:'?i;«s^;^ ;<'~!;gS« HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE MR. T.P. SHARMA 8s HON'BLE MR. R. L. JHANWAR, JJ. Cr.A^No, 503/2001 APPELLANT (IN JAIL) VERSUS RESPONDENT Mandvi Hando alias Nandu S/o Bodamuriya, aged about 51 years, Cultivator, Resident of village -Pondum Police Station - Geedam, District - Dantewada (C.G.). The State of Chhattisgarh. AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. Present:- Mr. D.R. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Swati Shukla Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rakesh Jha, Dy. G.A. for the State/respondent. ORAL-JUDGEMENT (Passedon 01/02/2010) The follpwing iudgment of the Court was passed bv T.P^ Sharma, Js- 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of convection and order of sentence dated 4/4/2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Bastar, Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No. 129/2000 whereby and where under after holding the appellant guilty for the commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of deceased Kawasi Podiya convicted fhe appellant under Section /__^! ;2. ^.^•.as:,^ ^ ..^fc^j.. %. .•f "••' '? y^C.'-W !j JS vs€/' 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced imprisonment for life. The judgment is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant aforementioned and thereby committed an illegality. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on fateful day of 26/12/99 at about night at village Jawanga Police Station Gidam District Dantewada appellant was having knife has assaulted the deceased Kawasi Podiya at the place of Marhan and he made extra judicial confession to PW4 Beko Sukdi, PW6 Beko Suwako, PW7 Poyami Kamalu and before Panchayat that appellant has committed the murder of the deceased. Marg intimation was recorded vide Ex. P-1A. First Information Report was registered vide Ex. P-1. Inquest over the dead body of the deceased Kawasi Podiya was prepared vide Ex. P-2. BIood stained and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex. P-3. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Pnmary Health Center, Gidam vide Ex. P-13. Autopsy was conducted by PW8 Dr. R.L. Malviya vide Ex. P-8 and found following injures:- (1) one stab wound over right Axillary line of 3 c.m. x !6 c.m. x 12 c.m. deep, 3 inches below Axilla. (2) Fracture of 5th, 6th rib (3) One stab wound over left side of the ^ s& 'fi s '5'. ...-s^^^ chest of 1 Vs" x %" x 3". (4) One stab wound over middle part of the abdomen of Vz x '/z c.m. x muscle deep (5) One stab wound over left side of the waist of 3 x Y2 c.m. (6) One stab wound over right side of the chest near nipple of3 x 2 x3 c.m. (7) One incised wound over left shoulder of 2 x Vz x Vz c.m. Cause of death was cardio respiratory failure death was as a result of shock. Death was homicidal in nature. 4. Appellant was taken into custody he made disclosure statement of knife vide Ex. P-4 same was recovered at the instance of appellant vide Ex. P-5. Blood stained shirt of appellant was seized vide Ex. P-6. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-12. Sealed packet after autopsy was seized vide Ex. P-14. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination vide Ex. P-15. Presence of blood was not found over shirt and knife seized from the accused vide Ex. P-16. 5. Statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Codel. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was Gled before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Dantewada who in tum committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Jagdalpur. 6. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused prosecution examined as well as 10 witnesses. Accused Y r" f^ 10. was examined under Section 313 of the Code where he denied the circumstances appearing against him, innocency and false irapUcation is claimed. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties leamed Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant aforementioned. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. Judgment impugned and record of Court below perused. Learned counsel for the appeUant vehemently argued that case is based on extra judicial confession but fhe evidence of PW4 Beko Sukdi, PW6 Beko Suwako, PW7 Poyami Kamalu does not inspire confi.dence they are interested witnesses and their evidence are not safe to rely. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposed the appeal and submits that appellant was made extra judicial confession to the PW4 Beko Sukdi, PW6 Beko Suwako, PW7 Poyami Kamalu just after the incident even the witnesses have heard the sound of deceased, these evidence are unchallenged and sufficient for drawing the inference that appellant is a person who has caused fatal injury to th^ deceased resulting into death. ^^••L^,M^ k- i^\i;..i>.: t.ailtia » i?l& 11. In order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the parties we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 12. In the present case homicide death as a result of repeated injury over the body of the deceased has not been substantially disputed by the appellant on the other hand, otherwise also established by the evidence of PW8 Dr. R.L. Malviya and autopsy report Ex. P-8 the death was horaicide in nature. 13. As regard the complicity of the appellant in crime in question is concemed the conviction is based on extra judicial confession made by the appellant to the PW4 Beko Sukdi, PW6 Beko Suwako, PW7 Poyami Kamalu. PW4 Beko Sukdi has deposed in her evidence that while she was coming from the market along with her husband PW6 Beko Suwako they heard the sound of wife of the appellant and just after appellant and his wife came to her house and appellant told him that he has killed one person by knife, they stayed in her house at night. PW6 Beko Suwako husband of PW4 Beko Sukdi has also deposed in his evidence that while he was coming to his house along with his wife from the market appellant, his brother-in-law also accompanied with his wife. Appellant told him in his house that he has killed Kawasi Podiya by knife. He along with his ig^.1 's, g, '•^ s.s.;"^:SB:fr«t!i& wife stayed in his house at night. After 8 days villagers of village Jawnga came then he also told the incident to the viUage persons. 14. PW7 Poyami Kamalu has also deposed that appellant had made disclosure statement before him and befoi-e Panchayat that he has killed Kawasi Podiya. In his cross examination he specifically stated that Panchayat of 2 village was convened and appellant admitted before the Panchayat. PW6 Beko Suwako has specifically deposed in Para-6 of his evidence that appellant himself has told him that he has killed the Kawasi Podiya another witness PW4 Beko Sukdi has admitted in her cross 'examination that she has heard the sound of the wife of the deceased. She has also stated in Para-4 that appellant was holding knife. Defence has cross examined this witness at length but has not been able. to illicit anything in her cross examination to discredit her testimony. 15. PW10 M.C. Mishra, Sub Inspector has deposed that he has taken the appellant in custody and interrogated then he made disclosure statement of knife who is recorded as Ex. P-4 then the accused produced the knife after taking the same from inside his house which he seized vide Ex. P-5. Although presence of the blood over the knife was not found in the chemical —-u^u^^w^.-. (?^ ;^hs^.;s;:^% .lsl:^.^::-^s examination report Ex. P-16. The conviction is based on extra judicial confession of appellant made to the witnesses. The evidence of PW4 Beko Sukdi, PW6 Beko Suwako, PW7 Poyami Kamalu is inspire confidence, trustworthy and are safe to rely. 16. After appreciating the evidence available on record leanied Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant aforementioned. Seven injures were found over the body of the deceased shows the grave intention of causing the death of the deceased. The conviction is based on legal and clinching evidence sustainable under the law. 17. On close scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned. Appeal is devoid of merits. Consequently, the criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Juuge R.L. Jhanwar 'e / 'T;;!-f^