, they came to know that Budhiyarin Bai (PW-1) had seen th‘e occurrence that the deceased was assaulted b the appellant with a tangia. The matter was reported to the concerned police station by Renuram (PW—3), on which, a merg intimation (Ex.-P/8) and a First information Report (Ex.-P/1) were recorded. The investigating Officer reached to the scene of occurrence, prepared inquest (Ex.- P/2) on the body of the deceased and the dead body of the deceased was sent for its post-mortem to Primary Health Centre, Vishrampuri under Ex.-P/4, where the post—mortem examination was conducted by Dr. G.R. Dhaneliya (PW-6), who prepared his report Ex.—P/5. The Autopsy Surgeon noticed 2 incised wounds on < i; the body of the deceased. One was on the neck and the other was on the little and ring fingers of the left hand. The neck was deeply cut leaving the bony part only. In internal examination, he found that carotid arteries, juggler vein, trachea and esophagus were completely cut. He opined that 3—4 blows were given at the same place on the neck and the cause of death was shock due to excessive and sudden loss of blood caused by incised wound over the neck and it was homicidal in nature. In further investigation, blood stained soil, plain soil and‘a blood stained tangia were seized from the place of occurrence under Ex.-P/3. The seized articles were sent for their chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur under Ex.- P/11 but the report could not be filed. The site plan was prepared urLder Ex.-P/10. After completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kondagaon, who in turn committed the matter to the Sessions Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur, where the trial was conducted and the accuSed/appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforementioned. y 3 (3) Conviction of the appellant is based on the sole testimony of eye witness, Budhiyarin Bai (PW-1). Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 2002 (4) Mr. V.P. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has not disputed the homicidal death of the deceased. Moreover, it comes in the evidence of Budhiyarin Bai (PW-1) that thef deceased was attacked by the appellant by a tangia who received injuries g on his neck. The Autopsy Surgeon also found incised wound on the neck of the deceased and opined that the cause of death was shock due to i excessive and sudden loss of blood caused by incised wound over the neck and it was homicidal in nature. Therefore, it was established that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. (5) Mr. V.P. Gupta argued that Budhiyarin Bai (PW-1) was not a reliable witness. He also argued that her conduct was unnatural because she did not disclose the story to any other villagers except her mother and father. (6) Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court. (7) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Sessions Court. (8) PW-1, Budhiyarin Bai, was aged about 17 years. She deposed that on the fateful day at about 7.00 a.m., she had gone to her own field. She was all alone. The field of the appellant as also the field of deceased A Farsuram are adjacent to her field. Deceased Farsuram was the nephew 3 4 Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 2002 of appellant Roop Singh. Farsuram Was working all alone in his field (badi). The appellant came over there‘along with a tangia in his hands and firstly he pelted stones on Farsuram and thereafter, he assaulted him with the tangia. Farsuram received tangia injuries on the front portion of his neck. The appellant had assaulted 6 times to Farsuram. Seeing all this, she become frightened and rushed back to her house and narrated the story to her mother Andheri Bai (PW-2) and father Lakhmu (PW—5). In k the cross examination, she denied that firstly Farsuram has tried to assault the appellant and thereafter he was assaulted by the appellant with a tangia. She further denied that scuffling had taken place between the appellant and the deceased. She also denied that the deceased received injuries in the scuffling with the appellant. This witness has been cross examined at length by the defence but the defence has not been l able to elicit any such circumstance on which either her testimony may be discarded or it may be said that she is falsely implicating the appellant in crime ln question. (9) Mr. Gupta argued that there are many houses in between the place of occurrence and the house of this witness, but she never narrated the story to any other persons except her father and mother, therefore, this conduct creates a doubt. We are unable to accept such argument. The I witness was aged about 17 years. She deposed that she became frightened when she saw the incident and she immediately rushed to her house. In such situation, if she did not state the story to any other persons except her father and mother, in our considered view, that does not makes a difference. Rather ‘it was natural conduct of the girl aged // 5 ’V ~ Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 2002 about 17 years, who firstly rushed to her house and disciosed the story to her parents. (10.) PW-2, Andheri Bai mother of PW-1 and PW—5, Lakhmu father of PW-1, have supported the version of their daughter Budhiyarin Bai (PW-1). They deposed in ciear words that Budhiyarin Bai came to their house and told that appellant Roop Singh has killed the deceased by causing injuries by a tangia. Nothing couid be brought against them to discard their testimonies. (11) ln View of the above material on record, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgment of the Sessions Court while holding the appellant guilty of offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. (12) The appeal has no merit, the same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. l sw— . CHIEF JUSTICE A a \ vatti ‘