; IS2i!!l ^i '.: - '*.. "a». ^iS^% ., llia""^ ^ '•i">.3^^?^ "& HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Division Bench) \^ W^lS-S Coram: Honlble^hriJ.E. Sharma & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. Appellant (in jail) Respondent Criminal Appeal No. 1091of 2003 Vs. Bifna s/o. Bauna Pahadi Korwa, ^iged 26 years, occupation .'labour r/o. village Raghupur, .Police Station Dhorpur, Dist. Sarguja (CG). State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Dhorpur, Dist. Sarguja (Ambikapur) CG. (CriminalAppeal underSection 374 (2) ofthe Cr.P.C.) Present: Shri Ashok Mishra, counsel for the appellant. Smt. Madhunisha Singh, Panel Lawyer fortheState. JUDGMENT (Deliveredon 13-9-2011) Per T.P. Sharma^^L 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1-10-2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sarguja at Ambikapur in Sessions Trial No. 48/2003, whereby and whereunder learned Sessions Judge, after holding the appellant guiltyfor commission of culpabte homicide amounting to murder of Bandhana, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and fine of 1 !:rji."rs!1t->!!*:"^Tt"T"'1 Sh. 1 VJ ,?^.<^ Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rl for ten days. Conviction of the appellant is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence, the court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. As per case of prosecution, on the date of incident unfortunate deceased Bandhana was sitting with his wife PW/1 Sanpati Bai. •ff. The intention of the present appellant was not good relating to PW/1 Sanpati Bai and he was willing to marry with her. On the date of incident, appellant came there holding axe, assaulted injury over neck of Bandhana and caused his instantaneous death. PW/1 Sanpati Bai along with other persons went to Police Station and lodged first information report vide Ex.P/1 and merg was recorded vide Ex.P/8. Investigating Officer left for scene of occurrence vide Ex.P/2 and inquest over the dead body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex.P/3. Blood stained soil and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P/4, dead body of deceased was sent for autopsy to Community Health Centre, Dhourpur vide Ex.P/10 where Doctor K.P. Viswakarma (PW/8) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P/18 and found following injuries; i) lacerated wound over neck of10 cm x6 cm x2 cm; ii) internal organ of neck was found cut and opined that cause of death was due to excessive hemorrhage (shock) and mode of death was homicidal in nature. During courseof investigation accused was taken into custody and he made a disclOser statement of axe vide Ex.P/5 and same was B];?T;T*BK,1.1^""^? b recovered at the instance of appellant vide Ex.P/6. Patwari prepared spot map vide Ex.P/7 and Investigating Officer prepared spot map vide Ex.P/13. Sealed clothes of the deceased were recovered vide Ex.P/14 and seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL, Raipur vide P/16. Presence of blood on seized axe was confirmed vide Ex.P/17. 6. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the •ff. Code of Criminal Procedure-''(for short, "the Code") and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the Co'urt of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, who in turn committed the case to the Courtof Sessions Judge, Ambikapur. Learned Sessions Judge, received the case on transfer for trial who framed charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant who abjured the guilt. 7. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, innocence and false implication in crime in question is claimed. 8. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid mentioned. 9. We have heard tearned counsel for the parties and perused the record ofthe trial co.urt as also the impugned judgment. •t'^ s^ 10. Shri Ashok Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient for drawing a definite conclusion that the appellant has committed the aforesaid offence. Evidence of PW/1 Sanpati Bai does not inspire confidence and trustworthy. The evidence of other witnesses is not safe to rely for conviction of the appellant. In this case the prosecution has not adduced any other evidence <i. except examining Sampat Bai (PW-1 ) to hold the story of the prosecution. 11. On the other hand, Smt. Madhunisha Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the appeal and submits that evidence of PW/1 Sanpati Bai, wife of deceased who was sitting beside her husband (deceased) is sufficient for drawing a definite conclusion that only appellant has caused homicidal death amounting to murder of her husband Bandhana. After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as aforementioned. 12. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf ofthe prosecution. 13. In the present case, homicidal death of the deceased as a result of fatal injuries found over the neck of deceased Bandhana has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant. On the other hand, it is also established by the evidence of Doctor Viswakarma (PW/8) and autopsy report (Ex.P/18) that the death of deceased Bandhana was homicidal in nature. f;.B)ifi• nf• l •- ; \^. •^.'s ^' As regards complicity of the appellant in the crime in question, conviction is substantially based on the evidence of PW/1 Sanpati Bai, wife of deceased. As per her evidence, at the time of incident, when she v/as sitting beside her husband Bandhana, present appellant came there with axe, assaulted her husband by axe over his neck andcaused his instantaneous death. She went to Police Station along with villagers and lodged first information report vide <i. Ex.P/1. In her cross-examinaftion she has specifically admitted that she along with other villagers went to Police Station and other villagers informed the Police about the incident and Police registered FIR, thereafter she has put her thumb impression, but the evidence relating to the incident that she has not seen the incident remained intact. As per her evidence, appellant is a person who has caused axe injury over the neck of her husband Bandhana, resulting into his death. She has denied the suggestion of the appellant relating to his marriage with her. The evidence of this witness is sufficient to establish the fact that the present appellant has caused homicidal death ofthe deceased. There was no propriety for causing such injury leading to his death. The incident did not take place on the spur of moment and on sudden quarrel but the appellant came with axe and caused injury over the neck of deceased when he was not in a position to save himself which shows that the appellant has caused homicidal death of deceased with intent to cause his death. After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. @ 15. On a close scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentenc^. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharr.ia Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge -a? Raij IJ ^-1