i:t> HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR A^=i\e^ Criminal Appeal No.711 of 2007 APPELLANT: l.^£y (InJail) RESPOMDENT: Jaiman, S/o Jalan Muria, aged about 25 years, Caste Muriya, R/o Village Rasenga Patelpara, Police Station Lohandiguda, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, through Rolice Station Lohandiguda, Distt. Bastar(C.G.) {Criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr. Abhijit Sarkar,. cour|sel for the appellant. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Gdvt. Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for.the State/respondent. SinaleBench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORALJUDGMENT (4-9-2009) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction &order of sentencedated 31-7-2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No.77/2007, whereby & whereunder learned Sessions Judge affer holding the appellant guilty for commission of offence under Section 304 Part-IIof the I.P.C., sentenced hirri to undergo R.I. forfive years. 2. Judgment is challenged on the gr'ound that without any credible & clinching evidence, learned Sessions Judge has convicted & sentenced the appellant and thereby committed illegality. 3. Case of the prosecution, in bnef, is that deceased Karibai, mother of theaccused/appellant, was present in the house of the accused, on 31-1-2007 at about 10 p.m. the accused caused injury over the head of his mother'with carpenter axe (Basu/s) as a result of Which she became unconscious. Brother of the accused lodged report on 1-2- 2007 vide Ex.P-1. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-2. The deceased was shifted for treatment to Community Health Centre, L&handiguda and finally she was shifted to the District Hospital, Jagdaipur. On- 1-4-2007 she died. Merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-4. The InvestTgating Officei- proceeded for the spot and •5^ :!%;a, after summoning the witnesses, inquest over the dead body was prepared vide Ex.P-7. The dead body was sent for autopsy vide Ex.P-9 and autopsy was conducted by Dr. Narayan Singh (PW-8) vide Ex.P-10 who found injury over the head of the deceased and fracture beneath the injury. Cause of death was shock as a result of internal haemorrhage. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,.lagdalpur who ih turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions. '••»'- 4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses. Examinationof the accused was conducted under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied fhe circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence & false implication. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learried S^sions Judge convicted & sentenced the appellant in the aforesaid manner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned as also the record ofthe trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the pFosecution has not proved this case beyond all reasonable doubts. NobodY has seen the incident and nothing is against the appellant to connect him with the crime in question. Only the ground that at the time of incident that appellant was present inside the house is not sufficient for drawing inference that he has committed the offence. Theappellant is son ofthe deceased and his presence was natural. 7. On theother hand, learned State counsel supported the judgment impugned and submitted that the prosecution has proved this case beyond all reasonable doubts and the Court below hasrightly convicted & sentenced the appellant. Learned counsel further argued that the appellant has caused homicidal death of his mother and he does not deserve any sympathy in sentence. 8.1n order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, I have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. Lakhmu ,(PW-1), who has lodged the report, is brother of the acGused & son of the deceased. He has deposed that the appellant • has caused injury to his mother Karibai with carpenter axe over her left-temporal part. AfteF hearing the sound of his mother, he tk"i^ ^;s'-, •I's'sW SlliStiHe, reached to the spot where his mother was lying and the accused was stanaing beside her. The carpenter was lying on the ground. Govind and other persons also came. When they asked the accused as to why he has caused injury, the accused was silent, Second day they took her to Lohandiguda hospital and he lodged the report vide Ex.P- 1. They shifted his mother to Jagdalpur hospital and after 18-20 days they took her to their house after discharge from the hospital, thereafter, his motherdied. He hasintimated aboutthedeathofhis mother to the Police vide Ex.P-4, Govind (PW-2) has corroborated the evidence of Lakhmu (PW-1). Bhaluram (PW-3) & Peelu (PW-4) have deposed that they came to know that the accused has injured his mother. . 9. Dr. Narayan Singh (PW-8) has deposed that he has conducted autopsy on l-4-2007-and fiiundfracture oftemporal bone and injury above the aforesaid fraGture. Causeof death was shock. lO.The incident took place at 10 p.m. on the fateful day in the room of deceased Karibai. Lakhmu (PW-1), son of the deceased, who was residing besides the room ofKaribai, heard the sound of Karibai and immediately rushed to the room of Karibai where she was lying, carpenter axe was present there and the accused was standing besides Karibai. According to Lakhmu (PW-1), the accused has assaulted his mother with carpenter axe. Even otherwise, at 10 p.m. the accused was present in the room of the deceased and he has not pffered any explanation that why he was present in the room of his mother. At that time, mother of e accused received injury and no other person except the accused/appellant was present in the said room. The accused has notoffered any explanation that some other person came and assaulted his mother or his mother sustained injury otherwise. In absence of such explanation, the circumstances that on the fateful day the accused was present at 10 p.m. in the room of his mother, his mother received injury, the accused was standing besides his mother, weapon of offence the carpenter axe was also lying near the body of his mother, the deceased cried for help and immediately, Lakhmu (PW-1) rushed to the spotand saw the accused standing besides the body of the deceased, are the adverse . circumstances against the appellant and all these circumstances linked with each other suggest the only inference that nobody except K^ ,,;:»'.^"a(i the accused has caused injury to the deceased, and the deceased dfed only as a resultofsuch fatal injury. ll.After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Sessions Judge has convicted & sentenced the appellant under Section 304 Part-II ofthe I.P.C.and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for fiveyears. l2.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, conviction & sentence of the appellant are just and proper and do not call for any interference. * The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Korna Sd/- T.P.Shartna Judge e_