HIGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH.BILASPUR Criminal ADpeal No.2780 of 1999 APPELLANT: (In Jail) Shantibai, W/o Limsai @ Khute Uraon, aged 30 years Occupation Labour, R/o Nawapara, P.S. Chhal, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENT: State of Chhattisgarh {Appeal under Section 374 (2) of theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973} Present: Miss Sangeeta Mishra, counsel forthe appellant. Mr. Neeraj Mehta, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondent. Division Behch: - Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. R.L. Jhanwar, JJ ORALJUDGMENT (14-12-2010) T.P. Sharma.J: - 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 19-8-1999 passed by the Sessions Judge,Raigarh in Sessions Trial No. 153/98, whereby & whereunderlearned Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murderof Kunwar Bahadur Singh, convicted the appellant under Section 302 ofthe I.P.C. and sentenced herto undergo imprisonmentfor life. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appellant, and thereby committed illegality. i . • ' . ' ' • . . .. ' - 3. Asper case ofthe prosecution, in the intervening night of 17 & 18 July, 1998, the appellant and Kunwar Bahadur Singh (since deceased) have consumedliquor andwere quarrelling with each other. Thereafter, the appellant assaulted the deceased by axe and caused his death. Himanchal Singh (PW-1) lodged FIR vide Ex.P-1. Merg was recorded vide Ex.P-12. After summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P-2, inquest over the dead body pf Kunwar Bahadur Singh was prepared vide Ex.P-3. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Civil Hospital, Kharsiavide Ex.P-13. ..^^^:^.^.^^ incised wound in frontof left pre auricular region ofscalp insize of 3.5" x 2.1" deep up to cranial cavity, brain was coming out from the injury and fracture of bone beneath the injury was found. Injury was ante mortem in nature. Cause ofdeathwas shock due to excessive haemorrhage in the cranial cavity. Death washomicidal in nature. During the courseof investigation, bloodstained soil and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-11. The accused was taken into custody, she made discloser statement of axe vide Ex.P-4 and axe was recovered at the instance of the appellant vide Ex.P-5. Bloodstained sari of the appellant was seized vide Ex.P-6. Sealed clothes of the deceased were seized vide Ex.P-7. Patwari prepared spot map vide Ex.P-10. Investigating Officer also prepared spot map vide Ex. P-16. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination and presence of blood was found on sari and axe recovered from the appellant, vide Ex.P-18. 4. Statementsof the witnes6es were recorded under Section161 of the' Cr.P.C.. After completion pf investigation, charge sheetwasfiled before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh who committed the case to the Court ofSessions, Raigarh where trial ofthe case took place. 5. Inorderto prove the guiltofthe accused, the prosecutipn has examined as many as eleven witnesses. The accusecl was examjned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which she denied the circumstances appearing against her, pleaded innocenceand false implicationin the crimein question. 6. After affording opportunity ofhearing to the parties, learned Sessions Judge convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record ofthe trial Court. 8. Miss Sangeeta Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that in the light of evidence of Himanchal Singh (PW- 1) & Ram Singh (PW-5), presence of the appellant at thetime of incident along with the deceased is notsubstantially disputed, the appellant was quarreling with the deceased and thereafter, injured dead body of deceased Kunwar BahadurSingh was found on the place of incident and, therefore, the appellant was underobligation to explain as to when she left the company of thedeceased or who has caused injury to the deceased, but she hasnot offered any explanation. These facts are sufficient to prove the fact that the appellant has caused injury to the deceased. In the circumstances, Miss Sangeeta Mishra submits, she is not disputing the fact that the appellant has caused injury to the deceased. Miss Sangeeta Mishra further submits that she wants to argue on the question of conviction & sentence imposed upon the appellant, Miss Sangeeta Mishra contends that as per evidence of the prosecution witnesses, on the fateful night the appellant & the deceased had consumed liquor and they were quarrelling with each other, thereafter, dead body of deceased Kunwar Bahadur Singh was foundon the place of incidentand only one injury was found over left side of face, of the deceased i.e. pre auricular region nearear which shows that there was no opportunity for causing death of the deceased. The appellant has not caused homicidal death of the deceased with intent toeguse his death, but on account of sudden quarrel, she has inflicted one injury upon the person of the deceased. If the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution isadmitted in its facevalue, the act of the appellant does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 Part-11 of the I.P.C. Miss Sangeeta Mishrafurther contends thatthe appellantwas in custodyfrom 18-7-98 to 10-10-2003 and even after order of herreleaseon bail dated 29-3-2000 she was notina position to furnish bail bonds on accpunt of poverty. In these circumstances, sentence already suffered by the appellant i.e. for more than five years would be treated assufficient sentencein the presentcase. 9. Qn the other hand, Mr. Neeraj Mehta, learned Panel Lawyerappearing on behalf of the State/respondent, opposed the appeal and submitted that although the appellant has causedsingle blow on the deceased, but at the time of causing such blow she was having knowledge that by her act she may cause the death of the deceased. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted & sentenced the appellant. 10.1n order to appreciate the arguments advancedon behalf ofthe parties, we have examined theevidence adduced on behalfofthe prosecution. 11.lnthepresent case, homicidal death of the deceased as a result pf the injuryfound over scalp has notbeen substantially disputed on behalfof the appellant,otherwise also itis established by the evidence of Dr. R.K. M'^^. K^S^ s '^^' Singh (PW-6) and autopsy report Ex.P-8 that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 12.As regards complicity ofthe appellant in the crime inquestion, same has also notbeen disputed on behalf of the appellant and even otherwise, same is also established by theevidence of Himanchal Singh (PW-1)& Ram Singh (PW-5), who have categorically deposed that on the fateful night the appellant & deceased Kunwar Bahadur Singh had consumed liquor and were quarrelling with each other. As per evidence of Ram Singh (PW-5), on the fateful night while he was sleeping, the appellant came to him and touched his bodyon which he woke up, the appellant demanded tobacco and thereafter, left the place, at that time she was holding axe. This evidence clearly reveals that during the course 6f quarrel the appellant has caused single blow upon the deceased and thereby caused his homicidal death. 13.As regards the question of motive, motive only aids in criminality and in caseof direct evidence it loses its importance. Motive can be inferred on the basis of the weapon used, part of the body effected, nature of injury and other similar circumstances. 14.In thepresentcase, as per evidenceof Himanchal Singh (PW-1) & Ram Singh (PW-5), on the fateful day the appellant & the deceased had consumed liquor and they were quarreling with each other, thereafter, Kunwar Bahadur Singh was found dead as a result of single injury sustained by him. If the appellant & the deceased had consumedliquor together and there was no reason for causing homicidal death of the deceased that too by the appellant, the factum of quarrel and single injury show thaton account of quarrel i.e. sudden quarrel the appellantf has caused single blow upon the head of the deceased and thereby caused his death. Single blow and the circumstances in which single blow has been caused show thatthe appellant has notcaused homicidal death of Kunwar Bahadur Singh with intent to cause his death, butwhile causingsuch injurythe appellant was having knowledge that by her act, deceasedKunwar Bahadur Singh may die. In these circumstances, act of the appellant does not travel beyond the scope of section 304 Part-11 ofthel.P.C. . ^^--^ ••<^: Ljfe>. "''L'^ ,;/';...--^. f/ Soma 15.While convicting the appellant under Section 302 ofthe I.P.C. the trial Court has not considered thecircumstances in which the offence took place and the question ofmotive,and thereby committed jllegality. 1 . . ' " . . . . ; 16. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant under Section 302 ofthe I.P.C. isaltered to Section 304 Part-11 ofthe I.P.C. and the appellant is hereby sentenced to the period already undergone by her i.e. from 18-7-98 to 10-10-2003 tillherreleaseonbail, thereby, she wasincustody for about more than 5 years 2 Vz months. She has been arrested in compliance of warrant of arrest issued by this Court and she has been brought up from Raigarh jail. She be sent back to Raigarh District Jail from where she has been producedand she be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. ^L Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge