HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR <v 's.'sf^ssms C^RAM: Hon'ble Shri^ynJLKumarSinha & Hsn'b!eSJiri RJ-. Jhanwar, J ± APPELLANT RESPONDENT Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 2006 Mahanguram Kewat S/o Rupchand Kewat, Aged about 35 years, R/o. Thakurbandha, PS - Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure) Appearance: Mr. S.C. Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Mrs. Madhu Nisha Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL JUDGMENT (06.05.2011) Following judgment of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Sinha,J. (1) This appeal is directed the judgment dated 31 of December, 2005 passed in Sessions Trial No. 88/2005 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted u/s 302 IPC andsentenced to Criminal Aopeal No. 266 of 2006 undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of S.l. for 2 months. o^ A^v IUS^---;:93S» (2) The facts, briefly stated, areas under:- Appellant- Mahanguram Kewat is brother-in-law (jija) of deceased- Pardeshiram. The case of the prosecution isthat on 17.6.2005 at about 10-11.00 p.m., when the deceased was present in his house, the appellant came there and gave multiple blows to the deceased by a knife. The deceased received injuries on chest. Hearing hue and cry, Rambilas (PW-1), Tirath Bai (PW-3 - sister of the deceased) and Ahimat Bai (PW-4 - wife of the deceased) came there. They saw the deceased in injured condition. hle was lying on a cot. Rambilas (PW-1) asked the deceased as to who assaulted him, on which, the deceased replied that he was assaulted by appellant- Mahanguram Kewat by a knife. The deceased died after sometime. Rambilas (PW-1) lodged merg intimation (Ex.- P/1) on 18.6.2005. The Investigation Officer reached to the place of occurrence, gave notice (Ex.-P/4) to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.-P/S) on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem to Government Hospital, Ambagarh Chowki. The post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Vikash Bobeshwar (PW-5). The Autopsy Surgeon found following injuries on the body of the deceased:- (i) Stab wound 3 1/2cm x 1 1/S cm x7 cm deep on the right lower portion of chest. It has gone deep to the liver and the liver was also damaged; (ii) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x4 cm on the liver & (iii) Stab wound 2 cmx 1 cmx deep upto heart. hleart was also damaged. !; '^ •^ ~i J^ :iy n •3SS&| Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 2006 The Autopsy Surgeon opined that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage on account of injury to the liver and heart and it was homicidal in nature. In further investigation, the appellant was taken into custody and his memorandum statement (Ex.-P/7) u/s 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and a knife was seized at the instance of the appellant. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.), Raipur vide requisition Ex.-P/16, but F.S.L. report could not be filed. The case of the prosecution was based on the oral dying declaration of the deceased before Rambilas (PW-1) and Tirath Bai (PW-3) and also that Ahimat Bai (PW-4) saw the deceased running away from their badi as also memorandum and seizure of the knife at the instance of the appellant. (3) Mr. S.C. Verma, learned counsel appearing oh behalf of the appellant, argued that the evidence of oral dying declaration is shakey, therefore, the conviction mainly based on such evidence deserves to be set-aside. (4) On the other hand, Mrs. Madhu Nisha Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and suppori:ed the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. (5) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the sessions case. ^ Criminal Appeal No. 266 of2006 (6) Rambilas (PW-1) was next door neighbour of the deceased. Their houses were divided by a common wall. hle was present in his house at the time of the incident. He heard noise of the deceased as 'daie oh' (Oh Mother). He immediately rushed to the badi of the deceased. The deceased was lying on a cot. hle saw that he had received injuries which were heavily bleeding.. By that time mother and wife of the deceased (PW-4 - Ahimat Bai) also came there. The deceased told that he has been assaulted by the appellant by a knife who ran away after giving assaults. Rambilas (PW-1) further deposed that he had also seen the appellant running away from the house of the deceased. ]?;t^-;^lL,,;. '^^Mfei (7) Tirath Bai (PW-3) also deposed in similar fashion. She deposed that on the fateful night at about 11 .00 p.m. his brother was sleeping on a cot in their badi. He suddenly made cries, on which she reached there and saw that her brother (deceased) was lying in injured condition. By that time her mother, sister and sister-in-law (bhabhi) also reached there. The deceased told them that he has been assaulted by Mahanguram by a knife. (8) Ahimat Bai (PW-4) also supported the evidence of Rambilas (PW-1) and Tirath Bai (PW-3) and deposed that she also heard noise of her husband and reached to the place of oecurrence (badi). She found her husband in injured condition. She saw injury on his ^: ^< Cruninal Appeal No. 266 of2006 ^^ ^ti;3:-3 ^i'^?RS^ ribs. hle was lying in pool of blood and was trying to press the injured portion by his hands. She further deposed that she had seen the appellant running away for their badi. These witnesses were cross-examined by the defence at length, but the defence has not been able to elicit any such circumstance on which their testimonies may be discarded or it may be said that they were falsely implicating the appellant in the present crime. The evidence of oral dying declaration before Rambilas (PW-1) and Tirath Bai (PW-3) was fully corroborated by the contents of merg intimation (Ex.-P/1) in which Rambilas (PW-1) mentioned that the deceased made such oral dying declaration before them. (9) About the motive, the prosecution suggested that since the sister of deceased- Tirath Bai (PW-3) had returned back from her matrimonial house leaving the company of the appellant, and the deceased obstructed and raised voice against the conduct of the appellant, therefore, the appellant was unhappy with the deceased. It comes in Para-2 of the evidence of Rambilas (PW-1) that on the date of incident, in day time, he had gone to chilhati market for selling fishes. The appellant came there and asked for fish. When he opened the packet to give fish to the appellant, deceased came there and asked him to bring the appellant to the house of the deceased for asking as to why Tirath Bai (PW-3) has come back to the deceased's house leaving the company of the appellant. On this, a quarrel took place in the market between the appellant & the ?> n^ Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 2006 deceased. Both were abusing each other and they were separated by his intervention. The appellant threatened the deceased that he should remain cautious, he will see that how much pride he has.In appreciation, we find that on account of some differences the sister of the deceased (PW-3) had left the company of the appellant and she had returned to her brother's house by which the appellant was unhappy, and when the deceased tried to inteo/ene in all this, he became inimical to the deceased, and he threatened the deceased on the date of incident in the weekly market of village chilhati and ultimately he caused stab injuries to the deceased in the night. (10) On appreciation of entire evidence on record.We find that the circumstances i.e. oral dying declaration of the deceased; the conduct of the appellant, who was seen running away from the badi just after the incident; and motive referred to above proved by the witnesses, were sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of the aforesaid offence. We are of the view that the Sessions Judge was fully justified in convicting the appellant u/s 302 IPC on the above set of circumstantial evidence. (11) The appeal, therefore, fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge \fatti