<3-^^ ^Nl<y)<<, ^rfl^KS, (^<^W^< MINdl sb^lcb ^ 200 3n^?r xisra? (yc<^^) •^r 3?n^r^r R'iich WT^TI^T shHlcb I&ppellant ^«ii^R<if^a 3T1^?T CM^f<n<fli ^H<yiT ^* ft^t {Htl^K '^'^tfOT^TT^T ^ HIGH CQURT OFCHHAtTISGARHATB!LA8PUR CRIMINAL APPE4L N0. 960 of 2005 Rewa Chhakk. IPrasad Kiinihar S/0 Late dal Kumhar Agcd 30 ycar, R/0 Patharri{, P.S. Manyahi, Distt. Bilaspzir VERSU^ Respondent State (^f Chliatdsgarh tlirough P.S. Mar^ah|i, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Present: Ms. Nu'upma Bajpai, coun^el Mrs. Maclhunisha Singli, If ORALJ for tlie appellant. ,L. for the Statc. [TDGMENT (23rd Nov^aber 2007) Dhirendra Mtehra, J This criaiuial appeal is dii'ected against tlie judgineiit of conviction aiid order of sente^ice dated 11.11.2005 passed ui S.T.No. 286/04 whereby learnetjt Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Peiidi'a Road; has convicted th^ appellant under Section 304-11 of the IPC aiid sentenced hiai to ij|ndergo RI for 5 years, pay a fiiie of Rs.5,000/- aiid iii default ofpa RI for six montlis. ^ment offirie to undergo additional ^rra^r ^^ y^ii^, <M^i^iH —FS/59— 8/2007 —so.ooo. Tv^ ^\^W^, ^T{1'<-t<l<o, (s|^l<iy (S.' Nl^dl (b^lcb' •^ 200 w^r^'f^rfcF ^ WT ^qff^T ^FqNr »*».: an^r xj^q? (4?(^<^T) ^«II^R<yf^a SIT^T ^. com.pl4niant W&.S 2. Case of the prosea Wachkaiva Kumhar liad oue CMiakkelal aiid his da.i his hoiisc after maiTiage. has ousted his wife aftcr 27.6.2004 about 10.00 0| complaiaant Nachkaiya, liis| weiit towards the house oj throw stoiie at the enteriag into the house 4 appellaiit started abusuig tiaie whea Jaiinativabai side, appeUaiit picked up twice on the back of her N oozing from her head. villapers. First hiform.atit coniplainant Nachlcaiya, Section 307 of the IPC Medical exam.uiation reporlj deceascd <lied cn 28.6.2001 Center, Manyalii while uuj her cleath was given vide Patle/ Inquest ovcr tlie pa| Ex.P/ 7. Thereafter, de^ CM^f<n<ilTi ^i*i<nT "^f [k^ <P»t^$K "^ 3TRPT 3TT^T |Ltion, iti brief, is that coiiiplaiiiaiit m^i'ricd liis daughter Jarmatiyabai with ighter aiid soii-iii-law were reskling iii T}ie appeUaiit suspected that his m.0ther quarrelluig aiid on tliis account 011 ^lock tiie appeUaat stailed abzisuig |mother Jaioiatiya, son Sliivkumar and complaiaaiit. He had attem.pted to L, however, he saved limisetf by ^iid closing the door. Thereafter, tlie ShrAuiiiai' aiid also beat liim. At that retuniiiig jfrom. tiie kitcheu gai'den &e wood fi'om his house, assaulted ^ad, as a reszilt of wliich blood started was taken to the hospital by tiie m Report of Ex.P/8 was lodgecl by m tiie basis of which offence iinder ^as registered agaiiist tiie appeUaiit. of Jaimatiyabai is Ex.P/ 10. Howe^er, |4 at 12.20 p.m. hi Conimuiiity Healtli lergouig treatm.eiit. biformation about Ijlerg iiitmiatiou of Ex.P/ 13 by SacUielal son of the deceased was prepai'ed vide id body was scnt for postiiiortein Sbe ^w6<* ^t^rgCTOT, ^ioi-ii^iici —FS/59— 8/2007—30,000. 3n^T ^r f<^ich ^ ^T8TT 3TT^?T ^TRNr 3^' "qN|0-q, ^Tfl^f^KS, (s<01-y^< @ ^Wv{{ <b*41<*» 'W^ 200 3TT^?T X[5TSF (<icl^al<^) '^ITW^f^T'3'TT^T exartiination to Commiiiiit^l Bhagwaii Siagh Paiki'a (PW-| report of Ex.P/ 11. Aftei- con| filed agauist the appellaiit u^ 3. Duruig trial 12 ^7itiies{ Thereafter. statem.eiit of tN deiiied fhe evidence appeai^rjig aiid pleaded uiiiocence aixd] However, learned trial C^ respective partles acquittecj Section 302 of IPC aiid conl mentioned above. 4. Leai'ned counsel for tl tlic appellaiit is based cn tli< claiins to have seen tlie iii< cause of death as ophied 1: who conducted postmoitcm sustaiiieci by Uie deceased Q tfiat the uijuries No. 1, 2 & could bc caused by falliiig. <=M<<f<yt<ill ^TFRTf '^,feT^t <Fai^l< '^^ffiw^TT^r Health Center, Marwalii where Dr, 3) condzicted postooiortem aiid gave liis pletuig iiivestigatioa chai'ge sheet was ider Section 302 oftlieIPC. ses were exainined by the prosec4ution. ? accused was recorded iii which he agaiiist hioi hi tlie prosecution case false implication ui the above offence. >urt after hearnig counsel for the thc appeUaiit of fhe charge under yicted aiid sentenced the appeUaiit as le appellaiit submits that conviction of ? statem.ent of ey€fwittiess Rataiilal who ideut from a distaiice of 200 ft. The |y Dr. Bhagwaii.Singh PaUa'e (PW-9), is due to conia as a reszilt of uijury |i her head. However, he has aclm.itted |3 described iii tlie postmortem report TS^ ^ll^l^-q, ^ITd^'Ko, R)<?i>|^^< ^Wv\\ *W<sh ^ 200 3H^9T XHPF ( yi^^) 3!7I^T^1^W ^CT 3?I^?T ^*<iqi A~ '^TTW^^T^TI^T ^» On the other hantl State/respondent support^ Gourt. L, learned counsel appeariag fbr the ed the mipugned jiidgmeiit of the ti'ial I havc heard leariied material available on recorjd From fhe evideilce appellant assaultiiig liis the postaaaortem report of| (PW-9), in wluch it ha^ sustained laceratedwount 5 cm fcoue deep aiid on tliere was aaother laccral extendiag up to occipito wifh a fracture of bone on the occipital region, diiraraatar, the hoinicNal estabUshed. aiifl 8a Now conim.g to tlie iti crmie ui quesUon. appell^nt deceased and the iiicident he was prepariiii badi (kitchen garden). At ct)i<il<n<ili 1RTO?Tf '3Sf,fec3t <Rn^i< ^? ^FiRm ^n^r counsel for tiie parties arid pCTUsed fhe uiclucUiig the impugned judgment. |of Ratanlal (PW-6L who has seen the 2|tiptli€r Jaimatiyabai with fii'e wood aiid |Ex.P/ 11 praved by Dr. Bhagwan Singh beeu nientioned that the deceased |1 on the occipital region ui the srze of 3 x dissection there was fracture in the skiiU, (ed woxind of size 2x5 cra. bone deep \|ertex region (above eai') on the left side third wound on extt'a dura hemorrhage ^lood clottuig of size 5x5 cm. below death of deceased Jaimativabai is p^- l^uestion of Hivolveruetit of the appeUaiit P/-6 Rataiilal, who is neighbour of tlie :, has deposed that on tiie date of to take batii iu fhe weU situated iri his |that tim-e he saw the accused assaulting . • 371^T^l ^\^ ^TT^I^TICTt^ 3;:c?T;^n?rT^T, ffiTd^'Ko, fsi<<I»i'y^< TRTOCTT '^WeR "^ 200 3n^?r XI^F (<i^yi^) ^^ITW^rf^T^n^r liis m.0ther on her back After assaulting he fled j&'o) not go to there. In cross-< tlie above incident frord categoricaUy stated that t^ place where he was m.ediafion bv hioi from. paragi'aph 4 ofhis cross-tej claim that he had seen her head with club. He iiiakirtg falsc aUegations l the deceased. laiid thereaffcer on her head witli latiii. ^ai the place of incideiit. Howevcr, h€cUd M€kaiGiuiation,he has adm.itted fhat hc saw a distaiice of 200 ft. but he has [ic placc of incideiit was visible from the st4iiding. Sonie oraissioiis ui respect of |ils dlary statement is pohited oxit in -tekaiauiatloii, however, he has stuck to his tl{ie appellmit assaulting the deceased on |has denied the suggestioii that he is ^ccause he happeiis to be neighbour of 9- PW-5 Sliivkumar, s< on the date of uicident liis that time Shukla Prasad aiid the appcUaiit abusui; tbllowed the appellaiit, w: beatiiig. After some time aiid saw that his grand-m club. Hc does not kaow £ m.0ther. Whea he reached oii the CTound with injiir He has farther stated th., entered tlie hozise aiid cM<i(<n<Ili *iM<nf ^fe^ ^R?R ^^iRpr^Fn^T |)H of the appellaiit, has also stated that |father caoie aiid started abusuig huii, at |and Nachkaiya were also present there ^ fhem eutered uito his home. He also tiereupon tlie appcUaiit chased him for ]jie heai'd the shouts, whereupon he wcnt iiilother was assaulted bv his fatiier with a \s to why his father assaulted liis grand"" the spot, he saw his graiid-mother lying les over her back aad behind the head. fct when he reached there, the accused Aosed the door. However. in cross" J^ 3:5:q" ^l'qi^'q, ^Tcfly^^, (s|<<>l^^< ^W^ **<(<*) —"•••"•••••••^ 200 3TT^?T XI^F ( 4c<?Tlc<<^) ^fln^r^r Vw^ 'TOT^TT^T sb^i<=b ^RHW ^rf^T 371^T exaBiiiiation he has adm.itted fh not assazilt his grand-motiiCT u-1 has further stated that thev all| punished so tliat he is reformee and on tlie coiitrai'y, he used to i o. Complaiiiant Naclikaiya prosecution and he has turned "\ PW-4 Shulda Pi-asad ha^ uicident he saw the accuselcl However, tliCTeafter he weiit to t| wha assaulted m.othei' of tlie a<| placc iii his presen.cc. He has told liim tliat his father has Laxnii Prasad has also stated tib is son of liis aunty and he heajl^ hearuig the shoiits of Shr^kum^ accused had com.e to the laae d time mother of the accused wj son of the accused had iiifomled OW21 mother and hewas abusint 1^' The tiial Court acquitte4 Section 302 of IPC with an obt cr>i^<yi<i1i ITTR^JT ^ ft^t ^^K ^^tRFTST^T ? suggestion that tlie appellant did his presence. In paragraph 7 he wanted that his fatlier should be His father clid not do aay work ^ominit truirpeet. has iiot siipported case of tlie .ostile. also stated that cn the date of abusuig his son Shivkuniai\ he field aiid he does not know as to :cused as the auarrel cUd not took ^tated tliat at that tiaie Shivkumai" issaiilted liis owii mother. PW-3 lat the accuscd is liis brotlier as he d the shoiits of Shivkiim.ar aud on r he caaie out aad bv that time the P;er assaultuig his m.other. At that is lyuig in the kitchen garden and that the accused assaulted liis them by iising filthy laiiguage. the appellaat of tlie charge under ei-vation tiiat the appellant did not ^iiy^ ^N^ ^uii^, <M^I^IM —FS/59— 8/2007 —30,000. X 75^ ^l'lK <'•><<, y>T{1'M<l^, (s|<7>l^^< *<IMdl *^(cb" •^ 200 3^?r xra^ ('^f^sf^sr) 3:n^r,5RT(<^icb ^nw^r sh^ii<=b L-... ^ ^ provlocation Ihave aiiv iiitention to cause deailh Ithe above act out of sudden |was responsible for sending liis |no motive for causiiig her deatli. '^TTW^ft'cT 3T1^T iiivolv'fanent 131 Thus, from. tlie evidcnce a^ has been able to estabUsh iiivolv'fan causing homicidal death of his uTtu'mity iii thc iBipugiied judgni^nt laUable on record, the prosecution ofthe accused/appellmit in tnotlier. There is no iltegality or ofthe trial Court. i^- Iii the reszilt, the appeal l^ to be cUsmissed aad is accorduig]^7 CM^f<n<fl<l 'RTR^Tf^ 1^rt Tf^R^R ^>> ^fRpr ^TS^T of his mother as he comm.itted as he considered fhat she ^ife awav from. him and there was euig devoid of substaiice is Uable r, disniissed. Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge ^ii^^ ^N^r ^uii^, o^^i^iici —FS/59— 8/2007 —30,000.