:I ^!' ^. APPELLANT: (InJail) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.552 of 2006 Ramnath @ Andhiyaru S/o Malkham Kh'adiya Gond, aged about 42 years, R/o Aamgaon, P.S. Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (CG) RESPONDENT: Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (CG) {Appeal under Section 374 (2) ofthe @ode ofCriminal Procedure, 1973} ff. Present: Mr. Manoj Paranjpewifh Mr. Vikram Dixit, counsel forthe appellant. Mr. Neeraj Mehta, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondent. Division Bench: - Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma and Hon'ble IVIr. R.N. Chandrakar, JJ JUDGMENT (21-11-2011) T.P. Sharma, J: - 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31-5-2006 passed by the 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, in Sessions Trial No.22/2006, whereby and whereunder the Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of Goverdhan Gond, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life & pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in defautt of payment of fine to further undergo Rlfor two months. \ 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence, * the trial Couri: has convicted & sentenced^he appellant, and thereby »* committed illegality. ' 3. As per case of the prosecution, on the fateful day of 17-11 -2005 at about 2 a.m^in the nightwhile Goverdhan (since deceased) was sitting in his ._verandah along with other persons, the appellant came with stick and ~ after abusing him, assaulted hrm and caused serious injuries. Goverdhan was brought to the police station along with his wife Smt. Rambai (PW-4) who lodged FIR vide Ex.P-12. He was sent for medicial examination to Community Health Centre, Bagbahara. He was examined by Dr. R.K. ^uruwanshi (PW-1) vide Ex.P-1 who found following injuries and symptoms: - (1) He was unconscious and blood was coming out from ear. (2) Lacerated wound of 3 %" x 1" x bone deep, bone was visible. (3) Lacerated wound of 3"X 1/5" over back of head. (4) Lacerated wound of 2 %" x 1 1A" x 1/5" over back of head. Injuries were caused by hard ^|d blunt object. He was admitted in the ,i^ hospital for treatment. He wa's referred to Medical College, Raipur. During the course oftreatment he died. Death was intimated vide Ex.P- 9. Morgue was recorded vide Ex.P-13. After summoning the witnesses, inquest was prepared vide Ex.P-3. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Ambedkar Hospital, Raipurvide Ex.P-10A. Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW- 9) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P-10 and found following injuries: - (l)Lacerated wound with stitching over right parietal region with five stitches up to bone deep. (2) Lacerated wound of 3 c.m. with three stitches over occipital region. (3) Laceratedwound with four stitches over lamb devoid region. (4)Contusion over mastoid region of 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. (5)Separation of coronalsuture. (6) Fatal injury over head and brain. Death was homicidal in nature. During the course of investigation, the appellant was taken into custody, he made discloser statement of stick vide Ex.P-4 and same was recovered at his instance vide Ex.P-5. Spot map was prepared by the investigating officer vide Ex.P-6. Patwari prepared spot map vide Ex.P-7. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After completion of investigatign, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial MagistrateF Mahasamund who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Raipur from where the Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. 5. In order to prove the guilt ofthe accused, the prosecution has examined as many as thirteen witnesses. The accused was examined under '•••..URJt*ii E;L 's.^/ Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. 6. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 7. We have heard learned coQnsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appeltacl vehementty argued that conviction is ;;fi' based on evidence of Smt. Rambai (PW-4), Ashok Kumar (PW-5), Ramlal (PW-7) & Man Singh (PW-8), but their evidence does not inspire confidence and is not trustworthy, same is not safe for convictionof the appellant. 9. On the other hand, iearned State counsel opposed the appeal and submitted that evidence of Smt. Rambai (PW-4), Ashok Kumar (PW-5), Ramlal (PW-7) & Man Singh (PW-8) inspires confidence and is trustworthy, they were present on the spot and their presence was natural. The appellant who was not resident of that vicinity had gone to the house of the deceased at 2 a.m. in the night and has caused fatal injuries over vital part of the person of the deceased which shows his grave intention of caysing murder. After appreciating evidence available on record the Additional Sessions Judge has rightty convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 10.1n order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf ofthe prosecution. 11.1n the present case, homicidal death of deceased Goverdhan as a result of fatal injuries found over vital \ part of his body has not been substantially disputed on behalfofthe appellant. On the other hand, it is established by evidence. of Dr. Shivnargyan Manjhi (PW-9), autopsy report Ex.P-10, evidenceof Dr. R.K. Kuruwanshi (PW-1) and medical examination report Ex.P-1 that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 12.As regards complicity ofthe appellant in the crime in question, conviction is substantially based on evidence of Smt. Rambai (PW-4), Ashok Kumar 1 (PW-5), Ramlal (PW-7) & Man Singh (PW-8), who were present in the house of Goverdhan (since deceased) on the fateful night, they were playing cards and at that time, the appellant who is not resident of same vicinity came with sticl^ and caused repeated injuries over head of the deceased result in his death. Defence has cross-examined these witnesses at length, but has not been able to elicit anything in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony relating to the fact that the appellant has not caused fatal injuries to the deceased. Evidence of these witnesses are sufficient to prove the fact that the appellant has caused homicidal death ofthe deceased. 'f.f. ^l^ 13.As regards the question of motive, motive only aids in criminality and in case of direct evidence it loses its importance. Motive can be inferred on the basis of the weapon used, part of the body effected, nature of injury and other similar circumstances. 14.1n the present case, as per medical evidence, virtually, brain and head have been badly crushed by the assault made by the appellant which shows the grave intention ofcausing murder by the appellant at 2a.m. in the night in the house ofthe deceased. 15.After appreciating the evidence available on record, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted & sentenced the appellant in the aforesaid manner. Conviction of the appellant is based on clinching and credible evidence sustainable under the law. On close scrutiny of evidence, we do not find anyJIIegality or infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence requiring any interference. 16.Consequently, the appeal is devoid of_nnerit, same is liable to be Soma dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- . T.P. Shasma Judse Sd/- R.N. Chaadrakar Judge