XI-HC-78 Sn^TifiTf^N; <rarsii^i aiHiti fr. tTTH^TT aiHra» S^^IPTRTO, ®Tfl'M'l6,(sldiyy -C?r..fl.:.l.^.t>J.(n>. ^ 200 311^1 Mach ('i^l'l6"^') S?(ITWHf5(T3T^ST DIVISION BENCH: - Hon'bie Shri Jystice L.C. Bhadoo & Hon'bSe Shri Justice-Dhirtndra Mishra ;RIM!NAL APPEAU APPELLANT Veifsus RESPONDENT Shri R.K.-Jain couns Shri D.K. Gwalare D^ L.C. Bhadoo.J The accused/appella judgment of conviction passed by Additional Sessi 372/1998 whereby he has fl indian Penal Code for sentenced So undergo impFi acquitteci of the offence u.n< Sukhdev has been acqultt and201 ofthe!PC. <!bi<itci41^'*i iinTff te'^l'AWK ^;3:ri^TR'3n^r !Mo.1540/ La.khrnu S/o Sukhdev, Aged about 27 years, R/o Krohebeda, PoiiceStation Amabada District Bastar. State of Madhva Pradesh. elfforthe accused/appellant. '. GA. for respondent/ State. ORALUuEfeMENT {Date<|l 1 §»3-2007} jnt has preferred this appeai against the asfid order of sentence dated S.4.2000 jons Judge Kanker in Sessions trial No. |>een held guilty under section 302 of the comhiittlng the murder of one Bajai Bai and isonment for life. However, he has been tier Section 201 of the SPC. Co-accused :fed of the offences under Sections 302 P.T.O. !^^iui'^f.t:i^..i-i VT~v XI-HC-78 3^'^tFIRTO', si'rfly'16, fsldiyti< <TIHcTr sb^ltb ^F[ 200 311^1 ^flch (^C|(^<S|^<T) 3n^r?iTf?;fR? PTSTT 3:TT^T ^TTT^ ?%TW:Hf?(T3T1^T «bi<ifci^)-iKitidTir'te^|'<Fii+<ii< ^ari^iTgn^r aiint dtead refurried scfene 2. Case of the prosecuti 6 a.m. in vitiage KrohQbedja murder of Baiai Bai, wife branch ofthe tree: On comil gave merg intimation Ex. effect that on 20.8.98 his dinner along with her son M]o 5 a.m. on 21.8.1998 she ieft daughter. Thereafter her branch of a tree in front of| going to cuitivate his fieid] seeing the body, he House Officer teft for the the witnesses conducted ih' prepared inquest report Ex^ site p!an Ex. P-6 and Ex P-$- post mortem examination under Ex. P-8 ware Dr. tnortem examination on th4 post mortem report Ex. P-8t death is cardio respiratorti nature. At the instance of under Ex. P-12 and basedl House Officer reoistered th|i the commission of the off^ with sectlon 34 oftheiPC. ion in brief is that on 21.8.1998 at about the accused persons -committed the ofjSukhdev and hanged her body with the iha to know about this fact PW-4 Sadhu P-5 to the Police on 22.8.1998 to the Bajai Bai vvent for sleep after taking /, . <• |onda 'and daughter Ranay^amS^t about the housewithout informing her son or body was found hanging with the his house. When her son IVionda was he saw the body of his mother. On '.back. Receiving this r&port Station i'of occurrence, after giving notice to ihquest on the body of Bajai Bai and P-1. l^ivestigating Officer prepared the $-A. Dead body of Bajai Bai was sentfor to Prirnarv Heafth Centrs. Amabeda Dwivedi PW-10 conducted the post dead body of Bajai Bai and prepared -A in which he opined that the cause of arrest and cieath was homicidal in Ithe accused, one ciub was recovered on the above investiaation the Station te First Information Report Ex. P-13 for ince under sections 302 and 201 read Sar|dip P.T.O. •^- i^i^li?i";'<i ^"-II!S'Tra;a('i,i:t1,.«..,i,n,,»Bu;.K.<K«t>,,,Bin,B,, XI-HC-78 3ST ^||l||d-4, ^Tfltf'KS, [s|c1iy^<. +11HWI Sb+<|ch ^ 200 ^ 3liq^l 4aw (>ic'I'lcl'i!iT) 3nSsT5RTfq^N; TOT3<l^lsb^i+ 5?HTW;Hf?(T3n^T 4il'i(Irl'iTl-< H|t«-iriT'f3I^I'<l«l'(-!;l< ^srf^TTsn^r the 3. After completion'of fiied in the Court of Judicial who in turn committed the Bastar at Jagdalpur from received the same cn transftr investigation the charge sheet was [Vagistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur |case to the Court of Sessions Judge, learned Additional Sessions Judge for trial. wrtere st> 4. !n order to estabiyi prosecution has examine<f accused persons were ais<: Code of Criminal Procedul appearing against them in thev are innocent and have It jh Ih.e charge against the accused, 10 witnesses. SSatements of the recorded under Section 313 of the t-e in which they denied the rnateria] Ihe prosecution case and oleaded that Ibeen falsely implicated in ttTecase. 5. Learned Addltionai appearing for both the p| accussd/appellant Lakhmu acquitted him of the However, accused Sukhde^ ieveiled against him. ^essions Judge after hearing counsei cferties convicted and sentenced the undgf- section 302 of the IPC and i3nder section 201 of the !PC. has been acquitted of all the charges ofarti offehce earihed 6. We have heard I; and perused the material judgment under chalienge. 7. In this case, there i^ there anv ocular evidence. cireumstantial evidence i.e the.accused/appellant. counsel for the accused/cppellant avaiiable before us inciuding the no eyewitness to the incident nor is pase of the prosecution rests oniy on the extra judicial cohfession made by P.T.O. [I'T-'I Xr-HC-78 3fT^TcRrR;^i4) WTsn^rshii'ti 3^T "i<l'41d^, diT(1UJI<i, Rldiyy tlMMI Sh*11th ^ 200 3ii3,<'i 4a<*> ('^3^^) ?TcITW;gf?(T3:IT^?T Bdi with 8. In order to base con^i to be seen whether the Monda, the son of Bajai he saw the dead body of tii tamarind tree, he informe^t time, accused Lakhmu wa.sl gathered there and in their] that he has committed the with Lathi because she had he had sown the crop in further confessed that after dead body was hanged was made from Lakhmu, he| quarrei with him daily, the cross examination of thjs able to elicit any circumstahi witness unreiiable or untrustv that Lakhmu made extra ju]d evidence of PW-3 Sonadh^r confessed before him that PW-5 Magdu has stated iih persons told him that hanged her body With the b|i the above evidence of PW- Lakhmu assaulted Bajai Bai| wa§hanged with the branchl qii^fcKfl'i tiit«-i')'it'tei^'<Ri«i< ^sTRtiTsn^r tiction on extra iudicia! confession it has c(|>nfession is voluntary and true. PW-1 3s|i has stated in his evidence that when tiis mother hanging with the branch of the villagers about the same. At that at his residence. Thereafter, viliagers presence accused Lakhmu confessed Imurder of Baiai Bai bv assauiting her lcome to his house and said to him why (he smaller area for her son. Lakhmu bommitting the murder of Baiai Bai, her tt?e branch of the tree. VVhen inquiry I said that the deceased used to pick up therejfore, he got angry and attacked her. in f ijs witriessss, the defence has not been mstahce which makes the evidence of this stworthy. PW-2 Sonuram has not stated ju|dicia! confession before him. Even the is not to the effect that t'ne accused Ihe assauited the deceased with lathi. iih his evidence that both the accused thet? assaulted Bajai Bai and thereafter blranch of tamarind tree. Therefore, from ^1 Monda it is established that accused Iwith iathi and when she died, her body of the tree. P.T.O. il^ii inii^n^sangjiiggai,;,,,,,,,^,^^ XI-HC-78 sn^TifiTfs-rR? (TstTsn^rgiiTR; 3^ "ill'MW'il, (iTnwid, Isldl+fy *11*1WI Sh*11tft ^ 200 Sll^l 4a<*> ('{cli.^d^ET) 5?HTW;CTf?a'3n^T 9. Now coming to thd accused, PW-10 Dr. SanBi mortem examination on th<fe i.e. 4 days after the incider|t. body v/as at the advanc^d maggots were present in t!1e and hand and there was bl around the neck and Vt respiratory arrest. There respiratorv arrest. dn 10. As Bajai Bai died conducted.on 25.8,1998 ar)d rsason about the injuries ariid or fracture of bone was n4i accused rests mere'y on before' Monda PW-1, the sdn svidence that when it was attacked Bajai Bai, he sai< daily regarding the shar^ therefore, he became angn) 11. Looking to the natuif' grievous injury or fracture further that the doctor whol days after the incident, ha^ ooinion that Bajai Bai died »bi<<fct41-(Kitii-iTffteit'<R]^i< ^srf^R'gn^r nature of offence committed bv the ip Dwivedi who conducted the post dead bodv of Baiai Bai on 25.8.1998 t. He has stated in his evidence that the staae of putrefaction and even the bodv. There was iniuiv on the left ieg se hard iump due to tightening of cloth ie death was on account of cardio may be many reasons for cardio n 21.8.199S and the pest mortsm was the doctor has not given any specific death of Bajai Bai. No grievous injury iticed/by him and the conviction of the ixtra^udicial confession made by him of the deceased who has stated in his nquired from the accused as to why he that as she used to quarre! with him of his son in the agricuitura! f1e!d, and attacked her with Lathi. of weapon used and the fact that no vl/as found on the body of deceased and conducted post mortem examination 4 not assigned any reason regarding his lon account of cardio respiratory arrest. P.T.O. l"tl WWti XI-HC-78 an^T^rR-fich (rarsn^TaiHN; m^^ 3^'-:qpnCTT, aTDyiie, (siditfy tTTtf^TI SbHlch WT 200 Sll^l 4a»('ft^'^'5'') STdTWHfN-w^r Therefore, in these tii accused attacked the decs her death. However, as attacked the deeeased witH thereafter hsr body was attacked the deceased, the knowiedge that by Sajal Bai. ircujnstances it cannot be held that the ;4ased with common intention to cause Iper the extra judicia! confession he iathi as a resu't of which she died and hashged, therefore, the manner in which he leatls to an inference that the accused had attac|<ing'with Lathi is iikeiy to cause death of 12. For the foregoing of the IPC and the sentsnifce acused/appetlant cannot b4 against the accused under re&sons the conviction under section 302 of iife imprisonment impo'sed on the suslained as at the most the offence iejrtion 30441 ofthe IPC is made out. 13. In the result, the acquitted of the charge und| convicted for the offence sentenced to undergo R] accused/appe!iant is in has alreadv underaone mori has served out the sentencl at iiberty forthwith if not Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge cbl''<fcl41-1 H|t1CTTtff'glfl'<R]<<;K ^iSTf^R'STT^T lappeal partly succeeds. Accused is i|er seetion 302 of the IPC. Instead, he is luncte'r Section 304-11 of the IPC and for 8 vears. It is stated that the since 27.8.1998 anti thsreby he |e than 8 vears of jail sentence. Thus, he imposed on him. Therefore, he be set in any other case. defention reailiired Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge P.T.O.