1W T!? SHffR y) HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLEMR. T.P. SHARMA & HON'BLE MR. R.L. JHANWAR. JJ, APPELLANT (IN JAIL) CriminAl Appeal No. 135/2004 VASU URAON SON OF SUKHRAM URAON, aged 45 years, resident of village Katelipara Parasarani, Police Chouki Belghana, P.S. Kota, Dist. • Bilaspur, CG. VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Kota. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1^973, Present:- Shri Vishwanath Goswami, Advocate for the appellant. Shri N.K. Mehta, P.L. for the State/respondent. ORAL-JUDGEMENT (Passedon 27/10/2010) The following iudgment of the Court was passed bv T.P-^harma, J:- 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27/12/2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 263/2003 whereby and where under after holding the appellant guilty for the comraission of offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder of Mangal Uraon, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. _Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence sufficient for conviction of the appellant, Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforenientioned and thereby conimitted an illegality. As per case of the prosecution, on fateful night bf 12/4/2003 at about 9:45 P.M. Mangal Uraon (since deceased) had gone to the house of appellant Vasu Uraon thereafter, PW1 Jheemar Uraon, son of deceased Mangal Uraon hear.d the sound of quarrel and assault and also heard the sound of his father that he will not alive then he went towards the house of appellant Vasu Uraon along with Kapil Uraon, Anandram where they saw that appellant assaulted his father Mangal Uraon by wooden plank. He tried to save his father then appellant went inside his room and clqsed the door. Sons of appellant and wife were standingnear the place of incident. His father died then he went to the Police Station and lodged First Information Report on saine day at about 11:30 P.M. vide Ex. P-1. Marg intimation was recorded vide Ex. P-9. Investigating officer left for scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex. P-12, inquest over the dead body of the deceased Mangal Uraon was prepared vide Ex. P- 13. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Community Health Center, Kota vide Ex. P-10. PW4 Dr. A.K. Jha conducted autopsy vide Ex. P-7 and found following injunes:- (i) Depressed fracture of right side of skull with blood clot. (ii) Swelling and blackness in right eye. (iii) Face of right side was depressed. (iv) Abrasion on right knee with blood clot. IITIHB"' (v) Fractures on temporal, parietal &> frontal bone were found. Mode of death was shock and death was homicidal in nature. 4. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-2. Patwari also prepared spot map vide Ex. P-5. Plain soil, blood stained soil and hairs of the deceased Mangal Uraon were seized from the spot vide Ex. P-14. During course of investigation, appellant was taken info custody and he made discloser statement of wooden plank vide Ex. P-16. Same was recovered at the instance of appellant vide Ex. P-4. 5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'). After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Bilaspur, from where learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur received the case on transfer for trial. 6. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. Accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code where he denied the circuinstances appearing against him, innocency and false implication is claimed. - , 7. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 8. Shri Vishwanath Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri N.K. Mehta, P.L. for the State/respondent are heard. Judgment impugned and record of Court below perused. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that conviction of the appellant is based on evidence of PW1 Jheemar Uraon, son of deceased Mangal Uraon and PW2 Anandram whose evidence does not inspire confidence, trustworthy and are not safe to rely. PW1 Jheemar Uraon, son of deceased Mangal Uraon is interested witness; his evidence requires close scrutiny and contradictory from independent sources. Evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient for drawing definite conclusion that only appellant has committed the murder of Mangal Uraon. In these circumstances, appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. 10. On the other hand, learned P.L. for the respondent/State opposed the appeal eu-id submits that evidence of PW1 Jheemar Uraon, son of deceased Mangal Uraon and PW2 Anandram are sufficient for drawing an inference that only appellant has caused fatal injury to Mangal Uraon resulting into his death. Court below has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 11. In order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the parties we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 12. In the present case, homicidal death as a result of fatal injury of Mangal Uraon has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant on the other hand, otherwise also established by the evidence of PW4 Dr. A.K. Jha and autopsy report Ex. P-7 which reveals that fatal injury including 4 injuries were found over the % body of deceased Mangal Uraon, mode of death was shock and death was homicidal in nature. 13. As regard the complicity of the appellant in criine in question, conviction of the appellant is based on direct evidence of PW1 Jheemar Uraon, son of deceased Mangal Uraon and PW2 Anandram. Admittedly, PW1 Jheemar Uraon is son of deceased Mangal Uraon but his evidence cannot be discarded only on the ground of relationship otherwise close relative of lost person to spare real culprit and falsely implicated innocence person, only minute scrutiny of the evidence of PW1 Jheemar Uraon is required. As per his evidence, he heard the sound of assault and at that time PW2 Anandram came to his house and informed him that appellant has assaulted his father Mangal Uraon then they went to the place of incident. He tried to save his father Mangal Uraon but appellant was holding wooden plank after causing fatal injury to his father appellant went inside his room and closed the door thereafter; he came out and also assaulted him thereafter, his father died. PW2 Anandram has also seen the incident. He went to the Police Station and lodged the First Information Report. 14. PW2 Anandram has substantially corroborated the evidence of PW1 Jheemar Uraon and deposed that at first instance, appellant caused fatal injury to deceased Mangal Uraon thereafter; again, he caused injury to Mangal Uraon. Defence has cross-examined this witness at length but has not been illicit anything in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony although there are some omission and contradiction but same are not sufficient to discredit his evidence. Evidence of PW1 Jheemar Uraon, son of deceased Mangal Uraon and PW2 Anandram inspire confidence, trustworthy and are safe to rely for conviction of the appellant. 15. As regard the motive for commission of offence is concerned, motive is only aid in criminality and loses its iniportance. In case of direct evidence, even otherwise motive can be inferred on the basis of nature of injury, part of the body where injury was caused, weapon used and other like circumstances. 16. After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Ccide for causing culpable homicide amounting to murder of Mangal Uraon. Conviction of the appellant is based on credible and legal evidence sustainable under the law. 17. On close scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in conviction and sentence of the appellant. Consequently, criminal appeal is devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. — Sd/- l-^- Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge 1/(e} ^ ^ •\o