HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Criniinol Appeal No.970 of 2<W2 ff^sSSS Coram; HON'BLE MR.T. P.SHARWA & HON'BLEAAR.N.K.ASARWAL. JJ. APPB-LANT ffn Jail) ftEyON&ENT Kudiram @ Sayatu Son of Navaru Madiya Aged about 22 years, Residentof Vdlage Sorgaon - Bamhani Police Stdtion Kondagaon District - Bastar (C.&.) Versus Sto+e of Chhattisgarh, Through : P.S. Incharge Kondagaon. District Bastar (C^.) (CftMINAL APPEAL UN&ER SeCTION 374 (2) OF THE CO&E OF CKEAUNAL PROCE&URE, 1973) Present:- . • ' '". . "• - Mr.Shailendra Oubey, counsel for the appelltint. Mr.Akhil AAidira & Mr.Rakesh Jha, Dy. 6ovt. lAdvocote for the State/respondent. JUD©MENT ES' ,fh (Passed on 8Tn January, 2010) Ths judgment of the Court was delivered byT.P.ShormaJ.:- i. Challenge in this appea! is to the judgment of conv'ction & order of sar.1er.ee dated 27.6.2002 passed by ihe 4th Additionq! Sessionsjudge, Jagdalpur* (Bsstar), in Sessions Trial No.92/2002, whereby A whersunder isarned 4 Additiona! Sessions Judge sftsr holding-ths opgellant guilty for -the offence punishable under Section 302 ofthe Indian Pem! Code, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for tife nnd to poy a fine of Rs.300/-, >n default of payment of fine to furtiier under'go rigorous impr-isonment for three months. '^:5:N?KA;2SSS^^S^^ ^ 2. 3 y Judgment is impugned on the ground -that without there being any credible and clinching evidence, Ihe Cour-t below has convicted nnd sentenced the appellont css aforementioned cnd thereby cowmifted illegatity. Case of the pr'osecution, in brief, is that on the fateful day of 15.12.2001 at about 7 p.m. "the cppellant came into Ihe house of the deceased Oayararn. He was under intoxication. He demcmded weal cnd when it was objected by -rtie deceased, he took ct'owbar' and cssaulted trice over the ha»d of the dececsed ttayar'am. Ctayaram fell down and become unconscious. They took th.e decaased to -the polte station wher-e his mo-Hie'- Ja9bati (PW-1) has lodged the F.I.R. viete Ex.P/4. He was examined by the doctor yide E?<.P/S and found 11 injuries. Durm9 the course of treatment, he died. Eteath was mtimated to the police vide Ex-P/6 and •the police has recorded merg intimation. After summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P/11, inquest over -the dead body of the deceased weis prepared vide Ex.P/13. Ctead body wns sent for outopsy to R.N.T.Hospital, Primary Health Centre, Kondagaon vide Ex.P/t8. Autopsy was conducted by E5r.SontoA Lonhore (PW-9) yide ExJS/2l and found one incised/lacerated wound oyer upper part of left eye of 5cm. x 3 cm., one lacerated/incised wound of 3 cm. x 2 cm. x 1 cm.ovs-righteyelid, incised/laceroted wound oyer occipito temporal re9ion, brain material were came out. Fr&clure of bone was also found. Lacerated/incised wound over parieta! region of 5 cm. x 4 cm. x 2 cm. Bone of -Hte head wus also found fr-actured. Heamotomn inside the brain of 6 cm- x 4 cnn. Blood were coming out from •the nose. Injuftes ware ants mor-temwd sufficient for causing death. Dea'th was homicida! m nnture. Clo+hes of the deceased were seized vide Ex.P/19. Bloodstained, plansoit ond cycle of the accused was seized yide ExP/2 from 1+te spot. One iron erowbar wus recovered from the spot yide Ex.P/1. Seized articles were sent f<»r •i chemica! anaiys's vide ExP/20. Unaf«iiban^iAtwn!ifc>: laWriffWi a^ 4. Stotements of the witnesses were reGorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminat Procedure, 1973 ^ereinflfter' referred to asthe Code') and after* compietion of hwestigQtion, charge dnest was filedin-rtieCourt of the Judickxl Mogistr'ate First Ciass, Kondagaon, who in turn committ'ed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bastap at Jagdslpur from »*ier-sthe 4f Aciditiono! 5®ssionsJudge, Jegeialpur receiysd the <ase on trcnsfer for trml. 5. In order to proye the guilt of the accused/appellant. the prosecution has examined os many as 9 w+nesses. Statement of 1+ie accused/agpel ant wns a'so recorded under Ssctwn 313 of the Code where he denied the circumstctftces oppearing against him and claimsd innocence and fnlse impticction in the crime in question. 6. Aftsr affording san opportunity of hearing to the parties, •ths 4 Additjonai Sessions Judge, Jtgdalpur (Bas1w) has conyie'ted end sentenced 1+ie appellant as cforementioned. 7. We have hecrd Mr. ^iai'Jendra Oubey, counse) for •the appellant and Mr-.Akhil Mishra & Mr.Rakesh Jha, by.Sovt.Advocate for -rtie Stcte ond perused •rtte impU9Red judgment ond record of •the Court below. 8. Learned counse! for the appeltant yehentently argued •that evidence of Jagbati (PW-1), Siyaram (PW-2) and Charon PW-3) does not inspire confidence. They ar'e close refatives of the deceased a"d they haye been falsely in'lpt!cated the appeliant in the crime in question. Learned counsel further ar-gued •Hiat eyen according to the case of the prosecution, there was no motiye for Ihe commission &f the offence. The appetiant cflme to the house of -rtie deceased without ony nrm. 9. On tt'e other hond, learned State counsel supported the impugned Judgment aid argued that though the cypelltmt ccme to •the house of the deceased at that time he was not holding wiy weapon, but he has caused f^ l-1.. F ^'^?*^•^^••'^^s^^ ^•^-^-^^^^•^ss^ repeated injur-ies by crowbar (dangerous weapon) oyer the head of the deceosed diows his graye intention of causing death of Ihedeceased. 10. In order to appi^cints the arguments adyanced on behalf of the par+ies, we have examined the matern! availQble on record. In the present case, homicidal death as a result of an-te mortem injui'ies of deceased Dayaram is not substontially disputed by -the appellcint, otherwise alsoestsblished by the evidence of O.P-Parakh (PW-7), medica! report (Ex.P/5), eyidence of Dr.Santosh Lonhore (PW-9) dnd autopsy report (Ex.P/21) which r'eveal thot fatdl injury wos found oyer the head of the deceased including frncture of bones of the head. Dea'th was homicido! in rwhjre. 11. As regards the complictty of the appeilont in the crime in question, Jabgati (PW-1) mo'ther of the deceased Dcyaram has deposed in her evidence thnt when the appeltant onnie to her house at-that time he had consumed liquor. He tried to catdi hold her, then the decensed opposed the action of the appeltant, and •t+ien the appellcnt took cr'owbar and assaulted trice oyer the heod of the decensed. 1-lis eyes were come out. He felt down. The appellant was leaving the plata of incident along with cr-owbar-. She shouted, at that time Siyaram (PW-2) and Cha-an (PW-3) come and ccught hold the sppellant. They took the injured Dayar'au'. to the hospital where he died. She has lodged Ifie F.I-R. Siyaram (PW-2) and Charan (PW-3) hdve deposed •that after hettring sound of Jagbati (PW-1) they came <nd aaught hotd the appellant. The appellant was running from the place of incident along unth crowbar. &ayor'am was lying in injured condition. They took him to the hospital whepe he died. The poiice has seized crowbar cmd cycle. The defence has cross-examtned these witnesas in detail, but has not been oble to bring anylhing in their cross-ex<tmination to discr-edit their testimony. Statements of Jabgati (PW-1), Siyaram (PW-2) and Charan (PW-3) reveal 1tiet the appelleint is tha person who came to the house of Jagbati and nssnulted &ayarnm by crowbar twice and tried to flee away from 1he spot along with crowbar'. ^ :y ^•^!iK'=T^3; 1w%j i.. ^^ _..<!' 'f •1>, •y's--' ,.,<.' ;';-^2^^-^:-,JS;^^^ The eyidence of the aforesaid wilnesses inspires confidsn<%, trustworthy cnd safe to rely. 12. .As regards the motive is conoerned, in case of direct' evidence niotive losses its imporlance, eyen otherwise, motiye onlyaids in crimmality snd can be inferred on •(de basis of nature of injury, kind of weapon used, part of the body effected and other similar circumstances. 13. In the present caae, though ths oppellflnteame to the house of the deceased without any weopon but from the house of the deceosed he took crowbar (doingerous wecpon) &id assaulted twice oyer the head of the deceosed who was armtess ond asused fatal injuries shows his graye intention of causing dea-th. 14. After appreciating the evidence waitoble on record, learned Additienal Ssss'ons Judge has conyicted ond sentenced l+ie appellant as aforementioned. Conviction is based on credible and clmchjng eyidence ond the aime is sustcinable under the law. The Court belowhas ri^itly convicted ond sentencsd+he appellant. • 15. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find cny substance in the appeal. The oppeal is licdble to be dismissed ond it is hereby dismissed. ; Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge y-