R COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Hon’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon’ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. Criminal AQQeaI No. 932 of 2003 Appellant Sukhram Gond S/o. Navaram Gond, aged about 32 years, r/o. Tengrahi, P.S. Bagbahra, District Mahasamund (CG). Statev of Chhattisgarh tllrough P.S. Bagbahra, District Mahasamund (CG). Resgondent (Aépeal under Section 374(2) of the C’r.P.C.) Present: 4 Shri K.K. Singh, counsel for the appellant. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate for the State-o ORALJUDGMENT E— (1 9-07-201 0) 1. The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of i conviction and order of sentence dated 28-6—2003 passed in Sessions Trial Case. No.33 of 2003, whereby learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasarnund, has convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his daughter Ku. Yashoda Bai and his father Navaram and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/—, in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for three years. 2 . The case of the prosecution as projected in the impugned judgment is that the appellant suspected the character of his wife i— Samari Bai and also. suspected that Ku. Yashoda Bai was not born through him and because of this suspicion he used to beat his wife Samari Bai, who started residing with her parents at Churidabri. However, she returned and started residing with her husband in village Tengrahi but the difference persisted In the month of August on the eve of Navakhai complainant Samari Bai was to alight the lamp before Goddess However appellant and his Sister BhagbatiBai alighted the lamp, which was put off by the complainant Samari Bai. On 12-10-2002, he took forcibly Ku. Yashoda Bai for sleeping with him. He also called Samari Bai. However, she could not sleep on account of apprehension and worries. On 13-10-2002 at about 5.00 a.m., when he picked up an axe, the complainant protested and tried to take away Ku. Yashoda Bai from the room, however, the appellant snatched Ku. Yashoda Bai from complainant whereupon she ’came in the Verandah where her father-in-law was there. Thereafter, she heard the screams and after some time the appellant came with blood stained axe and severed head of Ku. Yashoda Bai and placed it in the Verandah. When his father asked him as to why he had murdered, the appellant also assaulted his father — Navaram on his head, neck, back, shoulder and left knee by the “axe and murdered him. 3. The complainant Samari Bai narrated about the incident to . _\\ Upsarpanch and other Villagers whereupon Police was informed 4 about the incident by Upsarpénch vide EXP/16. Thereafter, Samari Bai gave Dehati Nalsi‘(Ex.P/17) end morgue intimation (EXP/18 & P/19) to .Poiice. On the basis of Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P/17) given by Samari Bai, crime was registered in Police Station (EXP/24). Investigating Officer prepared the site map (EXP/21). After performing the inquest over the persons of deceased Navaram (EXP/3) and Ku. Yashoda Bai, child aged 3 years (Ex.P/5), dead bodies were sent for autopsy to Primary Hea'lth Centre, Bagbahra where Dr. G.R.Chandrakar (PW/4) conducted post mortem and gave his reports of Navaram (Ex- é a P/1 1) & Ku. Yashoda Bai (EXP/12). Blood stained soil, plain soil, blood stained frock, blood stained lungi and blood stained axe were taken into possession (EXP/6) from the spot. Blood stained shirt and lungi worn by the appellant at the time of incident were seized from him (Ex.P/7). Blood stained articles seized during investigation including weapon of offence - axe were sent to the Doctor for his opinion and the Doctor opined that the injuries present over the persons of the deceased persons could be caused by an axe (EXP/15). However, he advised to send the seized articles to FSL for examination for confirmation of presence of blood and report of FSL has been received vide Ex.P/27, according to which, the blood stained soil, frock of the deceased Ku. Yashoda Bai, lungi and axe seized from the spot were found 6stained with blood. However, report of the Serologist is not available in the record. \z‘ . After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, who in, turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Raipur and the same was received on transfer for trial by the learned Additional Sessions Judge who framed charges under Section 302 of the lndian Penal Code against the appellant who abjured his guilt. . Prosecution in order to establish the charges against the appellant eka‘mined 6 witnesses in all. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of‘the Code of Criminal Procedure, in ‘which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded innocence and false implication. . The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of the judgment. . . Homicidal death ‘of deceased Navaram and Ku. Yashoda Bai is not in dispute. Even otherwise, from the evidence of Samari Bai (PW/6) who claimed to have witnessed the appellant assaulting both the deceased persons with an axe and further on the basis of evidence of Dr. G.R. Chandrakar (PW/4), who conducted post— mortem over the persons of both the deceased and proved his reports (Ex.P/11 & P/12), in which he found the injuries as described in paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment with respect o deceased Navaram and in paragraph 14 with respect to deceased Ku. Yashoda Bai and opined that the cause of death of $ a , g. t Navaram was shock due to hemorrhage as a result‘of injuries sustained by him behind his neck and his death was homicidai in nature and aiso opined that the cause of death of Ku. Yashoda Bai was also due to shock and severing of head from the rest of the body and her death was homicidal in nature, homicidal death bf Navaram and Ku. Yashoda Bai is established. . Shri K.K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of alleged eye-Witness Samari Bai (PW/6) who has deposed In para 3 that her husband assaulted her daughter Ku Yashoda Bai wrth battle axe and axe and chopped her head whereas she has deposed in para 4 that thereafter he assaulted Navaram, by an axe and carpenter’s axe. However, no carpenter’s axe has been seized during investigation. On the other hand, Shri U.N.S. Deo, Government Advocate, appearing on behalf .of the State supported the impugned judgment. 10, We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court as the impugned judgment. 11. Conviction of the appellant is mainly based on the’evidence of eye-witness PW/6 Samari Bai, who gave Dehati Nalsi (EXP/17) and who is none-else than the wife of the appellant. The incident occurred in the morning at 5.00 a.m, according to this witness on 7172-10-202 the appellant took forcibly his daughter— deceased Yashoda Bai to sleep with him and after some time he also called complainant,- the complainant could not sleep in the night due to \\. j i fear and worries as she was aware that the appe‘llant‘suspected her fidelity and paternity of Yashoda Bai. This witness has deposed that she resided with her husband in the house constructed out of viiiage with their two children namely Yashoda Bai and Tike Bai; father-in-law Navaram and the sister-in-law Bhagbati Bai who was residing with them after leaving her husband. She further deposed that she was beaten by her husband as she put off the lamp lit by the appellant and Bhagbati Bai‘before the Goddess One day prior to the date of moldent appellant quarreled With his Wife Samari Bai on some pretext and she was beaten by him. On the fateful day, when she was sleeping with her both daughters, the appellant forcibly took Ku. Yashoda Bai with him. After some time, she also followed her husband and in the next day morning the appellant assaulted his ‘° daughter Ku. Yashoda Bai with battle axe as a result, her head was severed. She gotfrightened and rushed to her father-in-law, present in the Verandah. Thereafter, her husband attacked her father-in-law by an axe and carpenter’s axe on his neck, arm, shoulder, legs etc. Neck of her father—in-law was also almost severed She narrated about the inCIdent to Upsarpanch and other people in the Village Thereafter they came to her house and she left towards the village apprehending that her husband might kill her. The information about the incident was given by the villagers to Police, whereupon Police arrived there and interrogated her.and recorded her report vide Ex. P/17. This witness has been cross-examined at length by defence. v However, the defence could not elicit anything in‘ her cross eXamination which makes her version doubtful or unreliable. Her version is duly corroborated from Dehati Nalshi (Ex.P/17) as well as postmortem reports of the deceased persons (Ex.P/11 & P/12) which have been proved by Dr. G.R. Chandrakar (PW/4). Tularam (PW/2) and Salim Hussai‘n (PW/3), have also depose that after the incident, the complainant Samari Bai (PW/6) came to them and informed them that her husband Sukhram had m‘uFdered Navaram and Yashoda Bai with an axe. They went to the house of Sukhram and found the dead bodies of Navaram and Yashoda Bai lying there. Thus, from the evidence of these two witnesses also the version of eyewitness Samari Bai (PW/6) stands corroborated. We are unable to accept the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that because of discrepancy regarding description of weapon of offence, her evidence is unreliable; We are of the opinion that the evidence of Samari Bai (PW/6) inspires conhdence and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant relying upon her evidence by the impugned judgment. 14. ln the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Raju d A TZT: i Sdl‘ V Sd/- l DmRENDRA MISHRA \ KN.Challd1'akal Judge Judge