@J HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Criminal Auneal No.3 141 2005 F“ CRIMINAL A?PEAL UIS 374 [2? OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCUDERE Appearance: Shxi VK. Pand€y, counsel for th€ appellant. Shri SK. AgrawaL P.L. for the State. mvisian Bench:- Hon’ble Shxi T.P. Sharma 85 Hon’ble Shri R.L.Jhanwax,JJ ORAL JUDGMEKT (10.3.2011) Per T.P.Shaxma, J. ChaHénge in this appsal is to {11$ judgment of conviction and order of S€ntence dated 16.2.2005, passed by the Additional Sessioms Judge Janjgir, Sessions Division' Bilaspur (CG) in S.T.No.376/2004, whereby and Whoreunder the leaineci Additional Sessions Judge, after holding the appeiuant guilty for commission of culpable. homicide amounting to murder of Narottam, convicted the aopellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment and fme of RS500] —, in zlefault of payment of‘fme to further umiergo RI. for 1 month. APPELLANT Dhinak Ram @ Agahan Sai, son of {In Jail} Ramsai Satuami, agar} about 4O years, resident of village Pam Para, Baloda Chowki : Baloda, Polica Station Akaliara, District Janjgir Champa (CG) VERSUS~ REsyaNDENT Stats of ChhattiStgaJ‘h Through the PeliC€ Station Akaltara, Distm'ct Janjgir Champa (CG) @ 2. Th6 conviction is impugned on the ground that without There being any iota of evidence sunicient for conviction of the appellant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality, 3. As per caee of prosecution, on fateful day of 03.09.2004, at about 5,00 pm, the appellant and the deceased were coming towards the house of the deceased; they were quarreling and appellant was condemning the deceased that why he had called his son to his house, which the deceased denied. The appellant was holding axe on his bicycle. He took out the axe from the bicycle and assaulted over the head of Narottam (since deceased), as a result of which Narottam fell down on the ground and 1 thereafter again he caused 3—4 blows over the deceased and caused his instantaneous death and fled from the spot along with the axe. Ashok KumarlPW- l) who was present on the spot and seen theincident lodged Dehati Nalishi vide Ex. P] 1 and Inerg vide EX. P/2. Finally FIR was registered vide EX. P/ 25 and P/ 26 and numbri merg was recorded vide EX. P/24 and 13/27, After summoning witnesses vide EX. Pf 3, inquest over the dead body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex. P/4. Blood stainedvand plain soil was recovered from the spot Vide EX. P/ 6. One bicycle was seized, lying l furlong away npm the spot vide EX. P/9. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Govt. Hospital Baloda vide EX. P/ 10, where Dr. Prashant Singh Bais (PW-7) conducted autopsy vide Ex. P/ 1 l and found following injuries z i. incised wound on left temporal region with fracture of underlying bone of 2 x l V2 X 4cm , incised wound of 3 x 1 1/2 X 2 cm just behind the left ear lacerated wound of l x 1/2 c 1/2 cm just below injury No.2 lacerated wound of 4 x 1 1/2 X 5 cm on left temporo parietal region with dacture of underlying bone. V. 1ac€rated wound of 1 x V2 x V2 cm ov¢r left ey€brow. Mode of death was shock 311d death Wa$ homicidal in nature. During the course of investigation accused was taksn into custody; he made disclosure Statement of axe vide EX. P/ 7; same was recovered at the metance of appellant Vide Ex. P/8. Blood stained clothes of the deCeased were seized vide Ex: P/ 14. Spot map was prepared vide EX. P/ 16. Sealed clothes of the deceased were seized vide EX. P/ 1:3. Seized arficles Were sent for chemical examination vide EXJ 19 and presence of blood over the clothes of the accused was coniirmed. Statements of the Wimesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code}. 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was tiled before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Janjgir, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Bilaspur from Where the lealned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, prosecution examined ae many as 15 Witnesses. Accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code, in which, he denied the circumstances appearing against him, innocence and false implication in crime in question was claimed. 6. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid mentioned. 7. We have heard Shri V.K. Pandey, leained counsel for the appellant and Shii SK. Agrawal, learned P.L. for the State, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that in the present case, there was nomotive for causing such fatal injuly to ths deceased. As per case of prosecution, appellant a11d the deceased were quarreling with each other and on sudden provocation on a spur of moment wi’rhout pre—meditah'on, appellémt has caused the injury to the deceased, shows that he has not caused the injury with intent to commit homicidal death of the deceased. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not suiticient for drawing an inference that the appellant has caused fatal injury to the deceased. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed these arguments and submitted that evidence of Ashok Kumar (PW-1), Reshamlal {PW—2), Hetram (PWe3), Shanidas (PW-4) and Mehatar Lal (PW—6), eye witnesses to whom the appellant had made extra judicial confession is sufficient for drawing an inference that the appellant has caused homicidal death with intent to cause his death. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant as afomsaid mentioned. 10. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 11. In the present case, homicidal death as a result of fatal injury found over the vital part of the deceased has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant, on the other hand, it is established by the evidence of Dr. Prashant Singh Bais (PW—7) and autopsy report Ex. P/ 1 1 and death was homicidal in nature. >12. As regards complicity of the appellant is concerned, conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of eye—witnesses. As per evidence of Ashok Kumar (PW-1), who haS lodged Q16 FIR, Dehati Nalishi and merg and R€sham1al (PW— ), Hetram (PW-3), ShanidaS (PW-4), appellant and th€ deceassd were coming, toward$ The house of Narottam; They ware quarreh'ng by words; after crossing the house of Henam, appdlant causmi injuxy upon Narottam; he foll down, thereafter, the appellallt caused repeated blows by axe over the body of the deceased resulting into his instantaneous death. Defence has cross examined these witness at length, but has not been able to elicit anything in their cross examination to discredit the testimony relating to the fact that they have not seen the incident and appellant has not caused repeated blows of axe on the head of the deceased, resulting into his instantaneous death. Evidence aforesaid eye Witnesses is suficient for drawing an inference that the appellant has caused homicidal death of the deceased. 13. As regards motive is concerned, motive only aids in criminality, in case of direct evidence it losses its importance. Motive can be inferred on the basis of weapon used, part of the body effected, nature of injury and other similar circumstances. In the present. ease, appellant and the deceased were coming towards the house of Narottam; they were‘quarreling' by Words; appellant was holding bicycle and axe and thereafter, he took out the axe and caused fatal injuiy over the head of the deceased and when he fell down, the appellant again caused 4 blows over the deceased, who was not holding any weapon and was helpless to save himself. Causing of repeated injuries that too by the axe Without any just cause shows grave intention of the appellant for causing homicidal death of the deceased with intenh'on to cause his death. After appreciating the evidence, available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid mentioned. 2 On close scrutiny of thc evidence, we do not 13nd any illegality or iminnity in the conviction and sontence of the appellant, requin'ng any interference. being 14. Consequently, the appeal devoid of meritS is liable to be dismissed and it dismissecl. is hereby Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge N ‘ ’ sunita