”Wm rrmmy,“ mvnm 1x x HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Division Bench) - Coram: Hon’ble Shri T.P. Sharma & Hon’ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 2004 Kamal Narayan, son of Dev Singh; aged about 22 years, r/o. village Dundera, P.S. Utai, District Durg (CG). Appellant (in jail) Vs State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station: Telibandha, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Respondent & Criminal Appeal No. 802 of 2005 Appellant Krishna Kumar s/o. R'amu Ram (in jail) aged about 23 years, rlo. village Belvakhurd, P.S. Bhakhara, District Dhamtari (CG) Vs i Police Station: Telibandha, Raipur Respondent State of Chhattisgarh through the (Chhattisgarh). (Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C.) Present: Mr. N.S. Dhurandhar, counsel for the appellants. Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Govt. Advocate forthe State. JUDGMENT (Delivered on a L-9-201 1) Per Rangnath Chandrakar. J. Sincé both the appeals arise out of same judgment, they have been taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by a common order. The appellants have preferred these appeals under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11-12~2003 passed in Sessions Trial No.46 of 2003.whereby learned IXth Additional Sessions Judge. (FTC), Raipur, after holding the appellants guilty for committing murder of Mohit Ram, convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 300I- each, in default of paymentof hne to undergo further Rl for six months. The prosecution started on the basis of first information report (EXP/12) lodged by Smt. Chandar Bai Sahu (PW.P/6), wife of deceased Mohit Ram in Police Station Telibandha on 27-7-2002 at about 2.00 \p.m., wherein it was alleged that her husband Mohit Ram (since deceased) was a petty contractor who used to supply labourers for the construction works. Present appellants were engaged byher son namely Hemial Sahu (PW/7) for the said work whereas accused Mahesh Sahu was engaged for the work by her elder brother-in-law. All the accused persons were residing in a rented house at Shitla Nagar with the help of deceased Mohit Ram. lt is also alleged that all the three accused had worked for a month with the deceased and had received their payment from deceased Mohit Ram. On the fateful day of 27-7-2002 when the deceased i’ with his younger son namely Hemlal Sahu (PW/7) was present va cc l (7)5 near his omce situated at Rajendra Nagar, the appellants along with co-accused person came there and told that their rented house was locked by the landlord. They requested the deceased to open the lock of the house. It was alleged that when the deceased was going with these persons, the complainant i.e., wife of the deceased and her son Hemlal Sahu were following them, the accused Mahesh pulled down the deceased tying his neck with a ‘gamcha’ in the lane at Shitla Nagar, accused Krishna Kewat caught hold the legs of deceased, Kamal Narayan caught hold the hands of the deceased and accused Mahesh attacked on the head and chest of the deceased Mohit Ram with a knife. Thereafter all l the accused persons fled away from the spot. When the wife of deceased screamed for help. Ganga Bai, Kejuram, Mahesh Kumar and other persons of the vicinity came there and the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. : 4. On the basis of FIR Ex.P/12, offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC was registered against the appellants and merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P/13. After summoning the witnesses vide EXP/14 inquest over the dead body of the deceased was prepared vide EXP/15 and the dead body was sent for autopsy to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Govt. Hospital Raipur vide Ex P116 where Doctor Ulhas Gonnade (PW/4) conducted postmortem vrde Ex P/10 and found the followrng injuries i) incised stab wound present 75 cm below . sternal angle transversely on right side of blunt end on left side in the size of 4cm x 1cm pierce skin sternem between 3 and 4‘" rib level (3 7cm x 0 6cm) ii) A transversely oblique abrasion below xyphoid process in the size of 3x02 cm with haematoma. iii) Multiple small abrasions in the size of 1.5cm x 1 cm present 6cm below xyphoid process. iv) incised wound present on dorsum of left forearm 12.5 cm below and 3 cm lateral to olecranon process in the size of 3.5 cm x 0.5 Cm muscle deep. v) incised wound present on dorsum of left hand between thumb and index finger transversely in the size of 2x1cm skin deep. vi) lncised wound above injury No.5 transversely in the size of 2.7 cm x 1.cm skin deep vii) lncised wound present over head of second metacarpal on dorsum obliquely in the size of 1.8 cm x 0.4 cm skin deep. viii) lncised wound just above injury No.7 in the size of 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm skin deep. ix) Abrasion ofleft olecranon process in an area of 2cm x 1 cm. x) lncised wound on lateral aspect of left knee in the size of 5cm x 1.5 cm skin deep. xi) Scratches present on left knee and on right knee. xii) lncised wound present 3cm above right ear transversely in the size of 2.5cm x 0.3cm skin deep. Cause of death, in his opinion, was due to shock and hemorrhage and death was homicidal in nature 5. Spot map was prepared by Patwan' vide Ex.P/9. Blood smeared soil and plain soil were seized from the spot vide Ex.P/3. During \ i¢iwa d. , (EW course of investigation, accused appellants were taken into custody, memorandum of appellant Mahesh was recorded vide Ex.P/1 on the basis of which a knife i.e., weapon of offence was seized at his instance vide Ex.P/2. Wearing apparels of appellant Kamal Narayan were seized vide Ex.P/5 and wearing apparels of appellant Krishna Kumar were seized vide Ex.P/6. The knife seized vide Ex.P/P2 was sent to Doctor for examination who opined vide a; Ex.P/11 that the injuries sustained by deceased might have been caused by the seized weapon. Wearing apparels of the deceased were seized vide Ex.P/18. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. Raipur vide Ex.P/19 and a report thereof was received vide Ex.P/21 which goes to show that presence of blood was found on the wearing apparels of the appellants, deceased and on the knife . Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the I} A Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Raipur, from where the case was received by learned lXth Additional Sessions Judge ,Raipur for trial who framed charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants who abjured the guilt. - 7. In order to prove the guilt of the appellants, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. Accused/appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication. After affording an cpportunity of hearing to the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. We have. heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court as also the impugned judgment 10. Mr. N.S. Dhurandhar, leamed counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that the trial Court has convicted the appellants by placing implicit reliance on the evidence of Smt. Chandar Bai (PW/6) wife of the deceased and Hemlal Sahu (PW/7), who is son of the deceased and alleged eye-witness. There are material contradictions and omissions in their depositions. Learned counsel further submits that Smt. Chandar Bai (PW/6) wife of the deceased and Hemlal Sahu (PW/7), being interested witnesses. their evidence are required to be corroborated by independent sources. ln absence of corroboration from independent source, statements of the aforesaid witnesses are not safe to rely for conviction of the appellants. PWI2 Ganga Bai has not supported the case of prosecution and has been declared hostile. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient for drawing inference that the present appellants have caused death of deceased. 11. Per contra Mr. D.K. Gwalre, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State supporting the judgment impugned submits that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is sufficient for drawing inference that the present appellants have caused homicidal death of deceased Mohit Ram with intent to cause his death and the findings recorded by the Court below for convicting and sentencing the appellants are just and proper and need no interference by this court. 12. ln order to appreciate the arguments advanced by leamed counsel for the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. ln the present case, homicidal death of the deceased Mohit Ram is not in dispute. Even otherwise, it is also established by the evidence of Doctor Ulhas Gonnade (PW/4) and the autopsy report (EXP/10) wherein it was opined that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of stab injuries and death was . homicidal in nature. The medical evidence is duly corroborated by PW/6 Smt. Chandar Bai, wife of the deceased who has deposed that she saw the accused/appellants fleeing from the spot after the incident and PW/7 Hemlal Sahur, son of the deceased who has ‘ deposed that he saw the accused/appellants assaulting his father who died on the spot . 14. As regards, complicity of the appellants in the crime in question is concerned, conviction of the appellants is based on the evidence of PW/6 Smt. Chandar Bai and PWI7 Hamlal Sahu, the eye-witness. As per evidence of Smt. Chandar Bai (PW/6) wife of the deceased, the accused/appellants came to her house and took the deceased with them on the pretext that the landlord had locked their rented house. She also followed them and on reaching the spot she saw that the accused/appellants were fleeing from the spot after ‘ 13. x a committing murder of her husband Mohit Ram who was lying on the spot. Seeing her husband in such a condition. she became unconscious. Her son Hemlal (PW/7) also saw the accused/appellants fleeing from the spot and informed the police about the incident. Thereafter, she went to Police Station and lodged FIR vide Ex.P/12. In her cross-examination she admitted that she had not seen the incident by her own but she was intimated about the incident by Ganga Bai (PW/2). She admitted that she saw the accused/appellants only fleeing from the spot aftern/ committing murder of her husband Mohit Ram. In para 4 of her cross-examination she admitted that she did not see the accused/appellants assaulting her husband and denied the suggestion that the accused/appellants did not commit marpit with her husband. She further deposed that she saw the hands of accused/appellants stained with blood. The evidence of this witness is well corroborated by the Investigating OfHcer (PW/5},V\/ at about lodging the FIR. 15. As per evidence of Hemlal Sahu (PW/7), the accused/appellants came to his house and took the deceased with them on the pretext that the landlord had locked their rented house. He was also asked by his father (deceased) to come to the rented house after taking lunch. whereupon he went to his father on a bicycle and met his mother Smt. Chandar Bai (PW/6) along with his younger sister on the way. Crossing his mother and sister when he was just 10 steps behind his father, he saw that the accused Mahesh assaulted his father with a knife, at that time the accused/appellant Krishna Kumar was holding both legs‘ of his father and accused/appellant Kamal Narayan tying his neck withgamcha pulled him down. After committing the incident, the accused/appeilants started fleeing from the spot. Thereafter, he went to Poiice Station and informed about the incident. He further deposed that the incident was aiso witnessed by his mother and Ganga Bai. in para 5 of his cross examination he specifically .deposed that gamcha was tied by Kamal Narayan. He further deposed that he had not told the police that the gamcha was pulled by Mahesh, if it was written in Ex.D/2 that gamcha was pulled by Mahesh, was wrong. Further, he categorically mentioning the names of accused/appellan stated as under: "§wwa§mmmm1m,WW-m.rmam mamawm" Minute examination of the evidence of the'aforesaid witnesses go to show that the accused/appellants came to the house of the deceased and took him with them on the pretext to get opened their residential rented house locked by the landlord and on the way they caused death of the deceased by assaulting him with a knife. The defence cross—examined these witnesses at length, but could not elicit anything to discredit their testimonies. 17. As regards corroboration of the evidence of aforesaid witnesses by independent source is concerned, admittedly Ganga Bai (PW/2) was the independent witness who did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile, but in para 4 of her deposition she admitted that she stated before Police that she had seen the bleeding from head and chest of Mohit Ram who died. Thus, from t i 10 her evidence it is clear that on the date of incident, she saw the deceased in injured condition and supported the case of prosecution to that extent. 18. So far as the credibility of the evidence of Witnesses Smt. Chander Bai and PW/7 Hemial is concerned, in a heinous case of murder, their evidence cannot be discarded straight-way only on the ground that they are relatives and thus interested witnesses. Hemial (PW/7) is the eye-witness to the incident and his version is well corroborated by his mother Smt. Chander Bai (PW/6) and medical.” ; evidence. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is sufficient for drawing inference that the present appellants have caused homicidal death amounting to murder of deceased Mohit Ram. 19. ln view of above what has been disCussed and considering all the aspects of the matter, we do not find any illegality or indrmity in the the being devoid t impugned judgment. Consequently, appeals / Qi, of merit are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. l “s‘ ‘ ' ‘T.P. SHARMA 5w. ll \ Sd/— __ Judge Y‘l 1R.N. Chandrakar . k? j: l ‘ fudge , \r’? “"‘)I‘L/‘ e Raju l i