sr^i ^ii fy-ii*1 •--iasTsnt^'gnw ;BH dD "3'si -41'4icl't!, •aflly'i®,fs|diyi< ^.CX....A.^tl.\/...&.-3^.....^ 3^11T5RT (•^qf^S'5!) ^ireR^ft^an^i .^iV^SION BENCH- HON'BLE SHRI L.C. BHADOO A HON'BLE SHRS T.P.SHARHA, Jly CRIMINAL APPEA APPELLANT Varta ifandru aged 40 years son of Varta Sannu| village Fvlolatnar Koropara P.S. Bhanti Distt. Dantewada. VERSUS RESPONDENT State Distt. qantevrada (C.G.) JU D G IVI (Passed LC.BHADOQ^I This aoDeal is directed order of sentence dated 5.6.: judge, Bastar (Jagdalpur), in !earned Additional Sessions under section 302 of the IP imprisonment for life. ^ii^f?(41'i TnTR!ft' ^* 'feTst' <['3t-^i< ^aiftnan^ N0. 841/2002 Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Bhanti, Ms. Nirupama Bajpai coitise! for the appetlant. Mr. D.K. Gwalare Additiolia! Public Prosecutor for resDondent/State. ENTfORAU n 23.7.2008) a^ainst the judgment of conviction and .20!p2 passed by the Additional Sessions S^ssions Tria! No. 41/2002 whereby the Jud^e has convieted the accused/appeiiant and sentenced him to undergo ..J!!?S^;t ^.^i^^^^^^ga ^- ;:IK?T ^il ft-ti'* ^Sff 2f{T^T^iH <a- WW(T«»*<|cR 3^ -^ww^, aitily-iKo, fqciiy^< ..<=-TC.-..A.,...2.k.L/.?.2T.. 3iii?TTra?i' (llciij«<<^) TOHW ^ftd 3II^?I 2. which Informfetion Case of the prosecution| accused/appeilant demanded ms deceased) for buying liquor purchase dothes. On this, the ac|s to the courtyard by dragging and| of which she sustained injuries| intimation Ex. P-3 was given by and based on that Flrst Investigating Officer !eft for the notice to the Panchas he preparep Htdme. He prepared site plan E( prepared by the Halka Patwari. sent for post mortem Kuankonda, whers Dr. R.K. and prepared the post mortem r^ death was perforation of Deritonitil death was homicidal 1n nature. examinbtion Satriam 3. AftercomDietion of inves Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate case to the Court of Sessions Judge, received the same on 4. !n order fo ©stabiishthe prosecution has examined as accused/appellant was aiso rec ql>n[<'i<fli ^wv\i ^r Fsl<il <^<^.i< ^sffinan^r is that in the nlght of 7.12.2001 >h®vfrom his wife Varsa f-1idme (since she refused saying that she hg^ to feused attacked her with ciub, took her Ithrew her down on a stone as a result and died two days thereafter. Merg Varsa Dhanno !R police station Bhansi Report Ex. P-4 was registered. |scene of occurrsnce and after giving inquest Ex. P-5 on the body of Varsa :|x. P-2 and the site plan Ex. P-6 was [Thereafter, body of Varsa Hidme was to Community Health Centre, si PW-1 conducted the post mortem ^port Ex. P-1. He opined that causeof ijs due to sharp and blunt object and the (igation charge sheet was filed m the Dantewada, who in turn commltted the fibm where ieamsd Additlonai Sessions tranlsferfortrial. ctlarge against the accused/appellant, the as 8 witnesses. Statement of the recol'ded under section 313 ofthe Code of rrlany ^78 WWIT (t»*1|c»» 'S^ '<ii^i<n^, ®fl1y*is,'[qdiyy,< .....&'3-...A..<....<2.t<..l../?.oA.. sn^T'TSR; (1ctf'l'tl<tt) 311^1 ^i R-liti 'c^n ^n^r sbHlch 'renw ^ifei aii^i "hr^CT^Ii ^w?Tl ^f [s'<l <r^i^i< ^affinsii^r Criminal Procedure in which he him in the case of the prosecutior| impiication in the case. cfenied the material appearing against and pleaded his innocence and false 5. After hearing the counse) Additional Sessions Judge accused/appellant as mentioned at>ove for the respective parties learned convicted and sentenced 6. We have heard Ms. Nirup^ma and Mr. D.K. Gwalare. Addf respondent/State. Bajpai counsel fbr the appellant itiona! Public Prosecutor for the 7. Counset for the appellant Varsa Hidme. Moreover, Dr. R.| evidence that on 11.12.2001 he Community Health Centre, Kuank<j post mortem examination on the| injury on the head, multiple on the elbow and contusion on th^ that 10m and 11m ribs were broken ribs penetratsd into it and hbs not disputed the homicidal death of <. Satnami PW-1 has stated in his was posted as Assistant Surgeon at >nda and on that dav he conducted the body of Varsa Hidme and found an over stomach. lacerated wound leg. On opening the body it was found fractured, pS4itorium was ruptured as death was homicida! in nature. contUsions the 8. Above medical evidence Varsa Dare PW-5, the minor dau^hter who has categoricalty statedthaf club. Therefore, in view of the established that the death ofMarsi s corroborated by the testimony of of the accused and the deceased her father attacked her mother with medica! and ocuiar evidence it is Hidme was homicidat m nature. attove R?R? "-^. ^,. M ," niES^y •2TT^( -W ^fN; ^STl' S^^l Sti^ ^=T -lll'4KV1'4, ®ti1-M'l6,[qcll<H^< Q- .0.2-. 3n^iTr^i' ('^fg^r) ^arw^ffet SIT^I sni^^^ll 'Hm?ff ^ 'fe1^ '<fof^R ^'aifiiq 311^1 tib 9. As far as the complicity o1 concerned, Varsa Dare PW-5, the| and the deceased has categoricaj saw that her father was attacking| father had come from outside aft< asked him about the clothes whil started beating her and took her her down on a stone. When her and grand father came there. In th|e defence has not been able to elici) testimony of this witness. She is seen her father attackina her disbelieve the evidence of this corroborated by the medical examined the injuries sustained were contusions over head, hanfc! were fractured and due to was ruptured. Thus eomplicity of established beyond reasonable dja any illegality and infirmity in mdther evidehce the accused in crime in question is [11 years old daughter of the accused jiy stated that on the fateful night, she Iher mother with ciub. At that time her [r consuming liquor. When her mother i|;h had been taken away by him, he the Courtyard by dragging and threw (nother raised cries; her grand mother |e cross examination ofthis witness the any cireumstance which discredlts the |an 11 years' old girl, she herself had ', therefore, there is no reason to witness. Moreover; her evidence is of PW-1 Dr. R.K. Satnami who has the deceased and stated that there 4y hanb, Isg, stomach and 10 and 11 ribs penetr4tion of broken rib into the p?Sitorium it jhe accused in the crime in question is dbubt and to this extent we do not find the ju(igment of the trial Court. 10. Learned counsel for the ai poor person working as a labourei quarrel between the husband and| any premeditation, the accused )pel!ant argued that the appetlant is a and on some petty matterthere was a wife and in the heat of passion without ittacked the deceased with club as a XI-HC—78 •-£". TS( ^ww^, 0tily<i<o, [»«ni<Hy,< ..G.'5:.-..d..'..'?.L(.!..Zo^.. s^V 'vw; ('^y^) an^r ^i-f^isi? ^Tsn 3TT^?I ^*1 TOdWdftg 311^1 q')l*(l<'1<fll HIHC'lT'^f r5L<il <P^^I< ^r aifiw 3n^?T result of which she sustained inju of proper treatment she died two does not travel beyond Section ij^ies and on account of non-availabiiity (pays thereafter. Therefore, the offence fl-llofthelPC. 30ft 11. On the other hand the im^ugned judgment is supported by the counsel for the respondent/State. 12. We have heard the coun^el for the parties and perused the material availableon record. 13. As per the prosecution cas^ Dare the accused was in the habit day atso it appears that he c|< consuming liquor and when sh^ between the husband and wife. i her to the courtyard by dragging] circumstances under which thel cannot be inferred that the accul cause her death. However, the can definitely be inferred that he was beating and throwing his be caused. Therefore, the offenc^ beyond section 304-11 of the IPC abie to establish that the intentionto cause death. as also the evidence of P.W.-5 Varsa of consuming liquor and on the fateful c|emanded money from his wife for ife refused, there was some auarre! ^iccused assaulted her with club, took land threw her down on a stone. The accused attacked the deceased, It )^ed attacked her with an intention to mjanner in which he attacked his wife, it accjused had the knowledge that the way ^ivife on the ground, death was likeiy to against the appellant does not travel Isecause the prosecution has not been accilsed attacked the deceased with an e, '^K^^^-"^^^^^ •.:;^3?'S^^B^^i§ liiiattiiBSBttiiiittB Wq<'lT»*11<*» 's^ '^wwti, 'aviwie, 'f^TtTray .<=r^r:^.A..^..%.ti.)../...b.2-.... SII^T'T^T ('^3^t;i) snt^'?!! friNi' I ?fs?T STi^TT ^iHi^ TOiim^fesii^i (:M<i[(n41i ^i^Krff ^ fs^il •t.t^l^K ^sffrosn^i 14. In the result, the appeal pai|tty succeeds. Conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under s^ction 302 ofthe IPC are set aside and instead thereof he is convicted bnder section 304-11 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo Rl for 10 y^ars. It is stated that the appellant is in jail since 19.12.2001 till date. He above period of detention against Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge shall be entitled for the set off of the the sentence imposed upon him. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge