••^ 's^ t»l HIGM COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BIU^PUR Bivision Bench:- Coram: HON BLE MR.T.P.SHARMA & HON'BLE MR.R.N.CHANDRAKAR, JJ. Appellant (!n Jai!) R^pondCTit Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2004 Sunder Lal S/o Mattu Satnami, Aged about 55 years, R/o Vilfage-Totakapa, P.8. Patharia, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) Vfirsus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Pathana, District-Bilaspur; : (Criminai Appeal under Section 374 (2) ofthe Cr.P.C.] Mr.K.K.Singh, counsel forthe appellant. MrAkhil Mishra, Dy.Govt. Advocte for the respondenVState. JUDGRnENT (Passed on 5!n August, 201 1} Per T.P.Shanna, J.:- 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the jirigment of corwiction & wder of sentenee dated 30.12.2003 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.G.), Mungeli, in Sessions Trial No.334/2K)3, whereby & whereunder leamed Second Additional Sesstons Judge after hotding the appellant guilty for commission of cutpable homicide amquntir^ to murder of his wife Kachra Bai convicted him under Section 0)2 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life ami flne of Rs.2000/'-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.t. for one year. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being any iota of evidence suffteient for conviction, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appetont as aforementioned and thereby committed 3. As per case of the prosecution, on 1.7.2003 at about 10.30 p.m. the appellant quarreied with his wife Kachra Bai In his house and caused fatal injury over her head resulting into her instantaneous death. Kuwriya Bai (PW-1), daughter ofthe appeliant and daughter ofthe deceased was "\ ••^ ^- present in her house at the time of incident, she shouted for help and also weeping, then her brother Nathu (PW-2), Pratap, Kotviar Tahiu, Dhannu came to the spot whom she narrated the incident. On second day Nathu (PW-2), son of the appellant, went to Police Station and lodged the F.I.R. vide Ex.P/2. Merg was recorded vide Ex.P/12. tnvestigating officer proceeded Tor scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P/5 prepared inquest over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P/6. Spoj: map was prepared by investigating officer vide Ex.P/1. Bloodstained & plain soil were recovered Trom the spot vide Ex.P/3. Dead body of the deceased was sent fbr sutcysy to Govemment Hospital, Pathria, where Dr.D.R.Singhrout (PW-9) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P/9 and found following injurtes:- (i) One lacerated wound over right side of the Torehead of 3" x %" X 1 %" X %" X bone deep in circular shape. ; (ii) Fractureof skull of right forearm of 3" x %" x 2". Brain matter came out from the injury. Lacerated wound of 1" x 1"x 1%" behlnd rigM ear & right ^de of the neck. Abraston of 1" x 1" over rightcheek. (v) Abrasion writh contuslon of3" x 1" on iateral side of right buttock. Cause of death was shock and deatli was homteidal in nsrture. Seated cloth of the deceased was seized vide Ex.P/4. Patwari also prepared spot map vide Ex.P/7. Kudri (object Tor digging soil) has been seized from the appeliant vide Ex.P/1 1. Seized artictes were sent for chemical examination and presence of blood over kudri seized Trom the s^pellant was confirmed vide Ex.P/18A. , 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Gr.P.C. and after completion of investigation charge sheet was flled in the Court of Judicial Maglstrate First Ctass, Mungeli, who in tum, commltted the case to the Court of Sessions, Blla^aur, from where feamed Second Additiona! Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Mugneii received thecase on transfer for trial. 5. !n order to prove the guilty of the accused/appellant, the prosecutton has examined as many as thirteen witnesses. Accused/appellant was ^ ^!|iE 6. 7. 8. ^ examined under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in whlch he denied the circumstances appearing s^ainst hlm and claimed innocence and false implication in crime in question. After affording opportunity of-hearing to the parties, tearned tria! Court convict®!and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. We have heard iearned counsel for the parties, pemsed tt>e judgment impugned and record of the trial Court. <f. Leamed counsel for the appellalrit vehemently argued ttet conviction is ba^d on the evidence of Kuwrtya Bai (PW-1), daughter of the deceased. His evtelence does not insplre confidence and tmsteworthy. Even as per her evidence, incident took place at night aid there was no faciiity for light, in these circumstances, tt was not posabte for the witne^ to identify the person who has caused injuries from back sMe and there may be misidentification. Evidence of Kuwriya Bai (PW-1) is not sufffcient for drawing inference that the appellant has caused homicidai death ofthe deceased. s 9. On the other hand, learned Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State/respondent supported the judgment impugned and arguai that conviction is based on the evidence of Kuwriya Bai (RA/-1) who was present with the deceased, she was accompanying the deceased, she was witne^ed the incldent and her evidence inspires confidence and trustworthy. Kuwriya Bai (PW-1) is daughter of the deceased as well as daughter of the appeliant. Her evidence is corroborat^j by the evidence of Nathu (PW-2) and medlcal evidence. 10. !n order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the partles, » we have examined the evldence adduced on behalf of the proswution. 11. !n the present case, homicidal death as a result of fatal injuries found over the body of dweased Kachra Bai has not been substantially disputed on behatf of the appellant, even otherwise, it is ^taMished by the evidence of Dr.D.R.Singhroul (PW-9) and autof®yrepart Ex.P/9. Death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 12. As regards the complicity of the appellant in crime in question, conviction 1s substantially based on the evidence of Kuwriya Bai (PW-1), daughter of the appellant and the deceased. As per her evidence, she was -^- •^^ present in the house of the appellant along with her mother deceE®ed tochra Bai, the appellant was sleeping in verandarfi. At about 11 p;m. she along with her mother went out to answer the call of nature, the appellant also woke up and tdd her mother that he witl Mtl, thereafta' trice he assaulted her mother Kachra Bai, Kachra Bai cU«lCTI the spot, she shouted and started weeping, then his brother Nathu (PW-2) and other neighbours came whom she narrated the incictent. They have asked about dead body of her mqther and on second day her brother went to Police Station and iodged the F.I.R. As per evidence <rf Nathu (PW-2), his sister Kuwriya Bal (PW-1) was present in the house of ttie appellant aiong with his mpther. After hearing the sound of his si^er he came to the house of his father whom she narrated the iRcident. Dead body of her mother was lying on the floor with injury, then he called Kotwar and other neighbours and on second day he went to Poltee Station and iodged the report. Pratap Singh (RW-3), Dhanuk Das (FW-4), Sihari Lal (PW-5) and Roopdas (PW-6) have corroborated the second part of evidence of Kuwriya Bai (PW-1) to the extent that after hearing weeping sound of Kuwriya Bai, Nathu (PW-2) and Pratap Singh (FW-3) went to the house of the appellant where they saw dead body of the deceased and Kuwriya Bai was weeping. Defence has CR%S- examined these witnesses at length. In the cross-examination of Kuwrtya Bai (PW-1), she has categorically deposed that she was accoropmying her mother and the appellant has caused fatal Injuries to her mother. She has identified the appeltant. She has denied the suggestion that her mother has received injuries on account of dash. 13. Deflnitely, incident took place at night, but as per evidence of Kuwriya Bai (PW-1), she has seen the incldent. Nothing has been suggestal to her that there was no light at least at that time when they went out from the house to answer the call of nature. Even otherwise, idaitification of known person in dark night within a reasonable distance is possjble. t ~ Evidence of Kuwriya Bal (PW-1) Inspires confidence and trustotorthy. Same is corroborated by the medteal evklence andevictenoe of other witnesses which are suffteient for drawing inference that the present appellant has caused homicidal death of deceased Kachra Bai. i.L.Uuainuii.ffi::, •^f^. ^A' =,/.. 14. As r^ards the question of intention, Kuwriya Bai (PW-1) and the deceased were sleeping inslde the house, the appellanl was steeping In verandah, at about11 p.m. there was no occasion for causlng injuries to the deceased who had gone to answer the call of nature, especialty when she was armless and helpless and to cause repeated injury further corroborates grave intentien of the appeliant for causing homteidal death. 15. After appreciating the evidence ,available on recwd, tearned trial Gourt has convicted and sentenced th6 appellant as aforementioned. 16. On close scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find any iilegafity or infirmity in the judgment impugned warranting interference. 17. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is iiable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- T-P. Siiarma Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge 'a'IBaE lia