.^s?% ,—Si^% ,^Syr .^ %, ^./ /^~ ":^^^&^ ® CrjmsnQi N©.507©f_^005 Dlvisjon Bench: Coram: HON'BLE ,iAR. T.P, SHARMA & HON'BLE MK. R.N.CHAN&^^R, JJ. V3. RESPONDENT Ramesh @ Munnu, S/o Dajtarl Sidar, Aged 35 years occupatlon Labour,' R/o Vjilage AAahapaii, P.S. S^ria Distt,Raigarh (C.&) The 5tate of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Saria Dlstrict ftaigarh (C.^.) (CRIMINAL APPEAL UNbER SECTtON 374 (2) GF THE CO&E OF CMMINAL PROCEDUfeE, 1973) tDres€nt:- Mr.C.ft.Sahu, counsel for Ifie appelbnt. Mr.Ashish Shukb, ^ovemment Advocate for the State. OR^L J-UD^ENT (Passeci on 23rd October, 2010) !• Challenge- in thJs appeal js to ifie judgment of conyjction & order of sentence dated 5.3.2005 passed by the 4 Aciditiorsal Ss-ssions Judge (F<T.C.), Ralgarh, In Sesslons Trial No,162/2004 ^hereby and whereursder learned 4th Additional Sesslons Judg®aftsr hoiding Itie Qppeiiant guiity for commission of cuipabie homlcide of ChameSi Bai (since decea^d) amountlng to murde-r convlcted hirri under Sectlon 3Q2 of Ifie Indian Pena! Code cmd sentenced to undergo irriprjsonment for iife.and to pay a flrse of Rs,100/-, in defauit 'of payment of fine to further undergo ngorous Imprlsonment for one month. 2. Convictlon is itrtpugned on the ground that without any iota of clinching and credible evidence, the trlal Court has corivicted and sentenced th@ appeilant as aforementioned and thereby committed jilegallt/. Q) .3. Casc of the prosecutlon, Jn brief, is that on the fatefu! day .of 4A.2004 at about 5 p.m, deceased Chanieii Bai was sleepjng l.n her coat in her house, the appeliarrt came from his room/he was hoSding axe and caused repeated ejght injurjes over the body of Chamell Bal and aiused her death. Rambl (P¥^-l), brother of the q)pellant . was pr-esent, 'he 'lmmedsately went to the Po.lice Statlon and lodged merg vide Ex.P/1 wid FJ.R. vide Ex.P/2* Investjyatlng officer proceeded for the scene of occurrence anci after suinmonlng the witnesses vide Ex.P/3, inquest over dead body of Chamell Bai was prepared vlcia ExP/3A. Spot map was prepared by investlgating offlcer vide Ex,P/4. Dead body' of ,the deceased was sent 'for autopsy to l4ie 6fovernment HospltaJ, Baramkesa vid©EX.P/15A. Dr.^ovind Sahu (PW-1G) conducted Gutopsy over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P/lS.and found foSbwirjg injuries:- i) Incls^d wound of 8 cm. x 2 cm. x 1 i cm. over right of ^e neck. li) Incised wound of 2 i cm. x i cm, x skin deep over fight shouSder, iii) Incjsed wound of 3 cm- x 1 cm. x skin deep over clavicie bone. Iv) Incised woyncl of 2 i cm. x. i cm. x over Jeft of the neck. v) Incised wovnd of 2 cm, x i cm. x skln ov^r teft shauider, vi) Incised woyrscl 2 cm, x i cm. x sklrs over left shoulder. vii) SweJJing of 6 cm< x 4 cm* over left arnni. viii) Swelilng of 4 cm. x 3 cm< over rlght wrSst. ix) Ineised wound of 3 i cm. x i cm. over back side of the neck. x) Incised woynd of 10 cm. x 3 cm. ! i cm. over the vertriba! coiumn. xi) Incised wound of 2 cm. x T cm. x skin deep on -tfie back side of the right shoulder. xii) Left humorous upper third part and fracture of r'ight radius arsd uina. xiii) Arter/ (cartld) and vein on the right side of the neck were cut. &eath was homicidal in nature. Patwars also pr-epared spot map vide Ex?/6A. 'Axe was selzed from the accused vide Ex.P/10. BSoodstalned and plain soil were seized from the spot vide Ex-P/11, Bbodstained iyngi was saized vide Ex.P/12. Seated cbthes of the deceasect ware seized yide ExP/14. Axe was examined by the doctor vide Ex,P/16, Seized articlcs were sent for chemicaS examination vide Ex.P/18. 4. Statements of tlie wllnesses were recorded under Sectlore 161 of the CrP.C. and after comptetion of Investlgation, charge sheet was filed sn the Court of Judiciol Magistrate First Ctass, Sarangarh, who in tdrrs corrimitted 1+iie case to the Court of Sessions, Raigarh, from where the 4 Additjonai S^ssions Juage (F-T.C.), Raigarh received tiie case on transfer for triai. 5- In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appejlant, the prosecution has examsned as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appeliant was also recorded under Section 313 of 1fie CrP,C. where he denied the ciff^cumstances appearing a9ainst h$m and ciaimed innocence arsd faSse smplication in the crime in question. 6. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, ths 4 Additionai Sessions Judge (F»TC,), Raigarh has convicted and sentenoBd the appeliarst as aforemcntioned* Z We have heard tearned couns^j for the parties, perused the Judgment impugned and record of the triaj Court. 8, Learned coursse! for the appeliant submits that as per evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused was not irientally normal arsd was mentaSly abnormal arid was rsot able to understand what is good and what is bad, what ss rlght and what ss wrong. ,r*-'% ^S,..._,-<"^T^>, },'./: 11 '^^-\y^ •\ ' "--'' ^ ^^''././ "^^s^"' ^ 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the jydgment impugned csnd submits that in case of mentatiy insanity, tiie appeitent required to take specifsc defence orsd prove iTiat at itse time of commission of the offersce, he was insane and not in a position to understG^id what §sgood and what is bad, what is right and what is wrorsg, but In the pre^.nt case, the appeiiant has not proved such fact- In the absen<^ of such evidence, 1fie appeliant is not entitled for- protection under Section 84 of the I.P.C< lOoIn order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the partles, we have exairsined the avldence adduced on behalf of the partles. 11. In Irtie present axse, homicsdaS dcatii of decea^d Chamcij Bai as a resuit of fatal jnjurses has not been substantjaliy di^uted ora behaif of Ifie appeliant, on the other hcxnd, also establjshed by the evidence of br^ovind Sahu (PW-10) and outopsy report Ex*P/15 1iiat death was homicidaS m nature. 12.As regards the compiicity of ttiie accused/appeibnt in the crime in question, the prosecutson has examined RamJa! (PW-1), who was present at the tlme of incident who has categorically deposed lliat Ifie pre^rat appeilant has causad repeated injuries to Charrielj Bai by axe who was sSeeping in her coat. His evidence is weSI supported by the evidence of BocShram Sidar (PW-5), son of the present wltness. Bodhram Sidar (PW-5) is a child witness. After satisfying itself that the present witness is able to answer the questions put to hlm, ttie triaj Court has examined him. Both the witness^s haye CAXtegoricclly deposed that the present appeiSarit is the person who has cau^d repeated injuries to his wife, aSthou9h witnesses have admitted in their cress-examinations tftat sometime the appejlant became insane, even four days prior to the marriage of Ramlal (PW-i). 13. The appeiSant was insane. In llie preserst ca^, defersce has not examined any doctor in support of cteim to prove Snsanity of the cxppeibnt in terms ^^-•..-.^' ^ of Section 84 of the I.P.C. Tne appeiiant was under obligatjon to prove such exception m terrris of Sectjon 105 of the I?,C^ but the present ' appellcnt does not adduce any medical evjdence or evidence tiiat at the time of comiTiissiors of Inclderst, he wcis insarie. In 1+ie absence of such evidence, it is dlfficult to hold-that-the appeliant has committ'ed the aforesald offence m the state of insan.ity. 14.After appreciatirtg the evidance avaiiabie on racord, Isarned 4 Additionai Sessions Judge (F<T-C.), Raigarh has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementSoned. 15. Ors ciose scrutiny of the evidence, Vs^e do rsot find arsy illegalit/ m the judgment impugned warranting any interference. Consequently, the appeai being of merit is jiable to be djsmsssed arad it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge