te& iMS (^ °\~ .') a^' 1 y; ^' ..\^" <-,' ^ ^ allrttadby the High Coyrt Ltjal Services Committse" yiwaoBfcndP^Lrenna;^ •t. .-I";\ 18 THE HI(2t GOURT QF J'BBICAIURB AT J&BALPWR (M<P.) E3W CRm.ABPEMi Ko.' APPELIiftNT- C-J^t JA3LJ Vs- RESPONDBiT. _OE' 1999 ~\^\T <"" _ ^" . .- ^ Warasa Dewa g/o Sanda Mariya, aged alaout 27 yrs, r/o Mosalaar .Khal^ara, P»S«Siansa tDist-b-Dantewada, Bastar(MP). State of Madhya Pradesh CRIMINM.APPEM.__UNBSt SECTIQN 374(2) OF THE CRIMINAI, PROCEDURE_CODE .' _ffQMT*'*- ^-itKiv^a^ •^"-1- ":; •.•'-\ XI-HC-22 ® 3^r •^MW^, ^•S\ww, ^v\wy. 3TT^7T CR^ HTRWI 9itll^i^:i^c?!^^ V^ 200 f^s •3u^r?Er feraiSll^T Sh*li'»(rf?cT Sh*11'» 3n^T5THTWHf?(T »i<<fi-i41-iWRff ff fs^Q rfSi%re ^Tsrf^irgn^T &IVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. L.C. BHAbOO & HON'BLE M!S,V.K^SHftIVASTAVA.JJ Mr. Jitendra Supta, Advocat; Mr. U.N.S. &eo, Additional Panel Lawyer for the State. for the appellant. Pijiblic Prosecutor with Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Mbso, Orsl judgment dictated on tfpis. L.C. Bhodoo, J This appeal is directed agair^st of sentence dated 22.6.1999 pas| Judge, Jogdalpur in Sessions Tria Sessions Judge cfter holding the mur'der of h\s wife nomely Var-sa the I.P.C, sentenced to undergo im^risi Rs.5,CXX)/-, in default of payment year'. The proaecution case, in bri| about 8.00 p.m. when Smt. Mas^ accused/appellant Vaarsa t)eva, whc^ bow & wrow and shot arrow on pierced insida her body and punctuf mother of Maso, reported the ma^ter same day at 23.15 hrs, on which igair^st the judgment of conviction and order ied by learned 3 Additional Sessions No.35/99, whereby learned Additional accused/appeiliant guitty for committing i, eonvicted him under Section 302 of imtsrisonment for life and to pay a fine of ^f fine to further undergo R.I. far one •i^f, is that in the ni9ht of 16.12.1998 Qt was with her mother in her house, is the husband of Smt. Moso, eame with AAo^s, which hit on ths left side of her back, ped the heart & lung. PW-2 Teiami Bijjo, in the Police Station Bhansi on the Station House Officer registered the tHe /iftAsrfiaA\. XI-HC-22 3;^';^[TqT^f2r, CTTfly'16, [sldiy1}'!, ^T^ach KltKtTsnHlfi -•-•-•••••••••••"•/•• g^ 200 f=l()^, Sfl^T^iT f^iraan^T sw»Rgf?(T an^rs^BTWgfsH ?>rafeft^ wRTt-'^'tec^ rfSresR ^srf^rrsn^T case under Section 307 of the IP Heatth Centre, Kiranudul where 01 12.30 p.m. Mdso succumbed to the 9) waa sent to the Police Stati intimotion the offence was convei Investi9ating Officer ieft for th. (Ex.P-10) of the dead body of who conducted the pstmortem 4, postmortem report Ex.P-8, SB fou side of back on upper lobe II papt death was due to excessive bleedin^ cardio respiratory arrest and accused/appellant while in policj regarding bow & orrows and in pur^ intQ possession under Ex.P-2. Sit^ waa prepored by the Investi9atin9 After comoletion of investii accused/appettont in 'the Cour-t bantewada, who in turn committ4 Ja9dalpur from where !earned 3( received the case on tr-ansfer for i The or'osecution in order] accussd/appellont examined sever) :. Mcso was taken to the Mini Primar^ the next dsy i.e. 17.12.1998 at about i^juries, on which a merg intimation (Ex.P- >n Kiranduf. After receiving the mer'g 1'ted into Section 302 of the IPC, the hospitai and prepared the Panchnama dec^ased Maso. &r. K.L. Suryavanshi (PW-6), the body of Maso and prepared the |d that there was a stsb injury in the laft From posterior surfoce and in his opinion and injury to lun9 Aheart, which lead to nature of death was homicidal. The eustody gaye memorandum (Ex.P-1) iuance of thst bow & arrows were taken plan (Ex.P-5) of the place of occurrence Officer. itiona! Spssion" 'Jiii^y rrr.iw |ation, char9e sheet wcs filed against the of learned Chief Judicial AAa9istrate, ;d the case to learned Sessions Judge, Additionai Sessions Judge, Ja9dalpur- riol. to establish the offence aqoinst the witnesses. On the other hand, learned led the s+atement of accused/qggellant -£^i^l_. €b XI-HC-22 3^ '<<i<i|ici.i|, aTdu'is, Rji-iiyy 3TI^?T tra^i *<mwi ai*ii<»^&w.l^ f^% 200 an^T^r RFTWSTI^T Sh*li<ti g1?(T 9Wf> STT^T ?^<TIW flfgtT <tii<i[ti<fl»i*ii*<CTVir'te^)'<rsit<i< ^arf^lTSII^T under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in agoinst him in the pr'oseeution evid4"ce has been falsely implicated in the cr Learned Additiona! Sessionsl learned Additional Public Prasewtdr convicted A sentenced the accused i| Even thouah in this case appointed counsel on behalf of thf L^al A\d Committe®,but he did no1 Advocate was appointed by the Coui)' appeal and accordingiy, we hwe hea('d Advocate for aceused/appellant Prosecutor with AAr. Chandel P.L. forl which he denied the material oppeorina and stated that he is innocent and ime. Judge after hear'ing the arguments of ond learned counsel for the sccused, i the manner as mentioned above. ^ Mr. Ratindra Mishra, Advocate was i accused/appellont by the High Court appear, therefore, Mf. Jitendrs (?upta, •t on behalf of the csccused to or'gue the the orguments of Mr. Jitendra ©upto, Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Additional Public the State. dnd Learned counse! for the homicidal death of Maso. Apart Bijjo, mother of deceased, who wr medical evidence of &r. K.L. postmortem and prepared the that the death of dsceased wos As for as the involvement of ac in questjon is concerned, PW-2 1 cateqor'ically stated in her evidence her residence and Maso was standi; qutir-fet uui-i-h AAaso -therefors she a^cused/appellant has not disputed the fHom the ocular evidence of PW-2 Telomi nessed the crime, from perusal of the Su^avanshi (PW-6), who conducted the posti^or'tern report (ex.P-8), it is established honlicidal in nature. t:used/appellant in committing the crime felami Bijjo, mother of deceased, has that at the time of incident, she wos at )ig near- the window. Aa accused used to bihought her bock to her residence. On the -IL -\ r^ 'i. XI-HC-22 75T '<<l<llc|t|, OTfltl'ls, [sfdiyy 3TT^?T45|ctl *111MISh*1|ch^.^.^MSSM^ 200 f^% Sn^T^iT f^TRISTT^T sh*1 gf5(T sh*11<ti STI^T ?T<TTW flf??T Ma4o fatefu] day, in the evening when come with bow & arrow snd shot on left side of her back, pierced started oozing out of it. She inforified lodged the report (Ex.P-3) in the po i that she saui 'in the light of burninV arrow on her daughter ran away witfi evidencs stands corroborated by thj stated that on the fateful day in away towards the forest carrying 'Jfow near the house of Telami Bijjo, whe|n he went to the house of Telami Wj^p of Msso. In the cross-examinatif?n, incorrect to say that he was not saw him from a distance of 100 metifcrs. used to quar-rel and beat deceasep mother's house. The evidence of the postmort-em report (Ex.P-8) deceosed was found. Even the bowl the Investigating Officer Shri T.R cccused/Qppel lant. Therefore in view of the abovl accused wos the author of crime in his decocced wifc and that \s why ablle thelse tlhat +i^ifff'sfi-< tii^tvirfffec^<i«i'i-;i< ^stf^irsn^T tvas standing near the window, occused iJfrpQW on her daughter Maso, which hit on her- body and as a resu!t of which biood the village Sarpanch and thereafter ice station. She has categorically stated iamp that the accused after' shooting bow and reroainin9 arrows. The above evidence of PW-4,Atra Gagru, who has \he evening he saw the accused running it>ow <& wrows in his hand. His house is he heard the screams of Telami Bijjo, and saw the pierced arr'ow in the bcck this witness has stated that it is to see the accused running away. i-fe 1'ifers. He has further stated that accused sti Maso, therefor'e, Maso came to her two witnesses stand eorroborated by a wound of ar'row on the body of <St remoining arrows wer-e recovered by Nagwanshi (PW-5) at the instance of ^ evidenee, it is estoblished that the [uestion because he used to quorrel with W'2 Ta!ami Bijjo, mother' of dc^o^ed /rflA^GiAl c^s' XI-HC-22 sn^rqiT R-fi+sn^r sbliti ffl?cT 11*<MI sh*<lth 3^'?![raRTO, CTTflu'IS, Kldltiy 3T(^?T^acb / W]; 200 ^4, 3n^T5THTgTH^(T the WTOW at the deceased by PW-2 »hi<<?<-i41-iw^i i< te^t <,Riwi< ^iSTf^R-Sn^T took Maso back to her home ond t^ereafter the accused was seen shooting Telami Bijjo. Learned counsel ror the acc^sed/appellant argued thot the manner in which crime was committed, it carjnot be held that the accused/appeilant shot arrow at the deceased with therefore, offence against the oc| Section 304 Part II of the IPC. On the other hand, learnedl the intention to cause her death and pused/appellant does not travel beyond Additionai Pubiic Prosecutor supported the judgment of the trisl court. It is evident from the evic|ence that when arrow was shot by the accused, The deceased was in her Ijiouse ond arrow was shot from a windo* which hit on the back of the dece<tsed and incidentally that arrow entered from such a placs that damaged th^ !un9 and heart of the deceased. There was dispute between the deceased A accused, therefore, the deceased was residing with her mother ond as suc^i, out of fr-ustration the occused appears to have shot the arrow which un'fortunately landed at such o place that damayd the heart & lung of the de^eased. Therefore, from the abov®fact, it cannot be inferred that the ac4usect/<ipp6i'ant shot the arr-ow With the inl'ention to cause death of dec^ased Maso. However, it can safeiy be inferred that when the accused shi|>t the orr'ow on the deceased he had the knowledge that by shooting an apro^ on the deceased he may likely to cause her- death. Therefore, the offenij.e under Section 304 Part II of IPC is made out against the accused/appel|arit. L. XI-HC-22 TS! ^wv)^,VsiS\w\e,Siv\wy. ^SKTi^ 200 *<1*<^1 sh*l|ch •"••••• ?c|<3«^ sn^rw f^TTERW^T sblifHf^cI sbllf 3'n^T SRITCK (if?cr In the resuit, the appea! par| imposed upon the accused/appeil^nt hereby set aside and instegd ther^ Port II of the IPC ond sentti Accused/appellant is said to have i he shall be entitled for set-off for Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge qiPlfeto WRff ff fgcft'^RSTC ^isrf^iTa.n^T 'iy succeeds, the conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the IPC are sof, he is convicted under Section 304 nced to undergo R.I. for 8 years. detention since 29.1.2.1998, therefore, 'he above detention period. Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge \