,<;"• ^-s HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.1015 of 2004 fl.:".f:" APPELLANT: (InJail) RESPONDENT: Ramjit alias Jainu son of Mangal Oraon Orapn aged 30 years cultivator resident of village Nilkanthpur Police Station Kusmi Distt. Sarguja C.G. Versus State of Chhattisgarh through .S.Q. Kusmi , {Criminal appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973} Present: ' ' . ' ! '- ', ! ' .-: ' ' 1 ,. . \ ,, /':- Mr. Jagdish Singh Baraik, counsel forthe appellant. Mr. Arun Sao, Govt. Advocateforthe State/respondent. - Division Bench: - Hon'ble Mr.T.P. Sharmaand Hon'bleMr. R.L. Jhanwar, 3J ORALJUDGMENT (7-9-2010) T.P. Sharma, J: - 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction & oFder of sentence dated 2-11-2004 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Ambikapur in Sessions Tnal No.175/2004, whereby-&, whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after hotding the appellant guilty for commission 6f culpable homicide amoynting to murder of Sania Bai, convicted the appellant under Section,302 of fhe I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment fpr life & pay flneof Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to fut-ther undergo R.I. forDneyear. . . ; ; 2.Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appellant andthereby committed illegality. ..) 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the fateful day of 2-2- 2004 at about 4 p.m. Sania Bai (since deceased) was present in the forest fdr collecting fuel wood, the appellant went near Sania and assaylted her by stone over her head and caused her death. Witnesses Tusni Bai & Lalo Bai were present there, they fled from the spot and infimated to Chhannu Ram, husband of Sania Bai. L )t. i' ' '.r •'. ••"'' —.iL^. •H Ghhannu Ram went to the Police Station and lodged report vide Ex.P-lQ. Merg was recorded vide Ex.P-9. Spot map was prepared yide Ex.P-1. After summoning thewitnesses, inquest over the dead [ body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex.P-8. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Community Health Centre, Kusmi, autopsy was conducted by Dr. T. Sai (PW-9) vide Ex.P-12 and following injuries werefoynd on herbody:- (l)Bruise over right cheekof 4 c.m. x 3 c.m. <2)Abrasion over pinnaofright earofl c.m. x 0^.5 c.m. . ' '' ; (3)Lacerated wound over back of head of 6 c.m. x 4 c.m. (4)Bruise ofSc.m.x 3 c.m. oyerforehead. (5)Bruise over rigttt hand of 3 c.m.x 2 c.m. Blood was found in the mouth of the deceased. Tbe appellant wgs ; / taken into custody, he made disclQser statement^ofstone&stick • vide Exs.P-2 & P-3 and same were recovered at the jnstarice of the appetlant vide Exs.P-4 & P-5. Blood stained and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-6. Patwari prepared spot map .videEx.P-7. ^:".\' :: '. ' .. . : .' 11: ,'.,/:;.1 1: '.'.'. 'v."^.'^ •I' •"' .<"•'•".: •'•'"•'. 4.. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur who Gommitted the case to the Court of Sessions, Ambikapur from where learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for [ .trial.'- • ' : '! 1'-;', ' ' '. , : ". '; .:1'' ': .^, •1'.: 1' ,1'' 5. In order to proye the guilt of the appeltant, the prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in whieh he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded inhocence and false' ' ^ implication. :. - : 6. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessjons Judge convicted & sentenced the appellant as , aforementjoned. : , ^ • ; : 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, pfirused the judgmentimpugned and record ofthe trial Court. 8. Learhed counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that iri the present case, the prosecution has not' adduced any evidenee -to, ,: 'i. l::';a^k •'v^ -^, !!'••-''^y fc3L...-A' Gonnect the appellant with the crime in question, mere presence of the appellant in the place of inGident without any further action of the appeilantis not sufficient to eonnectthe appellant with the crime in question. Evidence of Balchi Bai (PW-1) & Lalo Bai (PW-7) arenot natyral, their evidence does not ihspire confidence, their eviclence is nof trustworthy and not safe to rely that too for conviction 6f the appellantfor the heinousoffenceofmurder. 9. On the ofher hand, Igarned State cpunsel opposed the appeal and submitted that the evidence of Lalo Bai (PW-7); is sufficient fpr conviction of the appellant in absenceof any explanation on behalf pf the appellant. , l0.in orderto appreciate the argumehts advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the proseeution. ll.In the present case, homicidal death of deceased Sania Bai as a result offatal injuries found over tier body has notbeeri substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant, otherwise also same is establlshed by the evidence of Dr. T. Sai (PW-9) ancl autopsy report Ex.P-12whichreveal that fatat injury was found over head of the deceased comprising fracture of bone and death was homicidal in ttatwe. : • : : • : , ! '! . • : '• '-' • ,: 1. . l2.AS regards complicity of the appellant in the crime in qyestion,the proseeution has examined Balchi Bai (P\N-1) & Lalo Bai (PW-7).' Balchi Bai (PW-i) has deposed in her evidence that while she was passing through the road, she saw that Sania Bai was lying on the field, she tried tQ provide water, byt Sania Bai was dead and Tuchku met her on the way. Lglo Bai (PW-7) has deposed in her evidence fhaf she went to forest between 4 and 5 p.m., she was following Sania Bai, she has not seen the incident, but when she reached near Sania Bai where Sania Bai was lyjng, the appellant was sfanding near the bodyof Sania Bai. Iri her examination & cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that she has not seen the incident and she cannot say as to who has caused injuries to Sania Bai. As Rer her evidence, body of Sania Bai was lyingin the forest, the appellant was stahding nearthe body ofSania Bai andno other person was present near the body of Sania Bai. This shows that the act has been committed in secrecy where Sania Bai &the appellant were present. tv^f'-' 4 l3.The appellant has not pffered any explanationthoygh he was under obligation to offer explanation in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act relating to injuries found over the body of Sariia Bai. In absence of any explanation pfferedon behalf of the appeltant, the only presumption is possiblethatthe appellant is the person who has caused fatal injuries toSania Bai resulting iri herdeath. - , i4^After appreciating the evidence of Lalo Bai (PW-7) and discloser statement of tte appellant relating to stone & stick, learned Additional Sessions 3udge has conyicted & ^entenced the appellant. Discloser statement of the appejlant relating to stone & stick, in the present case, is of no use arid is not relevant iri absence 6f any chemical report, byt the evidenceofl-alo Bai (PW-7) is sufficient for drawirig inference that the appellant is the person who has committed the offence and except the appellant, nobody has commltted the offence. < 15.0n close scrutiny of evidence, we d6 not find any illegality in convieting & sentencing the appellanf by the Additional Sessions Judge. Consequently, the appeal Is devoid of merit,same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed; J>_^ Soma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge 'sssss^ ;^^?*;'s:~'. lt.. , •:.!.)..',