Duldula.District Jashpur (C.G.) vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mr. F.S. Khare, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has argued that the eye-witnesses were not reliable; Rajesh Lakra (PW-1) has deposed that he had not witnessed the actual assault, therefore, the prosecution story becomes doubtful.Alternatively, he has argued that since the deceased was not sending the wife of the appellant, therefore, the appellant had assaulted the deceased and there was no intehtion of the appellant to commit murder of the deceased. ~-% -(•i;'s» % '"s^;---^ v'Jf Criminal Appeal No. 533 of 2006 .?~'^:: \ (4) On the other hand, Mr. Anant Bajpai, Panel Lawyer appearing oh behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. \ (5) We have heard couns'el for the parties at tength and have also perused the records of the sessions case. (6) Rajesh Lakra (PW-1) was Village Sarpanch. He deposed that on the fateful day at about 8.30 a.l|i. the villagers, induding the deceased and his family members, were offering prayer in the Christian graveyard in the village. When the deceased was busy in prayer, the appellant came there with a tangia and assaulted the deceased by tangia. In cross- examination, headmitted thatthe deceased was standing behindhim while offering the prayer, therefore, he could not see the actual assault made tothe deceased. However, as soon as the assault was made, he found that the deceased was lying in the graveyard having sustained serious injuries and many persons were saying that he was assaulted by the appellant. (7) Ku. Usha'Ekka (PW-2) is daughter of the deceased. She has deposed that on the fateful day, she had gone to the Christian graveyard along with her family members to offer prayer. They all were busy in prayer. She was present along with her father (deceased) and other family members. They were al^o offering prayer. She saw that appellant came there with a tangia in h,te hands, He came to them and assaulted over the right temporal regioh of her father. He had given three tangia blows on the skull of her father. Her father became injured and he fell dpwn at the place of occurrence. They tried to catch the appellant, but S!-S3S^V.i'.. ;Jfc; (l !>*JEy<^'. -' Stl s Criminal ApuealNo. 533 of 2006 he ran away. Her father died instantaneously. Her sister- Sangeeta and brother- Milkin were also present there. \ (8) Ku. Usha Ekka (PW-2) admitted in cross-examination that appellant had driven out her elder sister- Liligrace (appellant's wife) from his house one day prior to fhe incident. She dehied the suggestion that she could not see the incident as she was busy in offering her prayer by closing the eyes. Except the abd^ve, nothing material could be brought in her cross-examination. (9) Barnabas Khakha (PW-3) was a villager. He was also offering prayer with the deceased and other villagers. He also deposed that the appellant came there with a tangia and assaulted the deceased by the tangia. The deceased fell down and had died. The villagers had suggested Rajesh Lakra (PW-1) to go and lodge the report. (10) In appreciation of evidence of above witnesses, we find that it was proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the appellant came to the place of occurrence with a tangia in his hands and assaulted the deceased by, the said tangia. The above evidence of the said eye-witnesses was dully corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Vipin Kumar Indwar (PW-5), who had conducted the autopsy on the dead body ofthe deceased and found above injuries. Therefore, it was proved that the appellant had assaulted the deceased by a tangia who sustained above injuries and succumbed to those injuries. ..<' (11) So far as second argument of Mr. Khare is concerned.we note that it was not a case in which the incident took place after some quarrel. In the tnstant case, the deceased and his family members wereoffering prayer in the graveyard of.thevillage. Other villagers were also present :.^ / if"'^.^^ 1 1 ^%"f . ;":;'s'*f?''S^ Crimmal Anceal No. 533 of 2006 •^ there. The appellant came there with a tangia and gave repeated tangia blows on the skull of the deceased who was busy in offering the prayer by closing his eyes. This s'hows that \ the appellant had come to the graveyard with an intention to commit murder of the deceased and he, withoutsaying anything to the deceased, attacked over him andcaused above injuries. This shows that the act of the appellant was preplanned and nothing had happened all qf a sudden. Offering repeated blows by ,tR the appellant also shows h1.s' intention. The deceased had died instantaneously. We. are of the view that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Sessions Judge was fully justified in convicting the appellant u/s 302 IPC. (12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal filed by the appellant, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismjssed. Sd/- SunilKumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.S.Sharma Judge