Chattisgarh High CourtSamelal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Now State Of ... on 5 March, 2012Author:Sunil Kumar SinhaBench:Sunil Kumar SinhaHIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH BILASPUR         

  Criminal Appeal No 99 of 1996


  Samelal
           ...Petitioners

      Versus


  State of Madhya Pradesh Now State of Chhattisgarh 
                                                     ...Respondents

!  Mr Ravi Kumar Bhagat Advocate for the appellant

^  Mr Arvind Dubey Panel Lawyer  for the State

 CORAM: Honble Shri Rajeev Gupta CJ & Honble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha J   

 Dated: 05/03/2012

: Judgement 


                         JUDGMENT(05.03.2012)

   (Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of The Code of
                 Criminal Procedure, 1973)


         Following   judgment  of   the  Court   was
delivered   by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.(1)   This  appeal is directed against the  judgment  dated

15th of December, 1995 passed in Session Trial No. 9/93  by

the  Third  Additional  Session  Judge,  Bilaspur.  By  the

impugned judgment, the appellant has been convictedu/s 302IPC  and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and  to

pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence of R.I. for  2

years.(2)  The facts, briefly stated, are as under:-Deceased-  Sudarshan was nephew of the appellant.
     The  appellant was issueless, therefore, he  had  kept
     the  deceased as his son. On 16.7.1992, the  appellant
     assaulted the deceased by a khunta (a round  log  used
     in   bullock-cart)  on  his  head.  The  incident  was
     witnessed  by  Meera  Bai  (PW-2),  Moolchand  (PW-4),
     Dasodiya Bai (PW-5) and Kashiram (PW-9). Moolchand (PW-4)  lodged the First Information Report (F.I.R. - Ex.-P/2). Inquest (Ex.-P/9) was prepared and the dead body
     of  the  deceased was sent for post-mortem. The  post-
     mortem examination was conducted by Dr. R.D. Gupta (PW-6).  The  post-mortem report is Ex.-P/5.  The  Autopsy
     Surgeon  found multiple serious injuries on  the  dead
     body of the deceased. On internal examination, it  was
     found  that  there  were fractures on  right  maxilla,
     angle  of the jaw, right temporal and parietal bone  &
     frontal  bone. It was noticed that temporal,  parietal
     and  frontal  bones were broken into multiple  pieces.
     The  case of the prosecution was mainly based  on  the
     eye-witness  account  of above  4  witnesses,  out  of
     which,  Meera Bai (PW-2) and Kashiram (PW-9)  did  not
     support  the  case  of  the prosecution.  The  learned
     Session  Judge, relied on the testimonies of Moolchand
     (PW-4) & Dasodiya Bai (PW-5) and held that it was  the
     appellant  who  committed murder of  the  deceased  by
     giving multiple blows on his skull, therefore, he  was
     liable for punishmentu/s 302IPC.(3)   Mr.  Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel appearing  on

behalf  of the appellant, argued that Moolchand (PW-4)  and

Dasodiya  Bai  (PW-5)  are unreliable witnesses;  they  are

relative  witnesses; therefore, conviction based  on  their

testimonies cannot be sustained.(4)   On  the  other hand, Mr. Arvind Dubey, learned  Panel

Lawyer  appearing  on  behalf of the State,  opposed  these

arguments and supported the judgment passed by the  Session  

Court.(5)   We  have  heard learned counsel for  the  parties  at

length  and  have also perused the records of  the  session

case.(6)  There is no proposition of law that the testimonies of

relative  witnesses  should not  be  relied  on  and  their

evidence should be discarded out-rightly on the ground that

they were relatives of the deceased or the accused. The law

is   that   the  evidence  of  such  witnesses  should   be

scrutinized with great care and caution and after  scrutiny

of  their  evidence, if the same appear to be  trustworthy,

conviction  can  well  be based on  such  evidence  of  the

relative witnesses.(7)   Deceased- Sudarshan was maternal uncle  of  Moolchand 

(PW-4). Moolchand deposed that on the fateful day, he heard

that  the appellant was abusing the deceased. When he  came 

out  of  his house, he saw that the deceased saying to  the

appellant  "ys dkdk ekj ys ". The appellant was  holding  a

khunta.  The  appellant gave first blow to the deceased  by

khunta  on  his  skull. When the deceased  fell  down,  the

appellant  continued  to assault him  by  khunta.  He  gave

repeated blows to the deceased.(8)   Dasodiya Bai (PW-5) deposed that deceased-  Sudarshan 

was  his  maternal  uncle's  son.  Appellant-  Samelal  had

assaulted  the deceased by khunta of bullock-cart.  He  had

assaulted  him  on  skull. She herself  had  witnessed  the

assault. When the incident took place, she was sitting near

her  house.  The incident had taken place in  the  gali  of

Kashiram's house. Deceased- Sudarshan died instantaneously.  

According  to  her,  the  incident was  also  witnessed  by

Moolchand (PW-4).(9)   Dr.  R.D. Gupta (PW-6) had conducted autopsy  on  the

dead  body  of  the deceased and had noted  above  injuries

including  above fractures (multiple fractures) on  various

skull bones. He had opined that the above injuries could be

caused  by  hard,  blunt and heavy  object.  In  fact,  the

testimonies  of  above 2 eye-witnesses are corroborated  by

medical evidence of Dr. R.D. Gupta (PW-6).



(10)  The  above  2  eye-witnesses  Moolchand  (PW-4)   and

Dasodiya  Bai (PW-5) were put to lengthy cross-examinations 

by the defence, but the defence has not been able to elicit

any  such circumstances, on which, either their testimonies

may  be  discarded or it may be said that they were falsely

implicating  the appellant in crime in question.  If  these

witnesses are taken to be relatives of the deceased on  the

one hand, on the other hand, they are also relatives of the

appellant.  We have scrutinized their evidence  with  great

care  and  caution.  Their evidence inter-se   corroborates

each  other  and  it  is  further corroborated  by  medical

evidence.  The  houses  of these witnesses  are  adjacently

situated  to  the  house  of the  appellant.  The  incident

occurred at an open place at about 14.30 hours. There is no

question of mistaken identity. The incident was reported to

the  police station by Moolchand (PW4) at about 16.30 hours

on  the same day. The distance of police station is 10 Kms.

The  F.I.R.  (Ex.-P/2)  contains  all  above  details  with

particulars  of  the appellant and the  deceased.  Even  it

contains  the words spoken by deceased before  the  assault

like  "ys  dkdk ekj ys ". Moolchand (PW-4) has  proved  the

contents of the F.I.R. (Ex.-P/2).(11)  On appreciation of the entire evidence on record,  we

do  not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by  the

Session  Court that it was the appellant who assaulted  the

deceased by khunta and he was liable for punishmentu/s 302IPC.(12)  For  the  foregoing  reasons,  we  do  not  find  any

substance in this appeal. The appeal, therefore, is  liable

to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.CHIEF JUSTICE