^jteMi— s^j- afiai j%i^ -j^y. ^A 4^JJK 12J.S ""^y^" -^ ^'". ^' ^^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^.Jj^j^c ^^'' t^i&r ^^ c^cfa ^UM -Jiiifey. -IbJlB -^^^. / ^ .^r /\^y ^ J „/ .<r./ ^' ./^-Av? !s£^£^^% ^i ^ ^'..^ ^ JSS[£ 1VJ^^J& -C ,.' ^ 66 6?/ n^^ -^^ ^-VM£ M^j4i. J^J.^ JJ4J- ^ Sj^ |2l,+?^€ -J.2J£? J^M^S'S ^4^£ }^^ <1^6l2A l!2li2±. ^£iLV^Jfa l%tli .3^^0, ^^ ^ww Y^^^m -z ^ sc3m^S ie^j ^nc J 1":H''-:^P^O^ .z.8^909PPOdo ..;r^.. <y. ^ ^- '7 XI-HC-22 '3^ ^4wi<rt4. ^Tilwt^ ^sray 3Ti^T XR^ ,..^....^.^..:A:.,2^ WH^TW^Ich ::-^r- t3?TT^F ^Sl 'f^N'-S^F s^^i<^ tif^a to! -". 2. ^n^? ^<n^R ^fN 1 DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE &HON'E JSHRJ L.C.BHADOO ,|E SHR1 DHIRENDRA IVIISHRA, JJ Appellants BLE CRIMINAL APP^ALNO. 2323 of 1999 Keriru Respondent Vs. Sta Shri R.KJain, learned counsel Shri U.N.S.Deo, learned GOV P.L: for the State/respondent. ORAL J (28.0 L.C.Bhadoo.J By this appeal under Sectioi Code the accused/appellant has of the judgment of conviction and i passed by learned Additional Sessioi whereby the learned Additional accused/appellantguiltyforthe com^ of the IPC sentenced him to undergoj Case of the prosecution, in brief, is in the police station Chhote Dongar c|i effect on29.04.97 at about 4.00 p.mj. and ori 30^Q4?97 at about 9.00 a.m. Iji cni<<t<yi<<l^t ^{*i<vff'^T€^^fat^K ^^iR^H^i^r :e of Madhya Pradesh forthe appellant. Advocate with Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, DGiVIENT .2008) 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure qu^stioned the legatity and corr6ctness brder of sentence dated 04.08.99 is Judge, Kanker in S.T. No. 278/97 »essions Judge after holding the lission of offence under SQCtion 302 imprisonment for life. tt^at one Somararo lodged a report P-4 n 30.04.97, atabout 18.30 hrs. to the 'he went for the treatment of his son |e retumect to his house when Mangti [Tft^ $fo^ XI-HC-22 '.^n^T'^T fe<ii°b 3?n|^f ?t3HI<^^1 M^' /-. 3. 4. ~=F ^-^ ^r?^^/^i^^,^^^1^^ W^gCT %^Hl% ant^r,'^^ ^....fi^^.^3^ 'lsi^T"""""""""""""""'""" 3>n^i ^RIT^R ^{$a —2-— (wife of fhe deceased) came and info ^i^fa^ Hi+-[<m"? "fe^ if^f^R ^ ^Tf^p? ^^ni^r med thatthat a day before thereto at about 7.00 p.m. when her husband Epasruwas sleepi.ng in the verandah, accused Kehru came with an axe an<}lattacked him with sharp^side ofthe axe on the.rightside of the chestan{d stomach and committed murder of her husband and ran away. At that ti^ne Mangti and Murri were present in the house. She informed the Patel oj: Section 302 of.the IPC and left for panchnama P-5 of the body of Dasijy. The axe, weapon of offence was taken mto possession under P-6. C\o\ possession under P-7. The site plan! of the investigation charge sheet Magistrate First Class, Narayanpur the viltage who came and saw the body. There was a dispute regardinfe land befr^een his brother Dasru & accused Kehru. Receiving this Teporjt, S.H.O. registered the crime under the scene of occurrence, prepared thes of the deceased were taken into IP-12 was prepared. After compietion jwas filed in the-Court of Judicial jwhb in turn committed fhe case to Sessjons Judge, Jagdalpur from wt^ere the learned, Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer fl3r trial. The prosecution in order to accused/appellant examined eigt1|t accused/appeliant was recorded und^r he dem'ed the prosecution evidence 4f he is innocent and has been falsely irtiplicated Learned Addjtional Sessions Judge Additional Public Prosecutor and ^stabljsh the charge against the witnesses. Statement of the ^rSection 313 ofthe Cr.P.C. jn which lippearing against him and stated that inthecrime, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the accused/appeilant convicted and sentenced the a^cused/appeltant as mentioned in paragraph o^ne ofthis judgment. [^t^' Sfe^t ;<$. "^ ^ ~=F n XI-HC-22 ^^ ^WM^ ^ft^pi?, ^E^ra^ 3nt?r y^K ..........CA(.-..^:..:.Ct»:. WR^TF^W^? ^l^ •^^s' 3T?^T'^T fc'ii<=h 3?1^T ^'HW^rf^? <-^ 7. We have heard Shri R.K.Jain, learne^l counsel for the accused/appellant and Shri U.N.S.Deo, learned Addil ^i^t<rt<Lilt T?P^if °?"fe^^R^ ^ 3T^rt ^?i^r iional Public Prosecutor with Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, P.L. on behalfoftheStfete. Homicidal death otDasru isnotin dis^ute. As far as the involvement of the acculed/appellant in the crime in question js conc-erned, P.W.-7 Manglj Bai @] fateful day at about 4.00 p.m. wherj Mangti Bai has stated that on the she was crushing Lartda accused came with an axeandattacked her h^sband when hewas sleeping on the ground. She came out of the room ^hen she heard the sound and saw that fhe accused was attacking her ^usband and thereafter he ran away. In the cross examination of this witriess she has stated that there was dispute regarding land between h^r husband i.e. the deceased and accused. She informed the Kotwar, penu, Soma and Rasu. She chased the accused and caught him from th^ has stated that in connection with th^ Mangti Bai-wife of the deceased a Panch, Patel and Kotwar were presj house of on<e Aytu. P.W.-4 Mangdu 1 murder of Dasru, on the request of [panchayat was convened in which ^nt and accused was called and in front of the Panchayat, accused/app^ltant made extra ju^icial confession , that he murdered his brother Dasru ^id took the axe to the pblice station. Therefore in view of the evidence oi eye witnesses P.W.-4 and P.W.-7 namety Mangdu & Mangti Bai regai|ct1ng extra judicial confession made before the Panchayat, the involveml question is established. ^nt of the accused in the crime in [Tft^ ^fo^ ^ XI-HC-22 » ^RT^[^T K-iicb 3T{^[ StiHicb fifef 8. 9. 10. w ^rec^ ^r^ '^rrai^p}, ^Til'H4i<s» fa<vti^ili< 3iT^5T ^ra^ ^^......^3:,.^..-..Cl^..2.; T^W^ 4 ' 388^ •1^iT" ^H^T ^^?w 'ttitn -L)- ^as Learned counsel for the single blow and the prbsecutjon intention of the .accysed/appeila^t accused/appellant does not travef bej accused/ap^ellant argued^ that this is a case of not been able to estabiish the therefore offence against the yond 304-liofthelPC. Learned counsel further relied on th{ matter of ShfvaDDQ Buddappa Ko/Alsr 1 judgment of the Apex Court in the Vs. State ofKarnataka & Others reported in 2005 SCC (Cn.) 93 whe inflicted with axe on the spur of fractures. Factsofthis case ^ deceasecl ancf the accuseci'perso^s a/fd theaccused from takmg his buffod^f and as a sequef of the quarrel, a^ up an axe kept on the cart deceasecf's head whlch resulted bone and the Court held that the Section 300 and there was no int^f help to the accused/appellant. !n the present case, as perthe evide|ice dispute between the deceased and was the brother of theaccusedandl sleeping when the accused came wil|i giving any chance, attacked with th^ iine just below the thoracic cage an(| 2 cm. and deep up to 6 cm. caused c.jrcumstances when the deceased <=ns<4t<rt41tl 'RTR^T? "^ fe^ <r^s^.K i?3?f;W3??^F (•ein it isi-held that "a smgle blowwss the moment causing depressed wffhCt^at thequarref ensu^d between the when the deceased obstructed buffod^f cartthrough the deceasecf'sfseld wused/appellant suddenly picking inflictecf one blow with it on ^n depressed fracture on the skuff j^iatter does not falf in the thirdly of t^ntfon13. But the above case is of no of P.W.-7 Mangti Bai there was a fhe accused/appellant. The deceased jon the fateful day the deceased was a deadly weapon - axeand without axe on the right side at mid clavjcle injury \A^S transverse in position 2"x |)y sharp.cutting axe. Therefore in the sleepihg, accusied came prepared Was [Tft^ ^RaA C^O '^ r- + ^) XI-HC-22 "3"^ 'AIFII^^ ^rite^ 3i?t?r '^% ^......^.....Cl,.....^^ "l^^T""""" NINC(Tl^)W^ 3TT^T'^T {<'ii<^ ^n^r »>Hi^)^ift^ <^7 .^ ^ ^ ^ 11. 12. '3?n^T^HW^ft^ •-5'' with the axe and he assauitedwith and injury was penetrating as a resul offerice Thus, looking to the weapon of was caused and the manner in establishes the intention Qf the Dasru. Therefore we do not find advanced by Mr. Jain, counse! for find any illegality orinfirmity in theju< s, part of the body where the injury fvhich the accused came prepared accfused to cause death of-his brother any substance. in the arguments tjie accused/appeilant and we do not j<jgment of thetriat Court. in fhe resuit, the appesil is without dismissed and it is hereby dismjssed Sd/- L.C, Bhadoo Judge ^t<4?<rt4<i ^w<A* ^fe^ I^i^Tt i73^??TCT^ Ihe axe on the right side of the back pf which Dasru died spontaneousiy. merits and the same is liable to be Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge [Tft^iR]^s^