® Appeilant (In Jai!) H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIViSION BENCH: Coram: HON'BLE MR.T.P.SHARMA & HON'BLE MR.R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. Criminal Appeal No. 506 of Meghnath, S/o Salikram Verma, aged 25 years, R/o Akaltara, P.S.-Bhatapara Gramin, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Respondent . State of Chhattisgarh (CRMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973) Present:- Ms. Uma Tiwari, counset for the appellant. Mr. S.R.J. Jaiswal, Panei Lawyerforthe State. ORAL JUDGMENT (Passed on 4th February, 2011$ PerT.P.Sharma.J.:- 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 05.3.2005 passed by the !!nd Additiona! Sessions Judge, Salodabazar, in Sessions Tria! No. 175/2004, whereby & whereunder iearned llnd Additionai Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guiit for commission of offence of culpable homicide of Melo Ram (since deceased) amounting to murder convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for iife and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in defauit of payment of fine to further undergo R.l. for six months. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being any iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 3. As per the case of prosecution, on fateful day of 29.02.2004 at about 7:00 a.m. appellant and his uncle, Melo Ram were present near the ^ '^^. ^^ssS^ ^. house of Mohan (PW/3). Appellant caused fatal injury to Melo Ram by an axe resulting into his instantaneous death. Wife of the deceased Khiibaharin Bai (PW/1) deposed that the appellant murdered deceased Melo Ram. Mohan (PW/3) was present near the place of incident and saw the Incident, he chased the appellant who was running with an axe, other person also chased the appeliant. Khitbaharin Bai (PW-1) iodged Dehati Nalisi and Morgue intimation vide Ex.P/16 and Ex.P/18 respectiveiy, On the basis of dehati nalisi and morgue intimation, F.1.R. was recorded vide Ex.P/17. tnvestigating offteer left for the scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P/1, inquest over dead body of Melo Ram was prepared vide Ex.P/2. Ptain soil, blood stained soii and lota were seized from the sport vide Ex.P/10. Dead body was sent for autopsy to the Community Health Center, Bhatapara vide Ex.P/11. Dr. (Smt.) Shreedhagamwar (PW/10) conducted autopsy vide Ex./11 and found fotlowing injuries:- I) One incised wound over forehead of 5" x 1 ", underlying bone fractured. Brain matter was coming out. ii) Lacerated wound over left temporal region of 4" x 1". Underlying bone fractured, brain exposed. ili) Incised wound over left cervical region 7" x 1". Major blood vessels turned, trachea broken horizontally. Cause of death was shock and the mode was homicidal in nature. 4. During the course of investigation, the appellant was taken into custody. He made disclosure statement of axe vide Ex.P/9 and the same was seized at the instance of the appellant vide Ex.P/7. Blood stained clothes of the appellant were seized vide Ex.P/6. Spot map was prepared by Patwari vide Ex.P/3. Blood stained clothes of the deceased were seized vide Ex.P/4. Seized articles were sent for' chemical examination vide Ex.P/20. Presence of blood was confirmed upon axe and clothes ofthe appellant vide Ex.P/22. 5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Baloda Bazar, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Baloda Bazar which llnd Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. ^t£y B:( 6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as thirteen witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 ofthe Cr.P.C. where he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. 7. After providing opportunity of hearing to th^ parties, learned Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar convicted & sentenced the appeliant as aforementioned. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that conviction of the appellant is substantially based on evidence of Mohan (PW/3). As per his evidence, he saw the incident and deposed that appellant was abusing the deceased and when he reached near the place of incident the appeilant fled away. Leamed counsei further submits that if the evidence of this eyewitness is considered, even then same is not sufficient for conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. as the other witnesses have not seen the incident, they have only seen the appeliant running with axe and Mohan (PW/3) was chasing him. The aforesaid evidence are not sufficient for drawing any definite conclusion that the appellant has caused homicidal death of the deceased. Wife of the appeilant namely Lalita Bai was available to the prosecution but she was not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution is not sufficient for drawing any definite conclusion. 10.0n the other hand, learned State counsel supported the judgment impugned and submits that evidence of Mohan (PW/3) is sufficient for convicting the appellant which is duly corroborated by the evidence of hOiitbaharin Bai (PW/1), who promptly lodged F.I.R., Dinesh (PW/4) and Vyasnarayan (PW/6). The present appellant has caused fatal injury on the forehead and right side of neck of the deceased resulting into his instantaneous death which shows his grave intention for causing homicidal death of the deceased. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court has rightly convicted & sentenced the appellant.as aforementioned. 11.1n order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence available on record. 12.1n the present case, homicidal death of Melo Ram as a resutt of fatal injury found over the forehead and on necK has not been disputed on behalf of the appellant, as also from the evidence of Dr. (Smt) Shreedhagamwar (PW-10) and autopsy report Ex.P/11 which reveals that lacerated wound over temporal region of 4" x 1" and incised wound over cervical region of 7" x 1" were found, it is established that death was homicidal in nature. Although, the appellant has not disputed the fact that he has caused injuries to the deceased, even otherwise, evidence of Khiibaharin Bai (PW/1), Dinesh (PW/4) and Vyasnarayan (PW/6) are sufficient for drawing inference that the present appellant is the person who has caused injuries on temporai region ofdeceased Melo Ram. 13.As far as compliclty of the accused in the crime in question is concerned, conviction of the present appellant is substantially based on evidence of Mohan (PW/3) which is corroborated by evidence of other witnesses. As per his evidence, he was present near his house where the incident took. place. Appellant and Melo Ram were quarreling with each other near the tree. While he was going towards the appellant and Melo Ram, he saw that appellant was assauiting Melo Ram by an axe and fled away from the spot. He chased the appellant and stopped near the shop of Udhoram where the other villagers also came. Thereafter, all of them went to the spot and the report was lodged. !n para 3 of, his cross- examination, he admitted that he saw the single injury inflicted on Melo Ram by the appellant thereafter he went to his house. In para 4, he further admitted that he saw the part of incident and the appellant caused sing!e injury to IVIelo Ram, thereafter, he chased the appetlant. Khilbaharin Bai (PW/1) wife of the deceased Melo Ram has deposed that the appellant caused injury to her husband. After hearing the commotion, she immediately rushed towards the place of incident where her husband was lying in unsound condition. At that time she saw that other persons were chasing the appellant who was running with an axe. ^ Evidence of Dinesh (PW/4) and Vyasnarayan (PW/6) are also corroborated by evidence of Mohan (PW/3) that they heard the sound and rushed towards the place of incident where deceased Melo Ram was lying. Defence cross-examined these witnesses and in their cross- examination also they have corroborated the testimony of Mohan (PW/3) •to the extent that appeilant quarreled with Melo Ram, he fted away from the spot with an axe and he was chased by Mohan (PW/3) and others. Thus, the evidence adduced by the prosecution are sufficient for drawing inference that the present appellant has caused homicidal death of the deceased Melo Ram. 14.As regards the question of motive, in case of direct evidence motive losses its importance, even otherwise, motive only aids in criminality and can be inferred on the basis of nature of injury, kind of weapon used, part of the body effected and other similar circumstances. 15. In the present case, appellant quarreled with deceased Melo Ram and he caused repeated fatal injuries over his forehead and three injyries having underlying fracture of bone, trachea broken horizontaily and repeated injuries were caused by dangerous weapon i.e. axe. 16.1fthe aforesaid fact is considered, then only inference would be possibie that the appeliant has caused homicidal death of deceased Melo Ram with intent to cause his death. 17. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. ^ ? 18. On close scrutiny of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and considering the gravity of the offence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in convicting the appellant. 19. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merits is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed; -__ Vijay Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N. CHANDRAKAR. Judge