\. @3’1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal_A_gpeal No.825 of 2003 APPELLANT: Ram'Singh S/o Dukalu gond aged about (In Jail) 32 years, R/o Village Dataud P.S. Jaijepur, Distt. Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENT: State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Jaijepur Distt. Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) I {Criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Division Bench: - Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma & Hon’bie Mr. R.L. Jhanwar, JJ ORAL JUDGMENT (22-1—2010) T.P. SharmaLJ: - 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 18-10-2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, in Sessions Trial No.388/2001, whereby & whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty for commission of homicidal death amounting to murder of his wife Gayatri Bai, convicted the appellant under Section~302 of the l.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life & pay fine of Rs.1,000/—, in default of payment of tine to further undergo R.l. for three months. . Judgment is impugned on the ground that without any credible & clinching evidence the Court below has convicted & sentenced the appellant in the aforesaid manner and thereby committed illegality. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the fateful day of 28-6-2001 at night deceased Gayatri Bai was present in her house at Village Dataud, \ Police Station Jaijaipur, the appellant, who is her husband, was also x present in the house, the appellant assaulted his wife with axe and caused fatal injury over head, hands & other parts of the body and thereby caused her death. The appellant called Parasram (PW-1) in his house before whom he made extra judicial confession that he has killed his Wife. The appellant was sitting inside his house and injured body of the deceased was lying inside .the house. Parasram (PW-1) lodged morgue intimation which was recorded vide Ex.P-14 and on the basis of the morgue intimation, F.l.R. was lodged vide Ex.P-1. The investigating ‘1’ Officer left for the scene of occurrence and. after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P—8, inquest over the dead body of Gayatri Bai was prepared vide Ex.P-7. Dead body was sent for autopsy vide Ex.P-15 to Community Health Centre, Jaijaipur and autopsy was conducted by Dr. K. Urao (PW-15) vide Ex.P-34 who found following injuries: - (1) One incised wound on the mandibular region of right side of face, size '2” x 1" x 1”. (2) One incised wound on right occipital region of scalp just posterior of the right ear with lower region of right pinna cut, size 2" x 1” x 3 1/2 bone beneath the injury was also cut. (3) Lacerated wound over just front of the right ear, on the face, size 1/2,, x 1/2,. X 1/2 (4) One oblique incised wound, 3 inches posteriorsite of right ear on right side occipital region of scalp, size 2” x 1/2" x 3 1/2 bone beneath the injury was also found broken. (5)One incised wound, horizontal, on posterior and upper part of neck, size 2" x 1/2" x 1", that part of cervical bone and other blood vessels were cut. (6) One incised wound just below injury No.5, right posterior of neck, size 1 1/2” x 1/2" x 1 1/2”, that part of cervical bone, muscles, nerve and vessels were cut. (7) One incised wound o'n lower aspect and posterior side of neCk, size 2" x 1/2” x 1", that part of cervical bone, other muscles, vessels and nerve were cut. (8) One complete fracture on middle of left forearm (radio-ulna). r: Cause of death of the deceased was haemorrhagic shock due to incised wounds and the death was homicidal in nature. 4. Blood stained soil, plain soil, broken pieces of bangies & one plastic bag were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P—6. The accused was taken into custody, he made discioser statement of blood stained axe vide Ex.P—1 1, he produced the blood stained axe and the same was‘ recovered from him vide Ex.P-9. Blood stained clothes of the accused were recovered vide Ex.P-5. Foot prints of the accused were taken vide Ex.P-12. Sealed clothes of the deceased were seized vide Ex.P—13. Spot map was prepared by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.P-20. Patwari also prepared the spot map vide Ex.P-2. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination vide Ex.P-17 and presence of blood over the clothes of the deceased was confirmed vide Ex.P-30. 5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Bilaspur, from where learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. 6. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as fifteen witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearfng against him, pleaded innocence & false implication. 7. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and record of the trial Court. l 3 deceased saying ‘Dai O Dai’, the deceased was inside the room and the appellant was assaulting the deceased, she has seen the incident in electric light, her sister’(the deceased) cried for help severally by using the words ‘Dai O Dai’, she informed her neighbour that her brother-in-law (the appellant) has assaulted her sister. After taking meals, the appellant went to sleep and second day morning, the appellant directed her to call Chedi, then she called Chedi, Jolo & Kotwar. Dead body of the deceased was found inside the room. Defence has cross-examined this witness at length and in her detailed cross-examination, she has admitted that she has not stated to the Police in Ex.D-3 that the accused has assaulted his, wife with axe.‘ She has admitted in para 8 of her cross- examination that there was darkness inside the room. Her evidence reveals that she was present in the house at the time of commission of the offence, the appellant & the deceased were inside the room where the appellant assaulted the deceased and except the appellant nobody was inside the room. 14. Parasram (PW-1) has deposed in his evidence that on second day of the incident, he was called by the accused through his mother on which he went to the house of the appellant, the appellant was sitting on bed sheet and he made discloser statement that he has killed his (this witness’s) daughter-in-law. The appellant also made discloser statement before other persons that he has killed his wife with axe. Dead body of the deceased was lying inside the room. He went to the Police Station and lodged the report vide Ex.P-1. Defence has also cross-examined this witness in detail. In his cross-examination, the factum of extra judicial confession made by the accused to him is unchallenged and also corroborated by the promptly lodged F.l.R. Ex.P-1. Q l 15.The prosecution has seized axe & bloodstained clothes which are corroborative pieces of evidence. in the present case, evidence of Phuieshwari (PW—3), eyewitness and close relative of the appellant & the deceased, inspires confidence, it is trustworthy and Well corroborated by the evidence of Parasram (PW-1) relating to extra judicial confession made by the appellant. Evidences of the aforesaid witnesses are sufficient for drawing inference that the appellant is the person who has caused homicidal death of the deceased amounting to murder. 16.After appreciating the evidence available on record, the Court below has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the l.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life & pay hne of Rs.1,000/—, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.l. for three months. Conviction of the appellant is based on legal, clinching & credible evidence sustainable under the law. .The Court below has not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting the appellant on the basis of the aforesaid evidence. The Court below has also imposed minimum sentence prescribed under the law. 17.0n close scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find any scope of interference or substance in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. .. “WW“ W_/ dl- sw- if S Ty. SHARMAV 3 R.L. Jhanw‘“ L, Judge i m Judge l , ' l Soma /