31!'!'I~'B'B«' S) l^ ^ APPELLANT: (In Jail) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.263 of 2007 Bhagirathy Lohar S/o Shobhan Agariya, aged about 50 years Resident of Village Bhagora, P.S. Chacradhar Nagar, Tah. and Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) RESPONDENT: Versus State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Chacradhar Nagar {Criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) ofthe Code of-Criminal Procedure, 1973} Present: Mrs. Uma Tiwari, counsel forthe appellant. Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent. Division Bench: - Hoji'ble Mr^T.P. Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Chandrakar, JJ ORAL JUDGMENT (4-8-2011) T.P. Sharma, J: - 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 28-2-2007 passed by the 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No.101/2006, \.vhereby & whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of his wife Padma Bai, convicted the appellant under Section 302 ofthe IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of payment offine to further undergo Rl for one month. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence, the trial Couri: has convicted & sentenced the appellant, and thereby committed illegality. 3. As per case of the prosecution, on the fateful day of 25-6-2006 just before 3.30 p.m. unfortunate deceased Padma Bai came to the house of Savitri (PW-6), Padma Bai was under intoxication, Savitri went to the house of Padma Bai for calling daughter of Padma Bai to take Padma Bai to her house,at that time mother-in-law of Savitri namely Sumitra Bai (PW-7) had gone to hand pump for fetching water. Savitri came back to ^ (^' -'y'i^""' ..tf£S'^' :^:s F' :w-"' ^arfps ..fSy her house and was in her kitchen. After some time, the appellant who is husband of Padma Bai came with axe & stick, he quarrelled with Padma Bai on which Savitri came out from kitchen and advised Padma Bai not to quarrel and to go to their house whereupon the appellant threatened Savitri &nd caused repeated injuries over neck of Padma Bai resulting in her instantaneous death. Thereafter, the appellant fled away from the house of Savitri (PW-6) whom Sumitra Bai (PW-7) has seen. At the same time, husband of Savitri namely Bhagirathi Chouhan (PW-1) came to his house whom his wife narrated the incident. Bhagirathi Chouhan (PW-1) went to the police station and lodged FIR vide Ex.P-1. Merg was recorded vide Ex.P-2. The Investigating Officer left for the scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex. P-7, prepared inquest over the dead body ofthe deceased vide Ex.P-6. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-3. Blood stained and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-4. Blood stained axe and lungi were seized from the appellant vide Ex.P-5. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Government Hospital, Raigarh vide Ex.P-SA. Team of doctors consisting of Dr. Lokesh Shadangi (PW-8) and Dr. Smt. Madhu Dube conducted autopsy vide Ex. P-8 and found following injuries: - (1) Incised wound over right side of neck in the size of 4" x 6" x 1 %" up to cervical bone, internal organs of neck were cut. (2) Incised wound over neck in the size of4" x 2" x 2", internal organs of neck were cut. (3) Incised wound over neck in the size of 4" x 3" x 1 %", internal organs of neck were cut. Cause of death was shock and death was homicidal in nature. Sealed clothes of the deceased were seized vide Ex. P-12. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur vide Ex.P-10. Presence of blood over axe and lungi of the appellant was confirmed vide Ex. P-14. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Raigarh from where learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. ^ .^^-^ ff""""1 5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. 6. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parites, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trialCourt. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that conviction of the appellant is based on evidence of solitary witness Savitri (PW-6) whose uncorroborated evidence does not inspire confidence and is not trustworthy, even her evidence has not been supported by evidence of her mother-in-law Sumitra Bai (PW-7) who came to the spot just after the incident which creates doubt upon the evidence of Savitri (PW-6). Learned counsel further argued that evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient for drawing definite conclusion that the appellant has caused homicidal death of Padma Bai amounting to murder. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the appeal and submitted that incident took place in the house of Savitri (PW-6), dead body was found in the house of Savitri (PW-6), who was present in her house at the time of incident and her presence in her house was natural. Savitri (PW-6) has immediately narrated the incident to her mother-in-law and her husband whereupon her husband has lodged FIR. Evidence of Savitri (PW-6) is well corroborated by evidence of her husband and her mother-in-law and also by the promptly lodged FIR, which are sufficient for drawing definite conclusion that only the appellant has caused homicidal death of the deceased amounting to murder. 10.1n order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 11.1n the present case, homicidal death ofthe deceased as a result offatal injuries found over her body has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant, even otherwise, it is established by evidence of z._ .«F (^ Dr. Lokesh Shadangi (PW-8) and autopsy repori: Ex.P-8 that death ofthe deceased was homicidal in nature. 12.As regards complicity ofthe appellant in the crime in question, conviction of the appellant is substantially based on evidence of solitary witness Savitri (PW-6). As per evidence of Savitri (PW-6), on the fateful day at about 3.30 p.m., deceased Padma Bai came to her house, she was under intoxication, then she (this witness) went to the house of Padma Bai for calling her daughter to take Padma Bai back to her house, at the same time her mother-in-law went to hand pump for fetching water, she came back from the house of Padma Bai and went inside the kitchen for cooking meals, at that time the appellant came, he was holding axe & stick, he quarrelled with Padma Bai on which she advised to both of them not to quarrel in her house and go back to their house whereupon the appellant threatened her and assaulted his wife Padma Bai with axe which she has seen and thereafter, the appellant fled away from her house. Her mother-in-law who was coming from hand pump has seen the appellant running from her house. Thereafter, her husband came and she narrated the incident to him, her husband went to the police station and lodged FIR. Evidence of Savitri (PW-6) is corroborated by evidence of Bhagirathi Chouhan (PW-1 ) - husband of Savitri (PW-6). 13.Mother-in-law of Savitri (PW-6) namely Sumitra Bai (PW-7) has corroborated the evidence of Savitri (PW-6) to the extent that when she came back to her house after fetching water from hand pump, she has seen the injured dead body of Padma Bai and Savitri (PW-6) - her daughter-in-law told her that the appellant has killed his wife Padma Bai. However, Sumitra Bai (PW-7) has not corroborated the evidence of Savitri (PW-6) to the extent that when she was coming from hand pump after fetehing water she has seen the appellant running from her house. The statement of Sumitra Bai (PW-7) recorded by the police under Section 161 ofthe CrPC as Ex.D-2 is contradictory to the aforesaid part of statement given by her in her evidence before the Court. In para 4 of her evidence she has deposed that when she came to her house the dead body of Padma Bai was lying and her daughter-in-law was cooking meals inside the house. 14.As per evidence of Sumitra Bai (PW-7), time gap between leaving of her house for fetehingwater and coming back to her house after fetching ^ !.»,. ...,..,!rtSI 1^1IIJt^^l^l^^' ^"'•"^•^^^' a» yoma water was so short, but she has not deposed the fact that she has seen the appellant running from her house. Inter alia, she has deposed in her evidence that dead body of Padma Bai was lying in her house and her daughter-in-law was cooking meals inside the house. As per spot map Ex.P-3, kitchen and the place where dead body of Padma Bai was lying were adjoining to each other. Virtually, in front of kitchen the dead body of Padma Bai was lying which shows that it was not possible for Savitri (PW-6) to cook meals inside the kitchen where dead body of Padma Bai was lying in front of her kitchen. The statement of Sumitra Bai (PW-7) to that extent appears to be unnatural. 15.Defence has cross-examined Savitri (PW-6) at length, but has not been able to elicit anything in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony especially relating to the fact that she has not seen the incident. Her evidence inspires confidence, it is trustworthy and is duly corroborated by evidence of Bhagirathi Chouhan (PW-1) and medical evidence, same is sufficient for drawing inference that the appellant has caused homicidal death of his wife. Considering three fatal repeated injuries over neck of deceased Padma Bai it can be easily inferred that the appellant has caused homicidal death of his wife with intent to cause her death. 16.After appreciating evidence available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted & sentenced the appellant. On close scrutiny of evidence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of conviction & order of sentence. Consequently, the appeal is devoid of merit, same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd'- R.N. ChaB.drakar Judge