TS( "iif<fld<i, »Tn<a'K»,Rcijtfy ..&^.^:.^Tr?. Xl-HC-78 sn^t'ra^r (*tq(^q<iy) sn^Twf^iN; ciw3ii^rsb*< TOiRKnferan^r HISH COURT OF CWA Crjminal Appeal ffn jail) Present Counsfel Shri R.K. Jain, Shri t5.K. (Swalre, &y. ORAL J >TH .J This appeal is directed agc^inst order of sentence dated 16 AugJList iastar at Jagdalpur in Sessions 5e5sions Judge after holding commission of offence under to undergo imprisonment for life. '»>l<lFM<fl-<KlldT ff fec3' <R]t<il< ; ^3Tf^T3n^ST TTES6ARH AT BILASPUR No. 2500 of 2000 ustice L.C. BhadoQ. & ustfce Dhirendra Mishra, JJ Ppyami AAeso, aged about 30 years, S/o. Hadma Muriya, ~ Oecupatton-Cultiyator, R/o. Village-Korlapalli, P.5. . Faifsegarh, bistt.-bantewara (MP) The State of Madhyd Pradesh, Through the P.S. Farsegar-h, Ojstt.-Dcintewara (AAR). for ^ie dppellant. i G.A.ftir the State/r'esp.ondent. LLb_6M_E_N_T the judgment of conviction and 2000 passed bySessions Judge, r"ia! No. 23/1999, whereby learned the. accused/appellant guilty for 302 of the IPC, sentenced him Sedtion P.T.O. XI-HC-78 *TI*T(fT<;t)*1I<sh 3's? Bfpncpr, oTdfl'Ko, Isicfwy • »-**'«* *-»-«•»*»*y»*»***- ?R; 200o 3<l^i?llacn (yit^q^d') sn^Tqn'R.ficb (iwsn^Tsiitficp SRframfN'w^T ipli^d acdused 2. Case of the prosecutipn, it the decessed, gave merg intim4t Farsegarh, to the effect that or^ Meso carne to her houss ond Pooja at his Ctgr'icutture fie!d as| which he" husband Maidd ret the meantime, you should make In the morning on 26.10.1.998 field of tiie accused whsre axe on his back side and when hj with stone on his head, as a r^: injuries. Based on this repor Station-Farsegarh, registered left fo" tiie scene of Panchas prepared the inquest Kudiyanr,i Maida. He took into soi! from the place of occurre^ weapon of offence i.e. oxe from The recovered articles wsre 4e under Ex.P/4 from where repor) deceased Maida was sent for Health Centrs, Beejapur under E|; the occurr4nce <t>i<iFci<fl-f *<ii(iT?''fec3'<(Si'(<il< iraTf^Tsn^r brief, is that Kudiyam-'Chinni, wife of •ion (Ex.P/ll) in the Police Station - 25.10.1998 at about 4.00 p.m. Poyami t^sked hep husband Maida to perform the irop was ripe for harvesting, on that he wil! come tomorrow and in \i\\ preparations for performing Pooja. [ler husbdnd wsnt to the agriculture 4ised Poyami AAeso attacked-him with ifer husbomd felt down, he attacked him "fesult of which he succumbed to the \, the Station House Officer, Police First Information Report (Ex.P/6), and after giving notice to the (Ex.P/1) on the body of decsased j^ossession the plain and blood-stained ice unde" Ex.P/2. He also seized the the placa of occurrence under Ex.P/3. ^ent to For'ensic Science Laboratory (Ex.P/5) was received. The body of postmorterr. examination to P"imary px.P/15 where &r. R.L. (Souigesh (PW-4) F.T.O. tj::':i ^^ ^':^ XI-HC-78 *4i<4^i ^qr^> 3^ '-i<l'l|l<'l«, (SiTn+f'16, Px'll'triy .<?"r.-A-..-?.STC'b. * »*""» **'* * e *jr* * * *~»'»'** * »* TFT 2000 311^1 ^at«)('^qtg°ll^iT) aTl^T^Tfew gqT3||t;!!l st>t< ?(<rTWBf?<T3n^5r WtS conducted postmortem on the. postmortem report (EX.P/7), in coma due to hecd injury and the investigation charge sheet wi^s Magistrate, bantewada who in Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur where charge against the accused/a^pe Statement of the accused was Cr.P.C. in which he denied the maltei 3. After hearing --counsel f<{ Sessions Judge convicted aforementioned. 4. We have heard Mr. R.K.Jaji and Mr. &.K. Swalre, Dy. 6.A. appe 5. Mr. Jgin, has npt dispute^ AAaida. Moreover, t)r. R.K. fiange^l that he conducted postmortem found that there was an incised w| incised wound between inter-s noticed that occipital bone was f were cut, brain membrane was -scft in nature. This medi'cal eviden ttii«ti'i41-fWRit' ff fscSi <R|«|< ^srf^lTSn^T ~ i^ody of deceased and prepared the ifljhich he opined that mode of death is it>volumic shock. After completion of filed jn the Court of Chief Judicial turn committed the cass to the prosecution in order to establish the llant examined seven witnesses. 'ecorded under Section 313 of the (erial' appearing against h|(n; ir the respective parties, learned dnd sentenced the accused as n, counsel for the accused/appellant )4ai"ing for the State/respondent. the homicida! death of deceased ih (PW-4) has statsd in his evidence ^in the body of deceased Maida and (ound on the occipital region, another' sc|ipular re9ion and on dissection he hactured, 5+ & b thoracic yertebra mbtured and the death was homicidal i{:e also stands corroborated by the P.T.O. XI-HC-78 *<1*1WI Sh*l)ch TS< '<iWM<<,w^wie, Rciiyy ..^.•.A..^^^., W^ 200o 3(T^?T ira^T (<jo(^i!t<^ST) 3n^r?irf?:iN> cPITSTI^Tsniro e^ftWHfitrsii^r i>i<ifii<fl-i ii*iciTfftei^t'<Ri'ti;i< ^aTf^irgniRT iy|aw r-icultlure bvidence of PW-2 Kudiyam Lakhmq pf Kudiyam i-jingaram, SarpancH fciccused/appellant made extra judi of aboye. it is zstabjished that hature. • !6. 'As far as inyolvement of kjuestion is concerned, PW-2;Kudi' fal'eful day he was at his agr-icult sparrows, accused was olso at hi| accused was attacking Moiidd with was attacking A/\aida with stone on of this witness defence has not discredit the evidence of this wi| question put by .the Court, he h^ outside the residence of Sarpanc has rRurdered Maida. PW-7 Kudiyi] br'other-in-iawof the accused cuidl ••elevant time, hss stated that a| disclosed that he ho;s. committed After disclosurs of this fact by ^ yillagers by beating drum and •rfier^ piace of occurrence whsre they , who witnessed the crime and PW- of the viilage, before whom bial confsssion. Therefore, in view death of Maida was homicidal in betn ^he accused/appellant in crime in Lakhmu has stated that on the field to protect hiscrop from ^ field,, at that time he Sfiw that |axe on his back and thereafter, he bis head. In the cross-examination able to elicitany circumstance to ^mess. Even in paragraph -6 on a (s stated that while beating drum |i, the accused was sayin9 th.at he 'i|im Hinqaram, who is none else than wcs Sarpanch of the village at the tcused came to his residence and murder of Maida with the axe. (ccused Meso to him, he calied the ^after, went along with thsm to the s4w the dead body of Maida lying in P.T.O. XI-HC-78 +11WCTI Sh*ll<»» 3??'<ii<iiit<i, siTn*i'i6, Riowy .Cx.^.2^s%...•^^SQQO 3n^5T(ra%('^gs(^Er) Sn^TqRTf^IR; traT3IR^Tsn*<iti ^yw TOITiSIT (iferSTI^T the agriculture field of MeS'o. head. On enquiry being rsa.de., t>i<<Tci<(1-f iroff ff fec^t <(S]«;i< ^i Slf^T STlS^T ' 'here were injuries on the back and accused Meso made -extra judiciat confession before him and the vilfagers. TTiereafter, on matter being reported in the poiice station, f cross-examinatibn he has state^ the deceased is his nephew arid'i^-.is mcorrect to say that he has ony animosity dgairis* the accused. brother-in-law of the accused, i-| go to him and make extrajudiciat examination the defence hasinotl which makes theevidence of thisj Tliere is no evidence on recordl the same is corroborated by Kudiyam Lakhmu. 7. For the foregoing reason. quest (Ex.P/5) was prepared. In the that accused is his brother-in-law, Thus, being a village Sarpainch and was but natural for the accused to bonfession before him. In the cross- been abie to elicit ony circumstance witriess unreliable or untrustworthy. to suggest that the extra judicial confession made by the accysed^appellant was not voluntary, rather this extrajudicial confession is f|iund to be reliable and true because the evidence of eyewitness PW-2 , we are of the considered opinion that there is no iilega!it/:or infir|nit/ in the irnpugned judgment of the Court. The appea! being de^oid of nnerit is tigble to be dismissed anfl is hereby dismissed. 1, : Sd/- DHO<SI{DKA WSHRA Judge Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge P.T.O.