Chaituram Kamar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 369 Chatt

                                                              Page 1 of 5
                                                                 NAFR

        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                        CRA No. 1198 of 2013

     Chaituram Kamar S/o Maniram Kamar Aged About 45 Years R/o
     Village Pidi, Ps Tumgaon, Civil And Rev. Distt. Mahasamund C.G.
     , Chhattisgarh

                                                        ---- Appellant

                               Versus

     State of Chhattisgarh through Distt. Magistrate, Mahasamund,
     Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

                                                       ---- Respondent



    For Appellant           : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate

     For Respondent/State : Mr. Avinash Singh, P.L.


             Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
            Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
                        Judgment on Board
                            18/01/2023

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1) This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the CrPC is

directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order

of sentence dated 29.11.2013 delivered by learned Sessions

Judge, Mahasamund, District: Mahasamund (C.G.) in Sessions

Trial No. 21/2013 whereby the appellant has been convicted and

sentenced as under:-

Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 3 months.

2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.11.2012 at about

12:00 A.M., the deceased namely Kumar was watching T.V. at the

house of Dev Singh, at that time, the appellant came there and

assaulted the deceased with the help of arrow and bow and then

the victim ran towards his house and thereafter came back to the

house of Dev Singh and died. Thereafter, the matter was reported

by Narayan Prasad (PW-1) to Bharati Markam, I.O. (PW-8) vide

Exhibit-P/1. Panchnama was conducted vide Exhibit-P/15. Dead

body of the deceased was sent for autopsy vide Exhibit-P/11.

Pursuant to memorandum statement of appellant, the blood stain

arrow was seized vide Exhibit-P/4 and P/5 and it was sent for

chemical examination to the FSL.

3) After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC before the

jurisdictional criminal Court and it was committed to the trial Court

for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which

appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by

stating that he has not committed the offence.

4) In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as

many as 8 witnesses and brought into record 21 documents

(Exhibits-P-1 to 21). The defence has examined none and not

exhibited any document.

5) The trial Court, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence

on record, convicted the appellant/accused and awarded

sentence as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal

has been preferred by him questioning the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence.

6) Learned counsel for the appellant/accused, would submit that the

trial Court without appreciating the overall evidence available on

record has wrongly convicted the appellant by the impugned

judgment. The eye witness PW-3 is not reliable and trustworthy.

Therefore, conviction recorded by the trial Court is liable to be

set-aside.

7) Learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment

and submits that trial Court after due appreciation of the entire

oral and documentary evidence available on record has rightly

convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment

which needs no interference by this Court.

8) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their

rival submissions made herein-above and went through the

records with utmost circumspection.

9) The first question for consideration would be, whether the death

of the deceased was homicidal in nature which has been

answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the

postmortem report (Ex.P/11), proved by Dr. Arvind Kumar Gupta

(PW/5). In our view, the finding recorded by the trial Court is a

finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither

perverse nor contrary to the record and we hereby, affirm the said

finding.

10) Next question would be whether the appellant is author of the

crime, which has been held by the trial Court in affirmative relying

upon the statement of Dev Singh (PW/3), who is the eye witness

and the evidence of Chandabai (PW/4), wife of deceased. As per

the statement of Dev Singh (PW-3) S/o Tolaram on the date of

offence he and deceased-Kumar were watching T.V. in his house

and thereafter, the appellant-herein came there with bow and arrow

and gave arrow blow to deceased-Kumar by which he suffered

grievous injury. Thereafter, deceased-Kumar had gone towards his

house, adjoining to the house of Dev Singh (PW/3), and after some

time he came back to the house of Dev Singh (PW/3) and fell down

unconsciously and died. Though, Dev Singh (PW/3) turned hostile,

but he has clearly seen the incident and he is the eye witness.

Chandabai (PW/4), wife of the deceased, has also stated that

deceased-Kumar had gone to the house of Dev Singh (PW/3) S/o

Tolaram where he was assaulted by the appellant herein by arrow

blow by which he suffered grievous injury and died. As such, it is

quite established that Dev Singh (PW/3) is the eye witness and he

has seen the appellant assaulting deceased-Kumar by arrow blow

by which he suffered grievous injury and died. In the cross-

examination of Dev Singh(PW/3) nothing has been brought out to

hold that he is not eye witness. Further pursuant to the

memorandum statement of the appellant-herein, though arrow

has been seized from the courtyard of the house of the deceased

and bow has been seized from the house of the appellant. The

said seized bow and arrow were sent to FSL examination along

with other seized articles and pursuant to FSL report dated

28.02.2013, vide Exhibit-P/21, in the soil, arrow, banyan,

Kameez, Lungi of the deceased, human blood was found. As

such, it has been established that the arrow was used as the

weapon of the offence by the appellant and the incident has been

witnessed by Dev Singh (PW-3) S/o Tolaram. Therefore, we are of

the opinion that it is the appellant who has committed the offence

by causing arrow blow/injury to the deceased. As such, the trial

Court is absolutely justified in convicting the appellant for offence

under Section 302 of the IPC.

11)Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the

same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.

                Sd/-                                         Sd/-
       (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                         (Radhakishan Agrawal)
           Judge                                         Judge
Saurabh/Ankit