^ HI©HCOURT OF CHM^TTIS^RH ^.T BIL^SPUR Coromi Hon'ble MrT.P.SHARMA & Hon'ble Mr^X.JHANW^R, <7J. APPELL^NT anJoii) RESPONDENT Crimino! A"P«Q! No. 1161 of 2003 Jagat Ram, S/o. ftoghunath Halba, Aged about 56 years, ft/o Konta (Chhatti'S9arh Para) P.S. Konta, At Present-Sukuma (Mastanpara) P.S/ Sykuma, Distt. Gantewaa'a C^. Versus State of Chhattisgarh .: (APPEAL UN&FR SECTEON 374(2) OFTHE CG&E OF GftimiNAL PROCEDURE, 1973) ';;^. Present: Ms Sarito Sharma, counseS for the appellant. Mr.Qamrul Aziz, AdditionGi Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent. . , '• ' / JUD6MENT (Passed on 10th Februory, 2010) The Judgment of the Court wa^ dejivered by T.P.Shsrma, J^- 1. Chdlenge In thls appeal lsr to thejudgment of convlction & order of sentence doted i.9.2003 passed by the First Additiona! Sessions Judge, Bastar at 'JabdaJpur, In Sesslons Tria! No.214./2002, whereby & whereunder iearned First Additlona! Sessions-Judge after hoJdtng the o^p^tlwit guitty for commissjon of culpable homlcida! d€ath amounting to murder of Ld!i © Ramesh Awasthy, conyicted under Section 302of the Indlan Penc! Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Ilfe,, 2. The conviction is impugned on the ground thot wlthout ahy iota of eylderK^ sufficient for convlction of the appelSant, the. Coyrt bebw has convjctec! f ald sentenced the appelbnt as aforemantioned and thereby committed iltegality- 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the -fetefu! day of 13.3.2002 .atabout 3 am., the.appeiiantand deceased Lalli (since deceased) who i^ere present in the same premises quQrreled on account of demand of bidi/1+ien appeilant Jagat took out< stick and .assauited deceased Lalli over his head and caused fatal Injurles. The oppellant a!so caused repeated injuries over the body of 1+ie deceased. The Injured was irnmediately treated by br,Ramaroo (PW-4), Lal!j dled on the same day, Krishna Sori has recordecJ merg sntimation vlde ExP/7Gnd on the basis of merg intimotion, F-I<R- wis registered vjde ExP/6- Investjgatingofficer proceeded for the scene of occurrence and after summoning tfie i^itnesses yide Ex-P/8, jnquest oyer the dead body of deceased Lcllj was prepared vide Ex-P/12. Spot map was prepared by investigating officer vide ExP/13. bead bocly of the deceased was sent for autopsy to Pnmary Health Centre, SukmQ vide Ex.P/2.4. Autopsy WQS conducted by Dr.R.K-Kurwanshi (PW-2) yide Ex.P/2 and found the following injuries over the body of the deceased, • i) One stit.ch wound over his head of 3 i" in tength, tntema!, hcamotoma was found ii) One contiislon of 3" x 3" over jeft side of the head, mterna! heamotoma was found iii) One contusion of 3" x 2" ovcr left side of the chest jv) One contusion of 2" x 3" over right side of the chest v) One contuslon over upper left part of the chest of 3" x. 2" yi) One abro.sion over middte flrsger of right band of i"x i" A!! injuries were ante-mortem. Three left ribs were found fractured, Penetratlng injury was found on left iung^ Case of death was shock as a result of serious injury over vito! part and death was hpmicJdaiin nature. Bbodstained sol! and plain soi! ^ere-recovered from the spot yide Ex.P/9. One lungl was recoveredfrom Ramc.sh ^KumarSoni vide Ex.P/10. 'Stick w^s recovered vjde ExP/11. Patwari a!so prepared spot map vide Ex.P/15.- Nfc* 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Crimina! Procedure/1973 (in short 'Code'). |^ • After completlon o.f investigation/chargesheet was filed before the Judlcia! Magjstrate First Class, Sukma, who in turn committed the ca^ to the Court of Sessions, Jagdalpur, from where learned Fjrst ^ddjtiond Sessions'Judge, Bastar at Jabdaipur1, received fhe case on transfer for trial 5. In order to proye the guilt of 1+ie accused/appellant, the prosecution examlned as many as 11 wtnesses. Statement of the accused/appeiSant was recorded under ^ction 313 of the Code where he denied the circurpstances appearing against him' and p!eaded innocence and fal% Implica+jon in the crime in question. 6. After affordlng an opportunlty of hearing to the parties, learned First Addltional Sessions Judge, Bastar ot Jagdalpur has convjcted and sentenced the accused/appeltant as aforementioned. 7. We have heard Ms Sarita Shorma, counsej for the appeltent and AAr.Qamryl Azjz^ ^ddjtional Public Prosecutor for 1+ie State/respondent and perused the judgment impugnec! as oJso record of the trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant vehementiy argues that the evidenc^? adduced on b@ha!f of the prosecution is not syfficient for conyictJon of the appeHant. Eyen otherwise the oppe!!ant has not caused any injury with intent to cause death of deceased LaDj. The incident took place of sudden provocQtion and the deceased has provoked for causing such mjury, therefore, if the evidence of the prosecution is admittedy 1^en even the act of the appellant does not trave! beyond the scope of Section 304 Pert I of the Indjan Pena! Code. 9. On the other hand, Searned State coun^! supported the Judgment impugned a»idar'gues the prosecutlon has proved jts case beyond a!J shadow of doubt. ^•^ 10«In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behdf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. In the present case, homicidal death as a result of ante-mortem injuries found over the body of deceased La!!l has not been substantjaljy dlsputed by the appe!lant, on the other hand, a!so estabiished by 1+ie eyidence of r>r.R:.j<C.|;urwanshj (PW-2), autopsy report Ex-P/2 and the evidence of D/r.RQmarao (PW-4) which revea! that six ante-mortem mjurs'es were found over the body of the deceQsed< Penetratjng inijury was also found over lung and death was homicsda! in nature. 11. As regards the compiicity of the Qccused/appelJant in the crjme in question is concerned, the conviction is based on the evidence of eyewitness PyaretaS (PW-6). Pyarelal (PW-6) has deposed in his evsdence that at 1+ie time of incident the appelhnt ond the decedsed were quarre'iing inside ^^6^after consuming liquor/they came out from dhaba, then accused took out stick and assaulted twice over the he<»dof deceased Laiii and fled away from the spot. Sunder (PW-9) has also corroborated the evidence of Pyarelal (PW-6) and has further deposed that the appelbnt has c^sused repeated injury over the heod <xnd jj^ng of the deceased- He immedlately went to the house of Krishna Sors owner of dhaba and jnformed the incident to him* Defence has cross-examined these witnesses at length, but has not been able to elicit anything in their cross-e^amination to discredit tiheir testimony. On the other hand/they haye c!e<trly deposed that the appelbnt has caused repeated injuries to the deceased- 01+ier witnesses have corroborated 1+ie evidences of PyareSal (PW-6) and Sunder (PW-9) and stated that they came to know through these witnesses that the appelJant has assaulted the deceased< The evidences of Pyareb! (PW-6) and Sunder (PW-9) inspsre confidence, trustworl+iy and safe to rely. 12. As regards the motive is concerned, in cose of direct eyidence motive losses its infiportance, even otherwise, motive only aids in criminolit/ and / / r }- CQH be inferred on the bosis of nature of injyry/kind of weapon used, part of the body effectedand other similar circumstances. 13.In the present case, both the persons quarreted wlth each other and appe'lant took out stick and caused repeated jnjuries over the head and chest and caused 5 injurjes includjng fracture of three ribs shows his grave in+ention of causing death of the deceased. 14.^fter appredating the evidence avaibbSe on record, the Fir^t ^dditiona! Sessions Judge has convlcted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code o.nd ^^ntenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 15.0n close scrutiny of the eviderrce, we do not find any i!iegQl|ty or infjrmity jn convicting and sentencing the appeltant. The oppeQl being devoid of merit Is liable to be dismissed ond is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge