HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CQRAM: Hpn'ble^hrLRaieevLGupta^ C.J. ^ Hon^ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. l) Criminal Appeal No. 803 of 2003 Krishna Das Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh JUDGMENT For consideration fc Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA J <^^re-^ Sd/- Chief Justice Post for Judgment :/^/09/2009 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon^ble Shri Raieev Gupta, C.J, ^B Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Criminal Appeal No. 803 of 2003 Appellant ^: Respondent Krishna Das, s/o Shri Sarjudas Bairagi, aged about 42 years, R/o Village Amlipali, Thana Chandrapur, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh Versus The State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station Chandrapur, Distt. Janjgeer Champa, Chhattisgarh (Appeal under Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedurel Appearance: Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey,, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, Panel Lawyer, for the State. JUDGMENT ( 4~.09.2009) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) Appellant Krishna Das stands convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 3 months by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sakti in Sessions Trial No.4/2003 on 06* ofMay, 2003. 1 ^ Criminal Appeal No. 803 of 2003 ^^SK ^:- (2) The appellant, his mother Gunvari Bai and wife Padmini Bai were charged u/s 302/34 IPC for the commission of murder of deceased Shanta Bai. According to the prosecution, the incident took place at about 9 a.m. on 29.10.2002. The prosecution came with a case that on the said date and time when the deceased was bringing Paddy crop from the fields to her house, she was assaulted on the way by the accused persons by Lathis. The incident was witnessed Setdas (P.W.5), Lalkumar (P.W.9) and Puniram. Setdas (P.W.5) reported the matter to the concerned Police Station on which a First Information Report Ex.P.11 was registered on 29.10.2002 at about 10.50 a.m. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the two accused persons namely Guruwari Bai and Padmini Bai, on the ground that their names did not find place in the F.I.R. which was lodged by an eye-witness and which contains detailed information regarding complete incident which took place on the said date. The Sessions Judge held that such an omission was fatal to the prosecution. The appellant was convicted on the evidence of the above two eye-witnesses namely Setdas (P.W.5) and Lalkumar (P.W.9) corroborated by the postmortem report (Ex.P.16) given by Dr. Gorelal Miri (P.W.6). 1 Criminal Appeal No. 803 of 2003 (3) Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that Setdas (P.W.5) and Lalkumar (P.W.9) are not reliable witnesses; therefore, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. (4) On the other hand, Mr.Ravindra Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing on behalf of the State opposed these arguments and supported the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court. (5) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records ofthe sessions case. (6) From the postmortem report (Ex.P.16) and the evidence of Dr.Gorelal Miri (P.W.6), we gather that the deceased received the following injuries : (i) Bruises 13 cm x 2 cm on the right scapula region; (ii) Bruises 21 cm x 2 cm on the right middle portion of the back ; (iii) Bruises 11 cm x 2 cm on the right pelvic portion; (iv) Bruises 7 cm x 2 cm on the posterior portion of left knee joint; (v) Lacerated wound 13 cm x 2 cm x 5 cm at the right side of the skull. (vi) Lacerated wound 4.5 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm at the right occipital portion of the skull; (vii) Lacerated wound 5 cm x 2 cm x 2.5 cm on the right occipital portion ofthe skull. (viii) Lacerated wound 3.5 cm x lcm x 2 cm on the left occipital portion of the skull. Criminal Appeal No. 803 of 2003 The autopsy surgeon proved that the injuries were antemortem and were caused by hard and blunt object. On internal examination, it was found that there was a 29cm long fracture at the skull bone prolonging from left occipital portion to right occipital portion. The bones were broken into multiple pieces and brain was seen with clotted blood present over it. Even the brain membrane was ruptured. The autopsy surgeon opined that the cause of death was syncope due to excessive haemorrhage and it was homicidal in nature. Therefore, it was established that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. (7) So far as the eye-witness account is concerned, Setdas (P.W.5) deposed "that on the date of incident at about 9 a.m., they had gone to cut the paddy crop in the fields. He was along with his mother (deceased Shanta Bai). His mother was assaulted by Krishna Das by lathi. When Krishna Das gave first blow, his mother fell down. Then he gave repeated blows to his mother on back and thigh due to which she died. Lalkumar (P.W.9) and Puni Ram Sidar were also present at the time of the incident. He reported the matter to village Kotwar and thereafter the matter was reported to the concerned Police Station under ExP. 1 1 which bears his signatures??. (8) Lalkumar Sidar (P.W.9) is another eye-witness. He had gone as a labourer to cut the paddy crop along with the deceased and Cnminal Appeal No. 803 of 2003 her son Setdas (P.W.5). He also deposed that appellant Krishna Das assaulted Shanta Bai, by lathi. He gave repeated blows on the head, back, waist and leg. Though he uttered that when Shanta Bai fell down other two co-accused persons also assaulted her with Lathi, but this part of the story was not believed by the Sessions Court on the ground that the facts in relation to assaulting the deceased by the other co-accused persons was an omission in the First Information Report. Even the names of other two co-accused persons have not been mentioned in the F.I.R. (9) The learned Sessions Judge held that the ocular version of these witnesses was corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Gorelal Miri (P.W.6) who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased and noticed above injuries. Though these witnesses have been cross examined at length by the defence but the defence has not been able to elicit any such circumstance on which either their evidence may be discarded or it may be said that they are falsely implicating the appellant in crime in question. In fact, no foundation has been laid down by the defence to discredit the credibility of these eye-witnesses whose versions were duly corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Gorelal Miri (P.W.6). (10) We also find that the appellant has examined 4 defence witnesses and has tried to build up the plea of alibi. It was tried to establish that, in fact, when appellant Krishna Das saw that the a/ Criminal Appeal No. 803 of 2003 paddy crop on which he also made claim was being cut by the victim party, he immediately went to the police station to lodge the report and thus he did not participate in commission of the alleged crime. On due appreciation of evidence of 4 defence witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge held that these witnesses were telling lies and he rejected the testimonies of these witnesses. (11) We have gone through the contents of the evidence of 4 defence witnesses. In fact, the defence tried to be made has been destroyed by the evidence of D.W.3 Jai Prakash Sidar who deposed that on the fateful day in the morning Puni Ram and Lalkumar (P.W.9) carne to his house shouting abuses and asked him that where is Krishna Das z.e., appellant, they will kill him, because he has murdered their 'Guruma' Shanta Bai. On this, he sent them back from his house. This is the version of the defence witnesses in the examination-in-chief. The simple inference which could be drawn from such deposition of this witness in the examination-in-chief would be that he also heard in the village that Shanta Bai was murdered by the appellant. In view of the above evidence of D.W.3, how a plea of alibi can succeed ? In appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution and defence witnesses, we find that the version of defence witnesses were rightly rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and he was fully justified while relying on the testimonies of two eye-witnesses for holding the appellant guilty of the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. k ^. ^ Criminal Aroeal No. 803 of 2003 (12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court. (13) The appeal has no merits. dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The same is liable to be Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Rao