1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.04.2015 against the appellant in Sessions Case
No.03/2015 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar, Place- Jagdalpur, C.G. convicting the appellant for commission of offence under
Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him with life imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/-, with default stipulations.
2. According to the prosecution case, on 27.11.2014 at about 07:30 P.M., the appellant assaulted the deceased- Sukra with an axe causing him various
injuries for the reason stating that the deceased was not giving land to him. The deceased suffered various injuries and died on the spot. Budhram
Kashyap (P.W.-7) saw the appellant fleeing from the spot. On the information given by Budhram Kashyap (P.W.-7), morgue intimation vide Ex.P/14
was recorded in the Police Station- Darbha. Subsequent to which, F.I.R. Ex.P/13 was also lodged against the present appellant registering the offence
under Section 302 of I.P.C. The police conducted the investigation in which inquest procedure was taken up. The postmortem was conducted on the
body of the deceased by Dr. Mahendra Prasad (P.W.-3), who opined in his postmortem report vide Ex.P/8 that the death of the deceased was
homicidal resulting from the various injuries caused to him. The appellant was interrogated and his memorandum statement Ex.P/1 was recorded. At
the instance of the appellant, an axe having blood stains on it, was seized from his possession vide Ex.P/2. The blood stained soil and plain soil were
seized from the spot vide Ex.P/3 and a blood stained gamcha was also seized from the spot vide Ex.P/7. The seized articles and the cloth of the
deceased preserved by the doctor conducting postmortem examination were sent for F.S.L. Examination, report has been submitted by vide Ex.P/22.
The statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants.
3. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C. The appellant denied the charge and pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution examined 08 witnesses. The appellant/accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating
evidence against him, expressed his ignorance about the prosecution, again he made a statement of being not guilty and that he has been falsely
implicated. No witness was examined in defence. The learned trial Court after giving opportunity of hearing to the prosecution and defense has passed
the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the appellant as mentioned here-in-above.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction against the appellant is erroneous as there had been no evidence of
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Budhram Kashyap (P.W.-7) was though examined as eye witness, but he has made admission in his cross-
examination that he had not seen appellant inflicting injury on the deceased. The witness of extra-judicial confession Mahadeo Nag (P.W.-1) has
made statement in support of prosecution in examination in Chief, but in cross-examination, he has stated that the appellant made a statement that he
does not know as to who has killed the deceased. Therefore, this evidence was not sufficient to inspire any confidence. Hence, the conviction against
the appellant is not sustainable. Therefore, It is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of charge.
5. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The statement of
Budhram Kashyap (P.W.-7) is relevant, as this witness has stated that he saw the appellant, who had in his hands one axe, present on the spot and
fleeing immediately, thereafter, the deceased was found in dead condition, having various injuries on his body. The admission made by Mahadeo Nag
(P.W.-1), in cross-examination has been further clarified in the cross-examination and in the examinatino by Court itself, that initially, the appellant
denied having killed the deceased, but later on he admitted and made statement that he had killed the deceased because of land dispute. Therefore,
this evidence is sufficient to inspire confidence, hence, the conviction against the appellant is sustainable. The appeal is not fit to be allowed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the documents present on record.
7. Considered on the submissions. Clearly this case is not based on the evidence of any eye witness, therefore, the scrutiny has to be made as to
whether the circumstances have been established by the prosecution or not.
8. Budhram Kashyap (P.W.-7) is the key witness of this case, who has stated that he was arriving home, he saw the appellant inflicting injuries on the
deceased with an axe. Seeing the witness, the appellant fled from the spot and by that time, the deceased had died. This witness has lodged the F.I.R.
(Ex.P/13) and the morgue intimation (Ex.P/14). In cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not see the appellant inflicting injuries on the
deceased, however, he saw the appellant running away from the spot and he was carrying an axe. The adverse suggestions given have been denied.
This witness has admitted that earlier, there was no complaint made to any forum regarding dispute of land and his statement regarding seeing the
appellant present on the spot and carrying an axe and fleeing away is an unrebutted statement.
9. There is no other eye witness. Mahadeo Nag (P.W.-1) has stated that a Panchayat meeting was held, in which the appellant by himself made a
statement that the deceased was not giving his share in the land because of which, he has murdered him. It was subsequent to this, the appellant was
handed over to the police. In cross-examination, he has made admission to one suggestion that the appellant made a statement that he does not know,
who has killed the deceased, but later on in the cross-examination itself, he has made a clarificatory statement that appellant had stated that deceased
was elder brother of his father, who was not giving the share from the ancestral land for construction of house because of which he has killed him.
The Court also has separately put questions to this witness, who then answered that initially the appellant denied killing the deceased but later on, he
made statement before the Panchayat that he had killed the deceased because of the land dispute.
10. A.S.I. Ramdev Sethia (P.W.-2) has made some investigation and recorded the memorandum statement of the appellant vide Ex.P/1, which has
been supported by Mahadeo Nag (P.W.-1). He has stated that at the instance of appellant and from his possession, an axe was recovered and seized
from his house. The axe had blood stains present on it, seizure of this axe was made vide Ex.P/2, this has also been supported by Mahadeo Nag
(P.W.-1). The statement of A.S.I. Ramdev Sethia (P.W.-2) has remained unrebutted in his cross examination.
11. Sub-Inspector, Durgesh Sharma (P.W.-8) has conducted the rest of the investigation.
12. Dr. Mahendra Prasad (P.W.-3) conducted the Postmortem examination of the deceased and stated about finding injuries as follows:-
• External Injuries on the body:-
1. One lacerated wound of size 8x3 cm. muscle deep was found on the right side of the neck, which was caused by some sharp object.
2. One lacerated wound of size 3x2 cm. having skin depth on the cheek of the deceased.
3. Swelling of size 6x4 cm. Was found on the left parietal region of the deceased.
• On internal examination:-
1. There was blood clot in the left parietal region of size 5x3 cm.
2. Trachea was traumatized and broken.
13. In his report Ex.P/8, he has opined that injuries caused to the deceased were ante-mortem in nature, caused by blunt object as well as sharp object
and the death of the deceased was homicidal. This witness also examined the axe, which was seized from the appellant vide Ex.P/2. Vide Ex.P/9, this
witness has described the dimensions of the axe and the blood stains present on it and advised for F.S.L. examination of the blood stains present on
the Gamcha of the deceased and the blood stained axe. There is no such statement present in the cross-examination, on the basis of which it can be
held, that the statement of witness in examination-in-chief has been rebutted. The blood stained articles were sent for F.S.L. examination regarding
which the F.S.L. report Ex.P/22 was received. This report mentions that the stains present on the axe seized from the appellant and the stains present
on the Gamcha of the deceased, are the blood stains.
14. There is no need to consider on the rest of the evidence. On making appreciation of the evidence present in the record and also considering the
reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment, we are of the view that the chain of circumstances in this case has been
completely proved by the prosecution. There is evidence regarding motive of the appellant to cause death of the deceased. There is evidence
regarding the presence of the appellant on the spot of incident, where the deceased was inflicted fatal injuries and his death was caused. The appellant
was seen carrying axe by Budhram Kashyap (P.W.-7) and fleeing from the spot. Later on, the axe has been seized from the possession of the
appellant at his instance. Further, the F.S.L. report Ex.P/22 also confirms presence of blood stains on the axe and also on the cloth of the deceased.
Therefore, the circumstances point the finger only against the appellant and there is no other defence raised or parallel story brought forth for
consideration that the incidence of death of the deceased may be having a different story. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and learned trial Court has not committed any error in convicting and sentencing the
appellant. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.
15. Hence, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial Court, this appeal is dismissed and disposed off.
