1. Since we are already hearing the main Criminal Appeal, I.A. No.9012 of 2023 Â is dismissed as infructuous.
 Heard the parties.
2. The sole appellant is before this Court in appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed under Section 302 of the IPC.
3. Informant of the case is Chowkidar on whose fardbeyan Kanke P.S. Case No.153/14 was registered under Section 302 of the IPC against the
appellant.
4. As per the FIR, the informant was on patrolling duty in his beat area at 18.00 hours. At around 19.30 hours, when he reached near the brick kiln of
Dilip Kumar Sahu, he saw that the appellant was assaulting an unknown person with brick. On Hulla, villagers gathered there and with their help,
appellant was apprehended. It was disclosed by the appellant that the unknown deceased had assaulted him and therefore, he committed his murder.
In the meantime, police came and the appellant was handed over to the police. The dead body of unidentified person with marks of injury was
recovered from the place of occurrence.
5. Police on investigation, submitted charge sheet and the accused was put on trial for offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
6. Altogether 15 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and relevant documents were adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit 1
â€" 11. The blood-stained T-shirt of the accused was sent for chemical examination and in the FSL report (Exhibit 10/1), human blood was found on
it.
7. Learned trial Court convicted the appellant as he was apprehended at the place of occurrence and P.W. 3 who was a direct eye witness to the
incidence, supported the prosecution case which is further corroborated by P.W. 7.
8. Judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed on the ground that there are material contradictions in the testimony of the informant who
has deposed in para 5 that he was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of incidence and in para 6, has deposed that he did not know the
deceased and the assailant. It is also argued that P.W. 3 has stated in para 9 that he had not read the content of the fardbeyan and had merely signed
over it. Out of the 15 witnesses examined, P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 12 have not supported the prosecution case and were declared
hostile.
9. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence. It is argued that appellant was caught at the place of occurrence by P.W. 3
with assistance of the villagers. P.W. 3 in the cross-examination at para 8 has specifically stated that he had seen the incidence himself. With regard
to his deposition in para 5, it is argued that the testimony of the witness has to be looked into in its totality. P.W. 3 both in examination-in-chief as well
in his cross-examination has stated that he was an eye witness to the incidence.
10. Homicidal death of the deceased duly proved by the Doctor (P.W. 8) is not in doubt and has not been assailed in appeal. P.W. 8 is the Doctor who
has proved the post-mortem examination report (Exhibit 4). Autopsy Surgeon found the following injuries on the dead body: -
Abrasion
i. 6 cm x 2 cm left arm lateral side lower part.
ii. 15 cm x 10 cm front of left chest lower part adjoining front of left abdomen upper part
iii. 5 cm x 4 cm frontal medial left knee.
iv. 10 cm x 4 cm right arm lateral side upper part.
v. 9 cm x 4 cm back of right forearm upper part.
vi. 8 cm x 2 cm right iliac region.
vii. 13 cm x 10 cm front lateral right thigh.
Ligature mark: - 9 cm x 4 cm fronto lateral left neck upper part.
Lacerated wound: - There is burst fracture of skull, cranial and facial bone broken into pieces, lacerating the soft tissue, durameter and brain is
completely out of the cranial cavity.
Doctor opined that injuries were ante-mortem in nature and death was caused due to these injuries by hard and blunt substance.
11. The incidence took place near the brick kiln, has been established by ocular evidence of P.W. 3, P.W. 7 (the owner ofÂ
brick kiln) and corroborated by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 9). Blood-stained soil was collected by the Investigating Officer and seizure
list was prepared which has been proved and marked as Exhibit 9/1.
12. Appellant was apprehended from the place of occurrence, has been testified by P.W. 3, P.W. 5 and P.W. 7. After the arrest, T-shirt with blood-
stained mark of the accused was also seized (Exhibit 9) and was forwarded for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Report of
the FSL was received and marked as Exbibit 10/1 from which it is evident that DNA profile generated from each of the source of blood-stained hair
in the brick and the blood-stained T-shirt of the appellant were from one and the same human male source of origin.
13. Appreciation of evidence in any case is to be made against the backdrop of overall facts and circumstance unique to it. In the present case, when
oral evidence regarding the place of occurrence, arrest of the appellant on spot immediately after the incidence, there cannot be any doubt regarding
the veracity of account as given by the informant (P.W. 3), who has stated that he witnessed the incidence in which the deceased was battered by
brick by the appellant. His testimony is duly corroborated by P.W. 7 who is the owner of the brick kiln and arrived at the place of occurrence. The
immediate arrest of the appellant from the place of occurrence, seizure of his blood-stained T-shirt and matching of DNA profile of the blood-stained
samples with the hair of the deceased establishes the prosecution case beyond any shadow of doubt.
We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence.
Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment.
