y CFOOOOOS4400 IH TIS.EIGE CXiUai OF MADHBi. HUDBSH W JjiBAUTB. Gri. Ag-ssal Nb.'->'<'3 / 2©®@, 1, //y ^ / /'.'-''v /\ / ' ^y' >s? / ^^^y .^.j^y^ ww/ pils Raa s/o Bte-agshaBd @ Maad'tiar Ofaadwa aai.washi aged afeoirt 32 years, oeeajia'tiioE-Iaboar. 4t- . • - MA.KDK.,3 s/o Pardesbi G&adwa, aged afeoa-fe 53 years, Bot.h resideBt of village Mawli E'&ata, P.s. Eodeaar ,aj.sfri®1;Jaed&lpar --—Appella&ts. 'verstis.. ^-? I e-St,at'e of M.P. ttooas'a p.s EodeBari .Tasdaljaar -—-«^. soiivteBioa lt?*ip» AS On ^^9! BesroadeBt. sei.'i.teaee. 1 A|)Bjellairb_Bo.l a/s 3©2IPG •--A laiirisoaaeat for life aad fiae of Es .5%/- ia .- . s:. default laprisoBaeat for 1 year. ; Appellairt ?io.2 TJ/S 394 part II IPG- a.I for 5 years. Apgeal aader seetioE 374 of •a'.P.O aeaiasls t'&e aoBvietioa aad senteEae ?assed fey IIad Adciitioaal gessioas Jadge Basfear -Jagdal?tar St'a'i Soges& Mattiur passed oia 1/4/2©S©ia S.2.R0.2S8/99, arisl.ag otrt in ariau.aal ease No.191/99. tfB XI-HC-78 N 1*1^1 shtfrai 3^:?IFIRra', B-rft^'16, fsldiyy . c-r •'C5- /-5^ 2. 3 ^ 2000 3TT^?T <T3'^ ('yi^sl^lET) sn^yr^Tf^riq; gwsn^TshKish ??(tTW CTf^tT 3I1^?T t)i<<fCT<fl-i tiiidTffte^t'^^K. ^ a'ri^iT sfi^r HIGH_COURTOF CltiHATTISGARH. BiLASPUR iV!SI< 1 L.C. BHADOO i^irfi'u. t^ Ann^.!i Piia 2! Ram and another Versus teSDondenf Present ' - ~~- Mr. S.S. Rajput, counsel Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Ad State/respondent. for the appeliant. jitionai Pubiic Pros rtor for the JUDGMENT ?1li.12.2006) This aDDeai is directed order of sentence dated 1 .4.2! Judge, Bastar in S.T. No. 2^ Sessions Judge after holding ^ of the offence under Section ^gainst the judgment of conviction and POO passed by !! Additional Sessions E8/99 whereby the learned Additional ^cused Pila Ram guilty for cornmission 302 of the i.P.C., sentenced him to P.T.O. XI-HC-78 w i- ^IWTTSh*1|ch 3^': "ilWlfll, ®TR+|l|6,Rldltf^ .^^&.i^3... ^'2006 aiT^Tira^ (i^cii^cji^iT) 3TI^T?)TfeTR; nitT3TI^Tsht< ??gTgT H^(T 3n^r qil<lft1<fl-1 HIIIlT ff fel^t tRl^iK' ^3Tf^T3n^T^ ;::I; ^ undergo jmprisonment for lif^ payment of fine to furthei| However, co-acclised Mandhar ^ and pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in defauit of undergo imprisonment for one year. was convicted under Section 304-il of the i.P.C. and sentenced to.iit ndergo five years rigorous imprisonment. During pendency of t(i aiready been released on| therefore, none appears on iis appeal appellant No. 2 Mandhar has completion of sentence on 5.8.2002, ts behalf. ttts 2. Case of the prosecu|l (PW-1) gave Merg intimatior|i on 22.5.1999 to: the effecl |ion, in brief, is that Raimali @ Somari (Ex.P/7) to the Police Station - Kodenar that,since iast four years Muktibai is vvife; Pi!a Ram used to quarrei and beat lcome to her house. One month before residing with Pila Ram as hi^ her, therefore, she used to| accused again gave beatinA house. On 20th May 1999, her house and took her hu^band Banwa to the market of Kodenar. Ip to Muktibai, therefore, she came to her lla Ram and his father Mandhar came to When they were returnjng Mandhar by c!ub attacked crime v/as witnessed by Kar from the market, Pila Ram by axe and ianwa and committed his murder, The ya Madiya. On 21.5.1999 Panchayat was P.T.O. XI-HC-78 *11*1WI sb^llcb • 3^'^iraRTO', (STn'tf'is, Rtciitfy __.C-y-.-^^//$:&S. ^[ 200° 3TT^?T<T33T (l^fg^^T) ^ sn^T^rf^rH; traTSII^Tstilil) ?T(ITW Bfer sn^r t>i<if<-t<fl-i *<ii<iT?:tecfl'<Ri'K;i< ^>3tf^T3n^r convened in the village. Informatlon Report (Ex.P/1) lefi for the scene of occurrer)ce of the dead body of Banwa.| Receiving this Merg intimation First <|vas registered. The investigating officer and prepared inquest report (Ex.P/2) Plain and bloodstained soii from the place of occurrence was take|i poiice custody accused Pil^ connection with the axe artd recovered under Ex.P/5. Lt| possession under Ex.P/6. occurrence was pre'pared. postmortem examination to| where Dr. Lakhan Jury (PW\ the postmortem report (Ex.P/] head injury and coma due tcj investlgation charge sheet w^ First Ciass, Jagdaipur who in| Judge, Jagdalpur from v/here| Judge, received the case on fl jnto possession under Ex.P/3. Whiie in Ram gave memorandum (Ex.P/4) in in pursuance of that, axe was got |ngj of accused Pila Ram was taken into Site plan (Ex.P/8) of the place of 3ody of deceased Banwa was sent for Prirgary Heatth Center, Bade Kilepai 8) conducted postmortem and prepared i 7). He opined that the cause of death is iacerated wound over skuli. After usual is filed in the Court of Judieiai Magistrate turn committed the case to the Sessions learned Additional Sessions ransferforfrial. P.T.O. [-HC-78 <<l*l^TTai^T9» 3^ "i<l<41t1'M, (STn^'16, Rlcliuy .c^.^./.^.2.?.. ^ 200d 3ll^i >4a<») ('ytg'Ki,8!') ^ sn^T^irfiaN; (lafTSD^Tsllit) 5TBT8[R:tlf?(T3n^T =bl<lfd41-< t<|l<cfl'?fte<^'<R]'K;l< ^3:l1^T3D^T 3. Prosecution in order accused persons examined accused persons were recor<j vi/hich they denied the ma\ prosecution evidence and sta1] falselv implicated in the crimej to establish the charge against the eight witnesses. Statements of the led under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in terial appearing against them in the ed that they are innocent and have been 4. We have heard-Mr. S.»l5 behalf of the appeilant anf Prosecutor for the State/resp^nden Rajput, iearned counsel appearing on ;Mr.. U.N.S. Deo, Add'diona! Public 5. Mr. Raiput has not Apart from that, from the evewitness who saw the i^pute{i the homicidal death of Banwa. ^v'derice of PW-3 Podyamikariya, the accLJsed persons attacking deceased Banwa with axe and club as also fr<i •Jury (PW-8) who conducted Banwa and stated that ther' im the medical evidence of Dr. Lakhan postmortem on the body of deceased a was a lacerated wound on the left temporal region in the size contusions on the back and of4x 3 x 4 inch, there were four |he temporal bone beneath injury No. 1 was fractured, membrane ^as ruptured and brain material was P.T.O. XI-HC-78 /^""•"-•v. \ *11*1rtTSft*1|tt> 3^ •<II<IKI<I, aiTn'y'is, Riwiyy -c^-.^:.^.^. ^ 2000 Sll^l tiaqi (>i,<:tI^s|<<eT) y -'si^r^f^iw ciqrsii^Tstiiiti ?TBTW: Bfer sn^r t>i<<Fci<fl-i ii>«iTfftec^<Ri^i< ^iSlf^ITSTI^T coming out the skull, it is homicidai in nature. established the death of Banwa was 6. As far as involvement! of the accused/appeiiant in crime in qusstion is concerned. the cohvjction rests on the evidence of PW-3 Podyamlkariya, the eyev/ltnes confessions made by the s ^ of the incident and the extra ludici, lccused before PW-1 Raimati, PW- ?«i!uktibaiand PW-5 Lith 7. IVIr. Rajput argued that] does not inspire confidence fc| that when he saw the accus^ the evidence of PW-3 Pociyamikariya fc|ecause in his evidence, he has stated (d pe^sons attacking the deceased, he not go tov/ards the piace of incident, latural as he did not disciose this fact to ran away from there and did| therefore, his conduct was unrf anybody in the village and it w^s disclosed on!y on the next day before the Panchavat. 8. We'have perused the ^vidence of PW-3 Podyamikariya who has stated that on the fateful c|ay at about 5.00 p.m. in the evening he 'was searching his missing co\^, at that time he saw that accussd Pila P.T.O. ^i/ c XI-HC-78 *11KWI Sh+llth 'SSf "ilWld^, «Tny'l6,faclltfy .er.-.^;/.^.2:?.. W[ 2000 311^1 intti (y^'s«<eT) sn^iw R^i+ awsn^TSRifR; ?^ITW flfia'a'n^r <»ii<itia<)1-i *ii>itiTfff3tA'<Rit<;i< ^i SlRtIT 3II^?T Ram attacked Banwaram witl axe on his head as a resuit of which Banwaram fell down and therbafter, Piia Ram with axe and accused Mandhar with c!ub attackeld Banwaram. . He was frightened es?dence with his cow and did not disciose ,therefore, he !eft for his res?d this fact to anybody in hi& Panchayat oniy. It is true thal to anybody about the incident the accused persons were ; intervening or not going towan be a ground to disbelieve tl^ nouse. He disclosed this fact in the as per his evidence he did not disciose and even did not try to intewene when ittacking the deceased, but mere not js-the place of occurrenoe itseif, oannot e evidence of .this witness because it dtt depends upon person to per^on reacts in such circumstances. how he takes the things or how he |Spme persons try to inten/ene whereas remain mute spectator, therefore, the for the appellant cannot be taken as a ound fo disbelieve the evidejice of this witness . some being scared choose tcj above contention of counsel •] As far as the question about the incident to anybd concerned, it, of course, cree 6s to whv this witness did not disciose dy on the date of incident itself, is ites some doubt in the evidence of this P.T.O. XI-HC-78 4^ ^ HWCtT SdHr^i 3ST '<(|<||c1<|, ©Tflu'IS,RtOKiy ..W.:^:.(S.zr^.. ^200" Sii^i <4a<n (liyit^'si<<«T) 3T1^T?iTR-licb TOT 3f1^?T aiIIRi srarw flfeT sn^r tii<iFil<fl-i tii*«nTfftoA<Ri^i< ^Sll^R'STI^T witness because in the ordfn.ary course a person is expected to dlsclose such a heinous crim^ to someone but it a!so depends on the refore, evidence of such person cannot nature of the person and ihet'' be thrown away without scr'(i|ti case the Court should scrutihize'the evidence of such witness in a unizing me same on in such a carefu! manner before placi the evsdence of PW-3 Podyaij next day before the Panchay^ the crime. Moreover, in th^ defence has not been" able to ths evidence of this witnessl show that this witness was jr| had any animosity against th'| licate them in such a v/itness has been further corr reiiance on the same. if we look into hikariya , it comes on record that on the t he disciosed ths fact that he witnessed cross-examination of tRis 'wjtness the eilcit any circumstances which discredits becayse there is nothing on record to iterested in deceased in any manner or 5 accused persons which prompted him heinous crime. The evidence of this 3borated by the medical evidence of Dr. Lakhan Jury (PW-8) in whicl)i he has categdrically stated that there was a lacerated wound on thifc contusions on the back, fractured, membrane was rupl head ofthe deceased, there were four bone beneath injury No. 1 was ured and brain material was comina out. ten(pora P.T.O. ^.'>, ^} B XI-HC-78 *<1*ICTI S»l*1ic(» 3:sg'3TP(1?PT, ®Tn^'l<s,Rtcliuy ..^?:;.^/.5;2-.?. ^ 2000 3Ti^?Tiraq; (({^fg^^r) 311^T?)T^icb gqr SIT^T sbtii<ti ??aw flfer W^T °t)l<<Fc1<fl-1 IIKClTfffelftiRlWK ^iWf^ITSII^T His evidence also stands c|3rroborated by the evidence of PW-1 PW-5 Liti, before whom the accused Pi!a extra judicia!. confessions regarding Ihim. Therefore, there is no reason to Raimati, PW-4 Muktibai and Ram said to have made commission of the crime b.v disbeiieve the evidence of FW 10. Mr. Rajput also submitijed that from the medicai evidence oniy a on the head whereas the aliegation lacerated wound was found against accused Pila Ram is therefore, in ali ^probabilities tiji wound. In the first instance, i| on the head bv the accused i^ ihat -he attacked the deceased with axe, le Injury must be-ofthe nature of incised t is not necessary that the injui'y inflicted f al! probability must be of the nature of lf1 incised wound, moreover, on temporal bone was fractured ^ which brain materiai also account of the injury inflicted by axe, the ind there was a cut wound on account of cante out of the skuil. However, in order to ascsrtain that lacerated woun|d cannot be caused by axe, ths defence the doctor on this aspect whereas there the defence at ali'. Thus we do ought to have cross-examined is no such cross-examinationl P.T.O. XI-HC-78 9 *11*i^l Sh*l|ch 3^?irrai?PT, enfl+i'KS, Isiciwy .c^...^:/..^.^.. W[ 200 o 3T1^?T<rag? ('pfg^ET) sn^TqiTR^icb tW3fR?T»11«ti OTgiw dfer •sm^r °t>i<<f<n<fl-i >ii*«iTifte^<Ri+<;i< ^<(Tf^T3:I1^T find any substance in the above submissipn of counsel for the Mf. Rajput also argue|J that in the cross-examination of PW-3 Podyamikariya, this witness itas.stated that he witnessed the incident from a distance of 200 meterl therefore, it was not possibie for him to deceased with axe from such a long are not inclined to accept this argument see accused assaulting the| distance. However, again w^ for the reason that in the flrst instance the distance "aiven bv this witness is mereiy-an estimat( was the month of May wheih incident was about 5.00 p.j suniight at that time, therefort not witness the crime in ouei come on record In ths cros^ was anv obstruction betweeil ion that it was 200 meter. Moreover, it the incident occurred, the time of the ^ TI. and admittedly there was sufricient e, it cannot be said that this witness did ition from such a distancs. Nothino has -examination of this witness, that there the piace where the incident occurred and {his witness saw the sam placed reliance on the eviderj the accused for commisslon ^. Therefore, the Court below has rightly jce of PW-3 Podyamikariya in convicting cjfthe crime in auestion. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^f '^ in^c'fT aiurai S^^ITORpr, aiTTItf'is, Kicii^y +*+ ^ * »+»^* *<**•»*t* *-+ * * ^ 2000 3ii^i>i Maw (1^(3°"^) sn^rqn'R'fi* cI-lTW^TaiHRi ^gTWflferw^T <ti]<it<i<fl-< *<i*iciTffte<A'<Ri«<]< ^<frt^T3T)^T 12. Now we shali degi with to have been made by the adp has stated that IViukti was h^r accused Pila Ram. Muktiiie husband. On Wednesday Pj when she was cpoking the took her husband to Kodenarl the alleged extrajudiciai confession said lcused before PW-1 Raimati, this witness mother-in-law and she was married to Uai has alreadv chiidren from her first nteal them the whereabouts of her husband is in tbe-market but the house. Thereafter, they Pila Ram disclosed that he laram and Mandhar came to her houss I. On Thursdsy Pilaram and Mandhar [market. When they rsturned, she asked husBand whereupon they replied that her |n the night her husband did not return to rtiade search for him. She has stated that hte cohmitted the murder of her husband nfi with axe and his body is lyif to her that Mandhar attackeil v/itness has not been cross-i confession made by the and Mandhar had not taken h not made any extrajudicia! co also stated that Pila tbok near the Bhainiwa bush. He disclosed her husband with club. However, this xamination on the aspect of extrajudicial before this witness that Piia Ram acdused ;r husband to the market or that Pila has Dfession before her. PW-4 Muktibai has l|ier foreibty and kept her as his wife, P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^1^'' *11HMI Sh*1iqi 3^^iraRW, ®T(1wi6,Rldl+iy ^r.:^.:/y.2r.3?. ^[ 2000 Sll^l 4^'h ('i':tI^I!«<iT) aji^r^rR-fi* craT3TI^Tsb*1 s^nwHfStT-w^T 'niitci'Tl-i t<i<4<aTfftecA<Ri«i< ^»1^T3Ti^r deceased Banv/aram vi?as his house accused tried to tak (;rother. When she came to her parents' her foreibly to his house and Pi disclosed to her that he has dommitted the murder .of his brother wil axe. As the accused kept thi^ on account of the quarrel 'i brother's house, the accused but she did not oblige the the accused as she remained acdused as such, there is every pos^ witness by the aceu'sed. .{ examined this witness on thd confession before her. Si Therefore, there is nothing confession made before the^ rather the extrajudicial confe by the evidence of PW-3 P Thus the evidence of al iady for quite some time as his wife and ^etween th®tAfo, she returned to her wanted to take her back again foreibly I, therefore, this lady vras known to Iwith him for quite some time as his wife, libility of making confessibn' before this Similarly, the defence has not cross- point that accused made extra judicial milar' is the evidence of PW-5 Liti. record to show that the extrajudiciai .e witnesses was not votuntary or true sion made before them is corroborated ctn ion made bv the accu^ P^dyamikariya wh'o witnessed the crime. witnesses regarding extrajudiciai )ed, inspire confidence of the Court. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^ *11HCTTaitTT9) Ts?^rrai?ra', siTtl'H'is, fiii'iiti^ ff^.:.^:J.'?..^. ^ 2000 3ii^i?i ><si<»> (y(^isi<yr) aif^TW R-fi* cfaiTsn^Tstifiti ?^arw flf?tT sn^r <tll<<tfl<n-< 11K<lTiffe^t<[:i|^l< ^isri^iTsn^T . A v^'- 13. For the foregoing re^sons, we infirmitv in the finding of th^ Ram under Section 302 of thle 3anwaram with the help of in his death. Therefore, 9 that Mandhar has a!so do not find any iitegalit^ trial Court convicting the accused iPC for causing fatal injur/ to decea xe on his head which ultjmatelv resu ity or sed attadked definite finding can be give? responsibie for committing t! as the accused Pila Ram e argument of counsel for the appeilant the deceased with club, as such no that it was accused P'!a Ram who was e murder of Banwaram is not acceptable ssauited the deceased with' axe on his head and to that effect th< eyewitness PW-3 Podyamil before whom Pila Ram made landhar also attacked the by PW-3 Podyamikariya, the i^re is a clear and cogent evidence of k^riya gnd the evidence of PW-1 Raimati ic|e extrajudiciai confession. The accused (jleceased with ctub which was witnessed (efore, the appeal of Mandhar has aiso no lerit. 14. In the resuit, the appc be dismissed and it is accord|ingly dismissed. al being devoid of substance is iiable to Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge , ~^7 < •^/^ ^^ ^ / ;'- \ ^-] ^ ' J- '•' (/" P.T.O.