>-"' 31T^?T??T Vw^ WT 377^T $t)+ll<^ r^ 3^f ^ll^l^, ^Tfl-M^Ko, is)01<-l^< vsmw ^w^ .........................................................^ 200 3^ST xpw (^f^cysy) '^nw;Rf^T 3?n^r Cri APPBLLANT RESPONDENT Gho| agedj Disttl Stat4- Disti D.B. Hon?bie 8hrl Hoa'ble Shri 1Q 6-2007 Smt. Usha Chaadrall Shri D.K. Gwalre. respondent/ State. Arguments heard. Oral judgment dictatj ?er L.C.Bhadoo^ J. : This appeal is dired aiid order of sentence d^ Judge/Sarguja (Ambikapi leanied Sessions Judge aft commission of ottence iuid< sentenced him to undergo Rs. 200/-, and m default tiiree inonUis^ iinprisoiiBieii 2. Case of the prosecut about 7.00 a.m., Uie de< Rondhabai (P.W. 5). Accusf chl^td^il'l 'RTO^f ^fe^ <Pnt$l< '^3lRiH3?T^r inal ADpeai No. 1245/2003 li-u @ Rohit Kumar, S/'o. Lorgot TeU 30 years, R/o. Sedani P.S. Batoiili Sai'guja(C.G.) Versisa of Chliattisgarh, through P.S. Batouli, Sarguja (C.G.) •C. Bhadoo aad •hireadra Mishra. JJ. ar, Advocate, for me appellaiit. Addl. PubUc Prosecutor, for me ORl&L d on Dais. jUDGMENT sd agamst fhe judgment of conviction [ed 9-5-2000 passed by tiie Sessions |t1 m S.T. No. 118/1999, wiierebv Uie •r holdiag accused/appellaat gmlty for ^r Section 302 oftiie Indiaii Penal Code, |imprisonment for life, to pay a fhie of ^i' payment of fiiie, to fmllier undergo ^on, m brief, is that on 15-2-1999 at ?ased Parsaii went to me house of ^ Rohit Kumar aiias Dholdu also came Xi-HC—78 3^5T ^STPTT^T, ^Tn'y^Ko, fc)01-(-l'4,< Nl^ldl sbNI<h •—•••"• •"•"••""—"••—•—^ 200 31T^5T XRT^ (^I^<^) ^n^r ?»T'ft^ri^ 'cTSTT'STT^T 5CTT5F ^'wit^R tyf$a 3?n^T Paitsaa tliere and attacked fhe and raa away. Rondhal fhere. P.W. 4 Byobai, gave water to her hus] Communin7 Healtli Cent treated hiixi. The mafteil under Ex. P-19. The isial under Ex. P-1 to Police the investigatiag Ofiicej givuig notice Ex. P-2 to tlie bodv of deceased Parsaii was conducted Dr. B.P. Chaiidra (P.W. ^ Ex, P-6, iii which he has| severe subdural conipletion of tlie iavest.it of Jiidicial Magistrate committed the case to prosecution examuied 9 agaia.st fhieaccused. Stal Section313ofCr.P.C. u| ta me prosecuUon after heariag the ieanie< aiid sentenced the accusl ^tite hematolma uivestifcation evidebce <=M^i^i<iii <4i^<?il ^f^^ <R»I^I< ^3TRfH3?n^?r Ideceased wiUi fhe axe two or fhree tiines )ai (P,W. 5) raised cries, people collected of Uie deceased, also came tliere, she )ao.d, The iajured Parsaa was taken to re, Batouli wherc Dr. G.R. Kurre (P.W. 9) was reported by Dr. G.R. Kmre (P.W. 9) |ter was also reported by Shivnafh (P.W. 1) ptation, Batouli, After registenag the case, left for tlie scene of occurrence, after |Jie Panchas, prepared inquest Ex, P-3 on L. Post niortem on the bodv ofdeceased ^ii tlie Goveniment Hospital, Ambikapzir, ^) conducted post morteni, prepared report foiuid tliat mode of deatli is conia due to resulted froiD. iajuiy over scalp. After ibation, charge sheet was filed ui the Court First Class, Ambikapur who in tum Uie Sessions Judge, Aiabikapiir where [ivitaesses io. order to estabUsh the charge |;ement of tiie accused was recorded under which he denied the material appeariiig against hiin. Leanied Sessions Jiidge counsel for respective paities, convicted ^.d as aforementioned. Ki XI-HC—78 3?TT^T ^T f<^[ch ^T^T ^TT^T 5h^li<=h ^- ^ 3-^r <^1<41^, ^Tfl^'Ko, (s|01-M^< ^l^^ll 5b*i8eb ^P)^IO. l^r- /OJ^ 200 wit?r <<^ra? (^lc<^) '^ITW^f^T^TT^r SAt 3, We have heard appellant and Shri D.K. Gf 4, Leanied counsel f4: homicidal deafh of Parsad, / tliat fhe accused attack^d Chaiidra (P.W. 6) has stal|e niortem. on Uie bodv of P^J wound on right side of oc^ a stiched woiind on left was stiched wound on cei hijuries, it was foiuid siibcutmieoiis tissues, b4< fractured, Uiere was a mortem ni natiire, cause homicidal ia nature. In death of Parsaa was homid 5. As far as uivolvemejit concenied, P.W. 4 Bijob^ when she went neai' her accused had attacked htat she has stated tliat her position to talk but he was not categoricatly stated he was ia a position to s] not estabyshed fhat Uie d( <=M<<t<v1<fll *11*1<;lf ^fe^ <Pq^« ^3F{RF?3R^[ Usha Chaadrakar on behatf of me ^/sdre on behalfofUie State. r fhe appeUant has not disputed fhe nioreover/ P.W. 5 Rundhabai has stated tlie deceased with tiie axe, Dr. B.P. tat|ed tliat on 18-2-1999 he conducted post rsaii and found that there was a stiched ^ipital region in size of 3,5 cm, tliere was ^adetal rcgion 4 cm iii length aiid there Ltre of parietal region, on opening of fhe fhat there is ecchvmoses over the 'k side of bone of centre parietal was s|ubdural heBiotoraa, uijuries were aate t)f death was head iajury aad deatli was (iew of tlie above, it is e^tabUshed fhat ^idal ia nature. of tiie accused ia criBie io. question is ^ wife of tlie deceased, has stated that Ihusband, on enquuy, he disclosed that wiUi the axe but ui cross-exainination, hiilsbaad was unconscious. He was not in a saynig tliat he will not survive, She has th^.t when she reached near her hiisbaad, [^eak, In view of me above evidence, it is jceased made any oral dym.g declearation XI-HC—78 3^5T ^|A||0<q, ^T{i'yllC, isf01^^< ^Wvii *^|cb -^w^l^ VI, 200 ^n^i ^T R^ich 'cT^IT 3TT^T ^RW an^r T??^ (^4^<^) ^^nw^f^T^n^T before Uiis witoess, P.W] caoie to his house aiid sh< chl^fd^l'l 'W^lf "?f,f^^ iFat^K '^'^FffOT^q^r 5 Rmidhabai has stated tih.at Parsan ^ saw fhe accused attacking the deceased Parsaa wim tlie axe, at fh|at tinie, Parsaa was at her residence. He was husband ofher sister|-ui-law. He came to her house, thereafter / accused came with fhe a?<|e aad attacked Parsan. Defence has not been able to discredit tfce evidence of this witaess ui cross- examuiation regardiag fh^ attack made by the accused. Therefore, mvolvement oftlie accuse|i in fhe crime iii questiou is established ui vie\v of the evidence ofFf.W. 5 Rundhabai. 6. Learaed coiuisel for mfiicated 011 15-2-1999 moreover Dr. P.W. 9 Dr. G of Uie deceased has stated :.he appeUaat ai'gued that fhe iajuiy was whereas Parsaa died on 18-2-1999, R. KuiTe who has examiiied tiie mjuries that tlie injuries were caused from back portion of the axe, tlieret^re, had the accused had iiitention to cause deafii of Pai'saii, theli he ought to have attacked Parsan. from. tlie shai^ side of fhe axe. 7. On tlie other hai|id, leamed AddL F'ublic Prosecutor supported tlie judgment of 8. Arguinents advancecl e trial Court, by learaed coiuisel for Uie appellant has siibstaiice because l^.d the accused had anv mtention to cause deam of Pm'smi, deceased from shar}3 sid^ Parsaa died about alter t] cu'cuiustaiices, we are ^ prosecution has not been ^iien he ought to have attacked the of tlie axe, moreover, the deceased liree days of sustaiuing iiijuiy. In me pf the considered opuiion that the able to estabtish fhe offence under '..> -t^ ,^I'S£—78 ^TT^r ^T f<vii<^ ^^T 'STT^RT PR'RW ^ ^- 8( •^uSf ^|A|1<7!><4, ^•c{i'y^<S, (s)0l<1^< ^l^ldl sh*11<* ^^.^.^•e^ '-^ 200 3ii^?r ^^F (4?<^<^) ^RnW^f^T^T^T a^peal tltie Section 302 of I.P.C. ho\t attacked tiie deceased wiljii II ofl.P.C. is established. 9. In the result, tlie sentence nnposeci upon are set aside, uistead t^ Section 304 Part II ofl.P.i 17-2-1999 aiid thereby h^ 8 years, tlierefore, we a^e accused is released on tt|Le meet the ends of justi<| conviction, the accused| undergone. He be set at otiier case. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Gtii<i(<n<i1i 'WRff 1£f,'fe^<R^^i< '^'^ifipT^n^r ever, the mamier ui which Uie accused tlie axe, ottence under Section 304 Part partly succeeds. The conviction aad appeilant uiider Section 302 ofl.P.C. liereof, fhe accused is convicted under ;. Siace the accused is in detention siiice has undergone sentence for more Uimi |*e of the considered opiiiion fh.at if fhe |ie senfence undergone by hini, tliat wiU |?e, Accordmgly, while mauitaitiing the is sentenced to the period aiready liberty fQrtliwim if not required ia. aiiy Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge