:C—78 P%icMi0^ c.>, sn^T w R-fi* '?TSIT 3TT^T ^RT^ ^ESf ^W^-tf^ tSiTfl*f'l<S, (q^l^y ^r ^te.^..A-^..-.^-.^^-...^^ sn^sr Traw (1pf^??T) TSIIW ^lft^I aiI^T APPELLANT: (InJaii) RESPONDENT: {Crimina! appea! under Section Divislon Bench; - Hon'bte Shri L.C. Bhadoo & Hon'bie Shri T.P. Sharma, JJ. -2008: Miss Sofia Khan, couns^l Shri U.N.S. Deo, Additio(ial Oraljudgment dictated o^ L.C. Bhadoo. J. This appea! Is directed sentence dated 24 Uarch, Jashpur Nagar, in S.T. No.15/; after holding the Section302 ofthe I.P.C., pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in de^ 5 years. 1^99 5/&9 accused/ap^ellant senttnced --0. cbi^Td'^'i ^wv^ ^^£t<r^^i-<. 'ir srRpr an^r Samaru Ram, aged about 40 years, Son ofShri Sounra Ram Pahadi Konva, Occupation: Agriculturist, Resident of Viliage: Son-garesha, P.S. Baghicha, Jashpur Nagar, District Raigarh (M.P.) (now Chhattisgarh) - Versus - The State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh), Through Police Station Baghteha, Tahsii and Djstrict: Jashpur Nagar (M.P.) (now Chhattisgarh) 374 (2) ofthe Code ofCrimina! Procedure} for the appellant. Public Prosscutor for the State'respondent. Dais. 3 igainst the judgment of conviction and order of passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge guilty for commission of offence under him to undergo imprisonment for life & to utt of payment offine to further undergo S.l. for -HC—78 sn^r ?!T [<;•)(•* nsff STT^T ^i*i •s^ ^\m^, ^ww, ^wy. VWf\\ **^1<*' •V^ 200 sn^v wra? (iyf^«ii{isr) T;RIIW<lfCT •ffl^T tlte lamlD The case of the prosect deceased, lodged a report or( Sukhan Ram @ Posoram left house in order to burn the p.m., cousin of the deceased R| Sying in the house of Samaru, b] on the chest. Receiving this in< body of his father lying on the g| injuries on head and chest. 1 Sumru informed Panch, saw the body of the deceasedj 20-10-98, therefore, on 22-10-q Ex.Pf'1 in the Police Station BE Saitiaru Sarifianch The police registered tt^ !.P.C. During mvestigation,'rt on 19-10-98 at about 5 p.m. the| drinks of Handia (intoxicated si( Handia drinks together. Wife p.m. in the night, they continue<p went outsidethe house for of the accused a!f atone in th4 deceased caught ho!d of her, ir^ and saw that the deceased w^ When Sukhan Ram asl what has he seen. he slapped ub a bamboo c!ub 19inQ there <fii^^Ti 'TFRrf Tf,fsT^ ^i^^ ^aifgiTsn^r rtion, in brief, is that PW-1 Sumru, son of the 19-10-98 at about 5 p.m. to the effect that house saying that he is going to his brother's ;, but he did not return, next day at about 1-2 atia came and informed that his father's body is bod is oozing out of the head & there was injury 'ormation, PW-1 Sumru went there and saw the round in the house ofthe accused. There were Ram was not at his residence. When R<V- and Kotwar, they went on the spot and As PW-1 Sumru v/as suffering from fever on |8 at about 7.45 p.m. he gave merg intimation i, which is at a distance of 40 tons. aidiicha f^e crime No.105/98 under Section 302 of the c^me to the light that on the occasion of festiva! laccused invited Sukhan to his house for havini (bstance) together. At about 7 p.m. they had a (?f the accused also consumed Handia. Till 9 to drink Handia. At about 9 p.m. fhe accused i. When the deceased saw Sudhni Bai, wife house, in order to outrage her modesty, the the meantime, the accused entered the house ^s holding his wife, therefore, he slapped him l|:ed the accused as to why he is beating him, famaru also, whteh enraged Samaru, he plcked attacked on the head of Sukhan: as a resutt urin^tion add .;-s3?ai^». •w^. ""^. lia> ''&. X.IM^ sv^ivf Kiini WSfT sn^T sfffli^i i ! ysef ^Wvii^, fs-iS\wi<a, Ri<?iiyy MIM^( *<41«b W^ 200 an^?r TRRB (Tpf^gqff) '^giwafeT sn^i of which he fel! down, thereafter back. Sukhan was lying unconscji He died at about 7 a.m.next da^ about the incident to her fathert- brother of the deceased Ratia Rarf- After investigation the polii] the Court of Chief Judicial Magisl the case to the Sessions Jud^ Sessions Judge, Jashpur Nagar, r| The prosecution in order examined 7witnesses. Statemenl 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied] prosecution evidence. Leamed Additional Sesss< respective parties, convicted and We have heard learned cou Homicida! death of the dec< Christ Dular Bakhla has stated th; on the body of the deceased. He There was compressed injury on cm x 1% cm x 2 cm. On disss compressed duramater on She br death was haemorrhagic shock, ai <*w!d<il-i •wrai^^S Tf^R?R ^sifinaii^r amaru kicked the deceased on his chest and >us whoie night in the house ofthe accused. morning i.e. 20-10-98. Sudhni Bai informed in-law Soura Ram, who, in tum, informed i, who furttier informed to PW-1 Sumru. filed charge sheet against the accused in rate, Jashpur Nagar, who in turn, committed i, Raigarh from where learned Additfonal seeived the case on transfer for Srial. estab!ish the charge against the accused of the accused was recorded under Section |the material appearing agalnst him in the [ns Judge after hearing counsei for the fentenced the accused asaforementioned. tiseifortheparties. |ased 'is not in dispute. Moreover, PW-6 Dr. ( on 24-10-98 he conducted the postmortem taw that there was haematoma on the chest. fte forehead of the deceased in the size of 7 •(:tion of the skuil, he found that there was >in. haematoma on the sternum. Cause of a result of injuries. Death was homlcidal in iill WfWV y"-^ ^-HC—78 -^ sn^i ^f ft-fi'* TT8H 3fTT^T ^llTcti S^^an'iTRSq', ^WTS, R|0Wy,< t\Wv\\ "•*NI<* •H^ 200 an^?T WR; (Tpf^qa) ^iTWflteisnt^i •*lli<-l4-< 'WRff •ff.'fe^^fW^ '^siRnan^i nature. His report is Ex.P/8. ] From the above medical established that death ofthe decefesed was homicidal in nature. , it is As far as complicity of the ^ccused in the crime in question is concerned, the body of the deceased was found in the house of the accused. PW-1 Sumru, son ofthe deceased, has| incident, he went to the house of iying. There were injuries on hea stated that when he came to know about the he accused where the body of his father was [I, chest and back of his father. About 10-20 persons were there but the acci^ed was not at his residence. There were marks of the injuries inflicted b^ Lathi. Family members of the accused informed him that the deceased 'lvas invited to have drink of Handia. When they were in inebriated condition tl|ie deceased was attacked. PW-7 Parasnath Thakur, Head Constable, has statj was prepared on 23-10-98. He ce} the p'ace of occurrence undgr Ex.Ff/4. Therefore, it is established that the ciea< body of the deceased was found) medical evidence, the deceased id that inquest on the body of the deceased lected plain soi! and b!ood stained soi! from in the house of the accused. As per tha lied on account of homicidal injuries. The accused has not offered any expl^nation regarding the fact that how the body of the deceased was !ying in his (louse that too how he sustained homicidat injuries. As per the provisions ofl special cireumstance, it was within Section 106 of the Evidence Act, this was the knowiedge of the accused, he ought to have explained about the dead bodfcf of the deceased iying in his house. The second circumstance incident he was absconding fron(i deceased, has categorically stated) he went to the house of the accuset ^oes against the accused te that after the his house & PW-1 Sumru, son of the |that on coming to know about the incident, where the body of his father was iying, but lill! II t,. ^, 3?-HC—78 .ofA!." f ;./ 311^1 ya ft-ii'h ^sn .3TI^T ?h*llch •S^^WvPf, f9^\WW, RlOI'M^ ^ tffqW *NI<* an^r TR^ (1pf^?w) TOiiw^toa^ the accused was absconding. 'Wl. 200 cbl<lfd41;l •WRff^^6 ^fiR?K ^aifimsn^i herefore, based on the second circumstance, the accused has been convict4d. Even eyewitnesses name!y, wife of the accused Sughni Bai (PW-2) anc( RA/-5 Sawara Ram have turned hostile and they have not supported the cajse of the prosecution. From the above two circumstances, involvement of|the accused in the crime in questton is established. To that extent, w^ do not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding of the trial Court. Learned counsel for the q^pellant argued that from the prosecution case itself, it is evident that the dece^sed was inwted by the accused for drinking Handia. The accused, decease^ and PW-2 Sughni Bai, wife of the accused, had a drinks of Handia up to 9 fj.m. When they were In inebriated condition, the accused went out of She hou^e for urination, at that time, the deceased in order to outrage the modesty of ^fl'fe of the accused, caught hold of her, in the meantime, the accused returned,twhen he sawthe deceased, he slapped him, in turn, the deceased also slappe^ the accused. He picked up a bamboo c!ub iying there and attacked the dec^ased, which proved fatal and the deceased died on account of that. As th^ deceased was lying in the house of the accused, there was nobody to att^nd him, by the next day morning he died. !n view of the above, she submittecl that when the accused saw the deceased attempting to outrage the modesy? of his wife, he cou!d not control, when he slapped the deceased, he also s^pped the accused, that further aggravated the situation. The accused pickec| the deceased. Therefore, offence! Sectloh 304 Part-!! ofthe IPC. up a bamboo ciub iying there and attacked against the accused does not travej beyond vs l;;i^i ii^ ^l 1'^ rFiiiiiir" t.HC—78 / / ~3i-f" fvSS^Pff^f, Q-^V'ie, fq^l'My 0 WTFIT *t<l* "S^ 200 sn^i w h-\ 'cf^TT •STT^T Sb+liqt Bar»/e an^r inra; (Tpf^g^u) ?(grw ^if?g SII^T On the other hand, leameiB ofthetrialCourt. coitnse f-taving heard learned argued by learned counsel for tt<i the accused, the deceased & consumed Handia (intoxicated su( the house for urination, the d4 order to outrage her modesty^] deceased & his wife, he s!appe;f accused, in that fit of anger, in deceased with club !ying nearb^ under Exception !V to Section 30^ of the accused to commit murdel offence against the accused doe^ !PC, as such, his conviction undeil In the result, the appeai imposed upon the accused/app^ aside, instead thereof, he is convg detention since 29-10-98 till todai the above detention period again^ Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge *l<ll<-l'il-t 'RI'Rif if.ft^t <fat(l< ^affifHSIT^I counse! for the State supported the judgment for the parties and considering the fact appellant that as per the prosecution case, jghni Bai (PW-2), wife of the accused, had >stance) together, when the accused went out ;eased caught hold of wife of the accused in when the accused retumed and saw the the deceased, in turn, he also slapped the heat of passion, the accused attacked the therefore, case of the accused is covered ofthe !PC; moreover, there was no intention of the deceased, we are of the opinion that not travel beyond Section 304 Part-il of the Section 302 ofthe !PC cannot be sustained. s partly ailowed. Conviction and sentence lant under Section 302 of the !PC are set ;ted under Section 304 Part-!! of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.!. for t<) years. !t Is^stated that the accused is in The accused shall be.entitled for set off of jtthe sentenceimposed upon him. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge <^