Point of Law: Under Section 299 of IPC, homicide becomes culpable when a human being terminates life of another in a blameworthy manner.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned judgment dated 30/10/2010 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 77/2010 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :-

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12/01/2010 at about 09:30 PM at village Machkhanda, P.S. Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur, the appellant herein, with the intention of causing death of one Chhatlal and stealing his mobile and motorcycle, strangulated him and caused his death and thereafter, in order to screen himself from the offence, he burnt the clothes of the deceased near Karma School and threw his dead body in a field in village Machkhanda and thereby, committed the aforesaid offences.

3. Further case of the prosecution is that on 11/01/2010, deceased Chhatlal went outside his house for a ride on his motorcycle and thereafter, he did not return to his house. On 15/01/2010, Amar Singh Maravi (P.W.-4) informed at the Police Station that a dead body of an unknown person is lying in open at village Machkhanda and on that basis, merg intimation was registered vide Ex. P/8 and the Police, after reaching the spot, conducted inquest vide Ex. P/5 and thereafter, on the recommendation of the Panchas, in order to ascertain the cause of death, the dead body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. R.S. Maravi (P.W.-1) and as per the postmortem report (Ex. P/1), cause of death is said to be cardiorespiratory arrest, however, nothing about the nature of death has been stated in the postmortem report. Thereafter, vide Ex. P/6, a pair of slippers lying near the dead body of the deceased were seized and from the hands of the deceased, one bracelet and one ring were also seized vide Ex. P/7. In the presence of the witnesses, identification was conducted vide Ex. P/3 and the dead body was identified to be that of the deceased Chhatlal Kaiwartya. On 18/02/2010, the memorandum statement of appellant was recorded vide Ex. P/14 and on that basis, one Hero Honda motorcycle owned by the deceased, one mobile phone owned by the deceased as well as one motorcycle dikki (storage box) was seized at his instance vide Ex. P/15. Purusant thereof, first information report was registered against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302, 397 and 201 of IPC vide Ex. P/24 and he was arrested vide Ex. P/18. After due investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 397 and 201 of IPC which was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur which was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. The appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence.

4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents on record. The statement of the appellant/accused was recorded wherein he denied guilt and exhibited 3 documents, however, he did not examine any witness.

5. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302, 397 and 201 of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.

6. Mr. Dheerendhra Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, would make the following submissions :-

i) that, prosecution has failed to prove the death of deceased to be homicidal in natur