^toll0? 3?n^r^T'^N 'ffs?T ^1^¥T'^NT •S^ "qiq|0-q, t$T{i^<|(S, |c|<»i>|y^< ^SPRW iprr^' 3n^3?r xisra? (^cit^^) ^ 200^ '^TTW^rf^T 3TI^T APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: {Cnmiaal appeal under Sect^on 374 (2) offhe Code ofCriminal Pr^cedure} Divlsioa Beaeh: Hon>Me Mv. L.C. Bhadoo aad | Hon^ble Mr. SiinU Kumar Sinlia* JJ. a-1-2008 Mr. R,N. Jha, counsel 3foi Mr. Akhil Mishra, Paael Oral judgxaent dictated c}n Dais. Sutiil Kumar Sittha, J: 74t 1. This appeal is d&rected onier of sentence dated Judge & the Additional Trial No.68/2001, whercb^ under Section 302 of th4 miprisoxmient for Ufe aiid payment of fine to further <:M<l(<v1<fll ,*1H<?lT ^f^St if^R^R ^3TfiP:T3TT^T Soaiadiiar, s/o 'liua Kam, Age 35 years, ViUage Maadpal, P,S. Nagaraar, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) ersus - The State of Chhatdsgarh, Through Police of P.S. Naqgaiiiar. the appellaat jbawyer for fhe State/respoiidetit agafbast the judgmeiit of conviction and July, 2001 passed by fbe Special Se^sions Judge, Jagdalpiir m Sesaions fhe appellsmt has beeii coavicted I.P.C. aad senteiiced to undex^o ^ay a fme of Rs.700/-, m default of ijjndei^o R.I, for oae year. Kn€ XI-HC—78 L.^^ 371^1 ?FT^W 'TOT ^H^? sF^lt^ fi^ pNN^ •S^ ^W^, ^Tfl-M'Ko, ^)<>'>1<-1^< _*_-......<fe..-....ft.'..^.^:^J •Wi?3T ^q^"-"::r""""-A--"""—"7---^200 ^^ 3n^?T xy5R? (^dl^ciSl) ^«ll<a<tii^a 2. Case of fhe pix>secutlon is deceased Chaxiiru was along wifh his wtfe Shaia^] front of fhe house of the his house aloaig wifh a abdoixiiaal portion of fhe d\ blow on fhe abdoicdmal wife of Ifae deceased Shaitt^ Tulareuii, S/o Shyamlal, himself narrated fhe story ] PoUce Station: Nagamar Thereafter, fhe deceased under requisition Ex.P-ll) Bishwas (PW-6) who injuiy was on vital part of to Maharani Hospital, days, fhe deceg^ed died 03 givexi uiider Ex.P-14, Post- was conducted by Dr. KJ report Bx.P-2< Durmg noticed fhat fhere was on< region admeasuring 15 cms he found fhat the mtestmal at niaaiy place and the iojt treated and stitched, He| - axaountmg to 300-400 ml, reitunimg aylpeUaiit, kaffe regjion chl^^l-1 'RTR^f^f^t <r^t<fl< '^3TfW3TI^?T jthat on 31-12-2000 at about 4 p.m. from Jagdalpur to Maadpal ^ati (PW-1). Whcn they reached in the appellaat caaiie out jBnom m his hsuid aod attadteed on the sceased by his kodfe, He gave smgle The toeidetit was witoessed by ^ati (PW-1), Anofher person iiamely, Iso reached fhere, The deceased |to fhe Sarpanch. He was takeii to he lodged the report Bx,P-10, tyas sent for iiiedi<^l exaiaiaation He was exammed by Dr» Stijit his report Ex,P-3, Smce the jfche body, fhe deceased was refea-rcd and ultimately, after about 1S 16-1-2001. Mei^g isit&mation was •|miortem on fhe body of the deceased ^p. Qupta (PW-5) wt prepared his ^t-mortem exaiiimatloxi, Dr, Gupta stitcfaed woiiod m fhe abdommal ia length^ In intenial exaniiixatioa, caiial of the deeeased was iajtUTed ities sustaiaed on fhe int^^tme were has specificalty iioticed Ifaat pus |trs. was presexit in tfae abdoaiiirtal prcp^uned Jagd^lpur po^t 39-HC—78 sn^r^T'fqiien 'CTT^F?T'^lNt T^r '^i^i<<)^, t$Tfi'y4i<o, fs)<r'>i^^< wrw ^^^—^—^••••••••-^••^•f---^ 200' an^yr xra^ (yct^^sr) ^wi^R <yf^a ^n^T cavily. He opined that fhe f injuries to mtestme aad its| leath was due to shock a8 a rcsult of compUcattons. 3. On fhe basis of the first ixilt? iovestitgation, memoraiidu4i was recorded on l-1-2001 offence) was» seized under ^ seteed under Ex.P-7. Clollhe under Ex.P-8. Bloodstaiaep Ex,P-13 and fhe seized Science Laboratory, Raipur| )mi^io3i report, durmg tlie course of of fhe accused/appeUaait (Ex.P-5) >ased on whicfa fhe kaiife (weapoai of tx.P-6. Clofhes of tfae deceased were of the appellaat was also seteed soil & plaia sofl were seized under 4irticles were sent to the Porenaic lunder Bx.P-15. Mafeistrate, 4. After completion of usual ia fhe Court of Judicial iii tuni comiaitted the ca4< Jagdalpur, fironi where it w^ tlie Additional Sessions aad convicted & sentebced aforementioned. 5 Leanied counsel for fhe homicidal deafh of the and circumstances of fhis to fhe abdomiaal region of a period of about more fha^ fhat apart fix>in pus cbl^id^ii'1 '^TWlf ^'fel3t <P»it$i< ^3tRP=T^TT^T J|avestigatio3i, chm^e sheet was filed s, Pirat Ctess, Jagdalpiir> who to fhe Coiirt <rf Sessioas Jtidge, |.s traasferred to fhe Special Jwige & iflge, Jagdalpur who coBdiacted trial the accased/appeUaEkt as Ju{lge appeUaat does aot dispute tihie dec^ased, He argues that ia fhe fw>ts (^ase, where a siagle blow was given t|ie decesused, tiie deceased died after 15 days aad fhe doctor has opiMed fi>nxiatk>n, fhere w^re further XI-HC—78 ^TT^T ^F\ f<Tli<=b '^T8n 3TI^?T 5D*licb I—^ 75ET ^ll^lc-)^, ^Tfi«ll<o,fsj^W^ ^INdl *^l«h•—•---••--••••-•••"•-—••j——"^ 200 3n^?r XRRR^ (4^I^<^) 3^ ^'^TTW^ritn ^TT^T ct)i^(<n<i1Ti ^H<A ^T,fecst <psi^i< i737RR3?T^T coinplications, therefore, |offeace would not travel beyoaid Section 304 Part-II offhe I.IP.C. 6. On the ofher haiid, leanie^ Paxid Lawyer fbr ttee State opposes fhese argunients and sup^orts the judgxaeBt of coavictioB aad order of sentence passed b;V titie trial Court. 7. We have heanl Mr. R.N. J and Mr. Akhil Mishra, respondent and have also case, 8. So far as fhe question of coiiceraed, it comes m fhel |ia, leanaed couixsel for the appeBaiit k|amed PaDel Lawyer for Ibe State/ Iperused the recoids of fhe sessions hoiaicidal deafla of fhe deceased is evideace of Shaaavati (PW-1), wife of fhe deceased, that on the ^iteful day at about 4 p,m. wheii they were retaming finoixi Jagd^lpur to Maadpal, ttie appeUant ixiet fheia on fhe way, he was Ifciaviag one kiiafe ia fhe haiid aaid he attacked her husbaad wii report Ex,P-10 was todj fhereafker, he was sent [h fhe said knife, First infccaiatfoii ^ed by tiie deceased hdmself arkd IJfor xnedK>al exammatioai aad was exaoimed by Dr. Sujit B^shwas (PW-6) who had iioticed one exteraal injiiry on fhe ^bdoxaiaal region of the deceased. Thereafter, fhe deceased |was referred to Matiarasii Hospttal, Jagdalpur where he was fi|irtlier treated axid ultimatety, he died on 16-1-2001. Post-mort^m on fhe body of fhe deceased was conducted by Dr. K.M, Gu^ta (PW-5) who has opined fhat cause of deafh was shock dijie to iiijuiy on fatestine and its ...V 3?n^r^r f<^i^> WT^n^T $b^i<^ 3^'^rpTr^r, ^TH^^KO, fsi<?>w^< WICT 3iTO;......<S5....'.A.-..'^3>.:£./........^ 200-^. i^ra? (rt»i^T) <^iTW^f^r3:n^T coniplicatioas. Therefo^e, medical evidence, it is deceased was homicidal ia 9. There is also no dispute criine ia question, becaus deceased Shamvati fhat was assaulted by tihe ap] knife iajuxy was sustaine^ part. aftout coxapUcily of fhe aecus^l iii fhe ^ it has been deposed by wife of fhe rfhe had witaessed fhat toer husbaad ^ellant wifh fhe help of a kaife aad by her husbaiid on his abdoiaiiiat 10.Mr. Jha has argued fhat blow, only one iiijuiy was deceased died after aboutl account of farfher Sectioa 302 offhe I.P.C. 11.We have considered fhis dispute ia fhis case that| with fhe help of a kaife on| and fhat fhe deceased diet3 Tfae doctor who condu<l deposed lliat he had iiotic|€ was preseiat ia fhe abdompnal of Uis exaiiuiiation-ia-chi^f, sustained by fhe deceas4d, fhat accordnxg to his o] CM^f<n<fli TTPTOf ^T !k^\ <F»1^1< '^stRrH^TT^r on the basis of abow ocular aiid sstablished fhat ttae deafh of the natiire. compjUcatt ^ince the appeUaiit did not repeat tfae jgiven by him to fhe deceased and the 15 days of fhe incidei'it fh^t too on pications, it was iiot a ease Miider K>int raised by Mr. Jha. There is no fhe appeUaait has giveaa smigle blow fhe abdoxaixial iiegion offhe deoeased after about 15 days of fhe iacident ted post-niorteni (PW-5) has also 2d that about 300-400 Hd.ltrs. of pus cavily of tlie deceased. In para 6 ?f, after giviag detaite of ffae iiijiiries 1, he has xaost apecifica^ deposed imion, cause of deafh was mjuries rsRNm^ —FS/59— 8/2007 —30,000. dA-trc-78 ^SP^ /y^ ^. I 1 ^ . X. . ^.' .. ' W§RfT^ fqTlw ^sn ^sn^T $h^icb 3^sc ^ii^i^, ^T{1'yli<D, fst0i'yy TTTOFIT ^WN? • ^ ^ 200 3^?r xnra? (^I^<i^) '^ITW^f^T^T^ sustained on fhe mtestine of fhose mjuries. In paraj further clarified fhat it is to mjuxy as also fhe infecti^; ^uid further complicatiaas arismg out 7 of hfei cross-examiiiatioii, he has c|orrcct to say (hat fhe death was due >ns caused due to fhe iEijuiy, considek^ed ofwe^pon 12.About offence under Secti<b I,P.C., points to be the deceased, nature blows iaflicted by fhe accu^ accused aiid also fhe detennine iatention as als<l examming tiie matter on| accused was haviag any| deceased, fhen certamfy 302 of the I.P.C. But if < the matter lacks ia beyond Sectioa 304 Part-II adinit^edly abdo: 13.In fhe present case, accused tfaough on fhe the accused was a knife aad iron part of 12,3 cxas, in fhe village houses. iato fhe iryuiy report of able to Hieasure the depth ^ laortesii report it coines 1 places and stitches were Abohit Dlr, fh^t <=hMfd4T1 *ll^<;lT'^\fel^t <rt^i< iT^tRpT^TT^T ^ns 302, 304 Part-I & Part-II of fhe are naturc of iiijuribs received by used by fhe acciised, iiiimiber of ^ed, iatensity of the blow given by fhe ^ost-mcidental faetors which may kaiowtedge of the accused^ If after fhese Imes, it appears tihat thie intention to caiise deafh of the matter would fall under Section knowledge caa be attributed aiid fhe offence would not traiyel bffheI.P.C. fbe oi^ly tate4tion it^edly, a siagle blow was given by fhe 3d|ominal regioa. The weapoti used by h|aviiig a wowlen handle of 8 Va cias. It is a cominon ardcle which is kept iateaisity of the iryuiy, tfwe look D|r. Sujit Bishwaa (PW-6) he was not of the iajuiy, however, in fhe post- the intestme was daiiiaged at 2-3 d(|>ne. Thexieforc^ in fhe first iiistance, 1; XP'-HC-78 'f 37T^T ??T f<Tli<=b ^T^T '^TT^T 5h^i<=b ^ _J 1. bi^ ^. T5ET ^1|<><|^<t, ^T{i'WIIG, (s)<y>l^^< an^TT'cpra? (i^f^^) ^mW ^Tf^T ^TT^T axyupy it appears fhat siagle IELJV^ deceased by a reasonabl^ intention of the appellaiit repeated fhe blow, becaus^ away from fhe place of resistsmce by fhe side of ft|< by mitervention. AU these was no iatention of fhe deceased and on account that on fhe instaiice of fhd fromi his job, fhe accused) abdommal region of the cannot be said fhat fhe such aa act niay likety t^ Anofher factor is also imp<|> deceased was not iastantali lapse ofabout 15 days of fhat fhere was infection deceased aiid about 400 abdoinin.al cavity of fhe possibitlty ofdeafh on out ia fhls case, Therefor^ fhis case, fhe offence woul4 II ofthe I.P.C. iastantabeous accotint <=hl^(<n41Ti "RFRTf ^f^fe^ <Pt<^i< '^3tRpT3TT^T was infMcted cm fhe body of fhe force, But had fhere been aii 1:0 kill the deceased, he would have it is not a case that either he raii dccurrence or fhat tfaere was soiae tt|e deceased or by some ofher perBon f|ictors would sfaow fhat m fact, fhere ^ccused to cause fhe deafh of tfae jof soaiie previous element of eiimity deceased fhe accused was reinoved had iaflicted single injuay on the d^ceased, But, at fhe same ttoe, it was Bot havmg knowledge that cause the deafh of fhe deceased. xhrtant in this case fhat deafh of fhe aaid it has taken pla<^ after a ^lw iocident. The doctor has opmed ia fhe isijuries sustaiaed by tihe xnLltrs. of pus was found in fhe Ideceased. This also shows fhat ofinfection can also aot be ruled ^ ia fhe facts aixd circiimstaBces of not toravel beyond Section 304 Part- acdused XI^IC—78 TC^ ^11'410'tt, ^Tflyll<S, (s|<7'»i'y^< -RTq^T ^^"..---'^^-----••-^•—'•/••"••^ 200 3TT^?T XT5W (4^^<^) 3TT^T ^T f<Tli<+) ^^T 37T^T $h^lch '^RTTW^rft^ ^T^T 14.In the result, convictionl appeUant under Section 2|< acquitted of fhe said cha|rge under Section 304 Part^I uiidex^o R.I. for ten years( set off of the penod alrea4y allowed in part, aiid senteaices imposed upon fhe 02 of fhe I.P.C. are set aslde, he is rge, iastead the:reof, he 1s convicted II of fhe I,P.C, and ^enteneed to The appeUant shall be entitled for undei^one by hiia* The appeal is Soma Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge <=bl^fd^1T1 'WT^f "?,1^T^ <P^<Sfi< ^a?fRpT3ff^T Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge