^m" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BjLASPUR ^ CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri T.P. Sharma, J,J^ Criminal Appeal No^654^of 2004 Devnath Sahu Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh JUDGMENT For consideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE T.P. SHARMA <5.<^y- Sd/- T.P. S'narma Judge Post for JL Sd/- '^Judge 5^/02/2009 ;;''^y'^ "i*^!..,. 1!£. --riP " •'''^^^6"'' • ^:'' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAhfl: APPELLANT RESPONDENT Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri T.P. Sharma. J,J. Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2004 Devnath Sahu S/o Ranjit Sahu, aged about 33 years, resident of Bhedikala Thana Lalbag, Tehsil and District Rajnandgaon (CG) Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate Rajnandgaon (Appeal under Section 374 (21 of The Code of Criminal Procedure) Appearance: Smt. Indira Tripathi, Counsel for the appell^nt. Shri Ashish Shukla, Govt. Advocate, for the State. JUDGMENT (6.02.2009) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil KumarSinha, J. (1) Appellant Devnath Sahu stands convicted u/s 302 IPC for commission of murder of Chandrika Bai, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.l. for 1 year, by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)in Sess'ons Trial No. 39/2004an 5th ofAugust, 2004. (2) On 13.4.2003 at about 8-8.30 a.m., the appellant came to the house of deceased Chandrika Bai. At that time, daughter of Chandrika Bai namely Ku. Basanti (PW-3) was present there. The appellant assaulted Chandrika Bai with a knife causing many injuries to her. The /^^z-.^ -!y^ ••S^a&<a il 'S^J./ Criminal Aupeal No. 654 of2004 incident was witnessed by Ku. Basanti (PW-3). Tahlu Sahu gave this message to Pannalal (PW-1), father-in-law of the deceased, who immediately rushed there and saw the dead body of the deceased, which was lying in the front of the house in pool of blood. (3) Dehati merg intimation (Ex.-P/1 ) and Dehati Nalishi (Ex.-P/2) was given by Pannalal (PW-1). Merg intimation was recorded under Ex.-P/11 and the First Information Report was registered under Ex.-P/12. The Investigating Officer, after giving notice (Ex.-P/5) to the Panchas, prepared inquest (Ex.-P/6) on the body of the deceased and sent the dead body for its post-mori:em to Govt. Hospital, Rajnandgaon. The post- mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Vipin Bihari Agrawal (PW-1 5), who prepared his report Ex.-P/24. He noticed the following injuries on the body of the deceased: (i) Incised wound 7" x 1" x 3" on the occipital region & (ii) linear abrasion, 7" x 1/2" on the back. On internal examination, he found that there was a fracture in the occipital bone with exposure of brain tissue. He opined that the cause of death was shock as a result of excessive haemorrhage from the site of wound. (4) Blood stained soil, plain soil and other materialswere seized from the place of occurrence under Ex.-P/13. Map was prepared under Ex.- P/10. Knife, cloths and bicycle of the appellant were seized under Ex.- P/14. The seized articles were sent for their chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur under Ex.-P/15 and a report Ex.- P/18 was obtained. According to the F.S.L. report, blood stains were ^ ':e:ar^ •-•< ',(, 1 ;:"'1 ^^ Criminal Apueal No. 654 of2004 ^ found on various articles including the knife seized from the possession of the appellant. (5) After completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, who in turn, committed the matter to the Court of Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, where the trial was conducted and the accused/appellant was convicted & sentenced as aforementioned. (6) The conviction of the appellant is based upon the sole testimony of Ku. Basanti (PW-3) supported by the evidence of her grand-father, Pannalal(PW-l) and grand-mother, Dropadi Bai (PW-2). (7) Smt. Indira Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has not disputed the homicidal death of the deceased. Moreover, it comes in the evidence of Ku. Basanti (PW-3) that the deceased was assaulted by the appellant with a knife, due to which, she received injuries and died instantaneously. Dr. Vipin Bihari Agrawal (PW-15) also noticed the above injuries on the body ofthe deceased. He found that the brain matter has come out on account of injury caused to the head and there was fracture ofoccipital bone. Pannalal (PW-1) and Dropadi Bai (PW-2) had also seen the deceased lying in pool of blood. This all proves that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. (8) Smt. Indira Tripathi argued that the sole eye witness Ku. Basanti (PW-3) is a daughter of the deceased, she was an interested witness, therefore, no reliance can be placed on her testimony. T Criminal Appeal No. 654 of2004 E^ (9) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed these arguments and supported the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court. (10) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the sessions case. rf» (11) In Namdeo -Vs- State of Maharashtra. 2007 AIR SCW 1835, the Apex Court held that a witness who is a relative of deceased or victim of the crime cannot be characterized as 'interested'. The term 'interested' postulates that the witness has some direct or indirect 'interest' in having the accused somehow or other convicted due to animus or for some other oblique motive. The Apex Court also observed that a close relative cannot be characterized as an 'interested' witness. He is a 'natural' witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinized carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the 'sole' testimony of such witness. Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject his evidence. On the contrary close relative of the deceased would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one. The Apex Court also referred to the decision rendered in the matter of Harbans Kaur and another -1/s- State of Harvana, 2005 AIR SCW 2074, in which, it was held that there is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused. inT'----i"r ^'^'&^', 5 .-?' '^,;^^ '^ -^ Criminal Appeal No. 654 of2004 (g? (12) Therefore, in view of the above, it cannot be held that the sole testimony of Ku. Basanti (PW-3) cannot be relied on only on the ground that she was the daughter of the deceased. We are to scrutinize her evidence with due care and caution and if her evidence passes the test of credibility in appreciation by applying the above principles enunciated in various cases, the conviction can well be basejJ onher sole testimony. (13) PW-3, Ku. Basanti, has been observed to be aged about 15-16 years on the date of deposition i.e. on 16.4.2004. She deposed that "the appellant was frequently visiting their house. This was opposed by her grand-father and grand-mother but her mother did not take care of it. On the fateful day, at about 7-8.00 a.m., the appellant came on his bicycle to their house. He was having a bag of vegetables. He put that bag in their house and took out a knife and assaulted her mother with Ihe knife, who was sitting at the door of the house. He gave repeated blows. The blood started coming out. After giving repeated blows with the knife, the appellant went towards village Bori. Her mother fell down on the gitti (broken pieces of stone) in pool of blood, which was kept in front of their house. The appellant took the knife with him and he went on his bicycle." She very specifically deposed that "thereafter her grand-father, Pannalal (PW-1) and grand-mother, Dropadi Bai (PW-2) came to their hpuse and she narrated the story to them." Thought this witness was put a lengthy cross examination by the defence but the defence was not able to elicit anysuch circumstance on which the credibility of this witness may be doubted. After going through the entire evidence of this witness, we find that there is no cross examination of this witness on the factum of assault being'made by the appellant to the deceased. On the contrary, it comes {/^: >"\ "f1', il'. :; v>. i I ~---A'a 1 :ek. ''•>,. ..'' -•' ^. ^-"" ^'f'' Crimmal Aweal No. 654 of2004 in her evidence that no quarrel had taken place prior to the incident. This shows that on some previous reason, the appellant, atonce attacked the deceased with the knife on her head causing above injuries. (14) The above version of PW-3, Ku. Basanti, is supported the version of PW-1, Pannalal, who deposed that they were residing separately from his son Narendra, who was residing in a different house (place of occurrence) in the same village. As soon as he received the message of death of her daughter-in-law, he reached to the scene of occurrence and saw that the deceased was lying in the pool of blood in front of her house. Ku. Basanti (PW-3) was present there. Ku. Basanti told him that the appellant came to their house with a vegetables bag, took out the knife from the bag, and thereafter assaulted her mother on her head by the said knife by holding her hairs, due to which, her mother'died. Almost similar evidence has been given by the wife of Pannalal (Dropadi Bai, PW-2) who also supported that when she saw the dead body and asked to her grand-daughter, Basanti (PW-3), she stated that her mother was assaulted by the appellant with the knife.In the cross examination of these two witnesses, nothing could be brought on record which may discredit their testimonies. (15) In appreciation, we find that the evidence of PW-3, Ku Basanti, was fully corroborated by the evidence of these two witnesses on the point that she immediately narrated the story of assault to these witnesses, who were her grand-father and grand-mother. Why Ku. Basanti (PW-3) would shield the actual culprit of her mother and would make false allegation against the appellant? She is a natural witness to the incident. a?s^ ^'^^1;^ I Crimmal Aupeal No. 654 of2004 Her presence on the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted as she was one of the inmates of the house. The time of incident was 8-8.30 a.m. and if she was present in the house, she would have certainly seen the occurrence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly relied on the testimony of daughter of the deceased, Ku. Basanti (PW-3) as her testimony cannot be doubted. (16) In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the finding recorded by the trial Court that the deceased was assaulted by the appellant. Such finding is based upon clinching and reliable evidence of Ku. Basanti (PW-3), daughter of the deceased. (17) We do not find any substance in the appeal. (18) The appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. •Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ;atti