Sllt^^I Kl-li.tt) 311^1 »)4^icp ^f?a -^•.L-;^" -h TnT •a||<)|i?|*|, »nl*<<ie.Rx'll'My SIT^T XRg? WRfTshllch "^ 200 ^^r' 3II^['?RIIW ^ft^ Ai'T^ljST l.KAfl'iAni.ftl, BP' V; Teku Punar Etate of District &urg (t',6.) Present; Mrs. UshaChandrakar. CounSi t'f\r. N.K. AAshata, Panel Lawye fci Tor The aoosi' This appeal is directei order of sentence dated 12 I 'A'hereby Isarned Additiona! has convicted the appe!lan-( senteneed him to underao ffi Is. 1,000/-, in default of poy'n^ mointns. ns sei'anT ond Tn A Jacannath n'ere oro ^iT'feN WRif tf •fs'A •(RRSR ^arfSaTan^r \b years S/o. jam Sahu R/o. Village Paahanda, P.S. t District Durg (C.6.) ih r.s, hS'S^^SfSt F^y i %*1 against the judgment of conviction and Janucry 2004 passed in 5.T. No,294/( isssions Judge, Bemetara, District Durg under Section 307 of'theIPC ans '..I. for 10 years ond to pay a fine of ent of fine to further unoergo R.I. for 6 'e oTFier' accused persons ncmely i uls' ecu+ed for the offence cunishable under - XI-HC-22 an^r^ WM Sil^t ^qWdf?^ 2 ~T5[ •<II<II<YI'II, anl'M'is. fawi'uy + sn^r "ira^? *11*1?11 ShHiqi "BT, 2BO fe^??' sn^I'S^ITWHft? Sections 1ZO-B <& 307 ot Thi 307 of the !PC was framed other accused oersons were i| only. The alteaation aaaitetl entered into a conspir.acy-of eM'4l<'1'4il ^WW ^ f^St' <pi1-WK ^? srf^ 3n^i ^ l.fr.i... Charge under S6t+idnB—t20-Bo. ^gainst the present appeiiant, whereas, :haraed under Section 120-B of the IPC the "ccused persons was thot they :omfriitting murder of G'vww Sahu (PW- 13) and as a resuSt ofabo\(e conspiracy on 25/08/2002 in "illage Pghanda accused Tekuram a^aul+ed ©irwarby an axe over his head and caused gnevous injunes. Accordina to the case Cersons are resident of vit!i of the prosecution a!l the four accused :e Pahanda, they along with 6irwar Sahu consumed liquor in the bus sl^and and thereafter they took the vicf'im ©irwar5o.hu near the shoj brought an axe ond handed ^ of Banshi Kewat whsre accused fWohan >ver the same to accused Teku by which Teku assaulted two-three tirties tothe v'et'im as a result of which he fel! on the ground, The inci]|len+ was witnessed by 6ajaRand (PW-5), w-' irdm ffVV-10). During investigation •fhe y'ctim a'as sent to the Coni'T'unity Health Centre, Berla where pr. AA.C. Patela (PW-8) examined him and gave his ir(jury report of ^x.P-ll. The victim was referred to the District Hospitai, Durg for tfurther treatment, X-ray report of injury is Ex.P-14. The weapon of offfence i.e. axe was taken into possession vide Ex.P-6 on the niemoran^lum (Ex.P-4) of aecused Tekyram. ©irwar r^—-_ XI-HC-22 -t 3 ^Sf ~^W\V\<-{, ^Tfly'lti. fac1l^1< 3TRt?T Tf^R 3I1^T^ h-ii'h Sf^V **<!+'gfitT ?--.- -if.t-.^f3*^ j....'"W;S *<I*<MI sh<ncti "^n, 200 ^^ss' 3I1^['^RIIWHf?iT Sahu wae admitted in the D the bed-head ticket is Ex.P-'i After comple+ion of in' Court of the Judicia! AAg^i committai.the same was-re Ada'itional Sessions Judge. sixteen wi+nesses. The nccui under Section 313 of Cr.l implication. They have also defence. 1-lowever. Searned !earned counseS for the resl However, other three accus' charges. Leorned counsel for eyewitnesses has supported been declared hostile.Com solitary testimony of victim before the Court and d'ary which rnakes the s+atement admitted in his examination^l he became unconscious an< ct)t<i^4ii •Hiflcif ^ f^1:st <r<iiw.i< '^aiPtiHsn^r p-nct Hospital, burg on e6/B/i002 and ^estigation, charge sheet was filed in the (trate First Class, Bemetara and after :eived on transfer for tric! by learned puring tria!, the prosecution examined ed persons in their statement recorded .C. have p!eaded innocence and fa!se ^xamined Smt. Sumitra (DW-l) in their idditionat Sessions -Judge cftsr hearin' sective parties convicted and sentenced th.e appeltant hereifl. as n^entioned in Para 1 of this judgment. d persons have been ocqultted of a!lthi he appeilant submits that none of the he case ofthe pRosecution ona' they have ction of the appe'lant is based on the fiirwar Sahu, however, in his deposition ;tatement there is materia! dfscrepancy, f this witness doubtful. iSirwar Sahu has >efore the Court that after the incident he was not able to speak.Even other r^ K^: XI-HC-22 1 ^St -^WW^. d'dl'y'1'6. r»«1Wi< + 317^1^? h-ii^i sf^v WRWH^f -; ^^i'^M- sv^ TRrg? *<IH?(T ailicb ^ 200 fN^ST' sn^'^snw ^ifsn wi+ness nameiy ©ajanand(PW to speak after the incident Yogesh Kuamr (PW-1) that 6] '()- him is false . She furtheh su ef ©irwariwas no sufficient 1)' ofnature. Gnthe other hand, lea the impugned judgment. ! have heard learned the impugned judgment as als Conviction of appellan- witness Sirwar Sahu (PW-tS as indoor patient inthe Distr Dr-. M..C. Patela has stated iri sahu on 25/8/2002 in the C| one lacerated wound obliaueli o.f head. one ineised wound 'it ;ed i. on the oceipit^ ray and further referred trectment. After examiriini has further give" the reporl^ «bllf<'l<fl-1'qFRff 4 fs^t •(RRSR ^; sipgii aii^i 1-5) has stated that t?!rwer' was not uble nd therefore the version of comptainant lirwar informed him that Teku assnultf |?mi+s that injury present over the head o cause his deerth in the ordinary course ned counsei for the State has supported ;ounsel fo" the barties. I have perused Ido the evidence available on record. is based on the sto-tement of injured 15 and the stcrt'eme"+ of Dr. AA.C, Pateia (PW-8) and &r. Khurshid A!4n (PVV-16), who have treated the vic+im ct Hospi+al and ppoved +he injury report. his deposition thfft he examined ©irwar immunitv Heaith Centre. Berla ond found transverse on the riaht temooral reaion elow the neck on the riaht side and one the head. He advisec he vic+im to +he District HosD'ita! for •he X-ray p'ates of v'ctim, this witness <' of Ex.-P-14 whereby depressed fracture y ;^ XI-HC-22 •3?I?W^iT k-tt^ 311^1 wqw^rfia l^j:?Ftfr1^^, . J. :it'!"'"f"s'hStS» + ^" "TSI -i|i<<Kn'M, »fl1y'i6.(»«lii'y'i< Mfe 3iT^?r ICRT^ «i*«y)rsBW^ "n^, 200 'fw^ST- sn^l^giare-H^tT was found on the righT paneT^! •» Bresent over the victim fiirwah ^rafepN iTTR?if •?1s^-rfSRsre i? srfigti ant?[ region. Hs cbu opi'ifc'd ihu! liiyiitjuries Sahu were sufficient to cause death in P.W.-16 Dr. K.hur^hid ^iam, a doctor in the ttedicaS College Hospital, Raipur, hasstated that Sirwar Sahu was brought in his hosDital for tfie first timeoit 9/9/2002 and he wos ago.in brought on 13/9/2002 when he was adn^itted. On 17/9/2002 opsration over his sku'l wos pepformed and in found over skufl, which they sufficient to cause death ii I'he said operation pieces of bone were fixed after operotion. The injuries were the ordinary course of nature. ©irwar Sahu was dischorqed from th|e hospitai on 28/9/2002. Thus. from the evidenfce of above two Doctors it is estabfishe' beyond reasonable doubt thc^ the injuries present over the person of the victim was sufficient to^cause his death in the ordinary course of las stated that on 25/8/2 6irwar Sahu (PW-13) 12:30 in the day Tekuram as auited him by an axe. he assaulted thrice on the right sia'e of his he|ad above the ear in the viHage, Pahanda, near boring and thereafter al! the accused persons f!ed from there considering him dead. Befor^ the incident he consumed liquor with the accused persons and ther'ea|:ter when they reached near the house of Wohan, Teku brought an ax4 from somewhere and assau!ted him from [^v--^ XI-HC-22 sn^i^i WM sn^r ^Rra'-gfig %il» ^wt^ + 'FSI 't-[Htv\i\, afll'y'is. facti'yy 31T^?T X(=rg? <41*1MI sh«nqi ''WI. 2BO fere^?' sn^i^'RriWHftg behind as a resuit oT ii'hich h^ e assauff was v days back before the ir(eid ©overnmentHospi+a! whece h 11: days and thereafter he ^i'Lii<n-<lft'T ^w^ ^ T^L^ "^pc^ ^TsrfSgH aii^i feii down. Whcrr other'ss did he does not i on account of o!d animosity, as the accused suspected that teancfj assaulted him at his behest some ten bnt. He reaained consciousness in the Hospita!, Raipur where he reij^ained adml+ted for a period of 17 days. In the cross-examination, consumed liquor in the morr ©njanand,AAutru, Lakhan & assaulted him yremained admitted for a period of to tlie AA ! College 1-his witness has admitted that they ing and the incident was witnessed by H"ulsi. He stuck to his c!aim that Teku f}'om the sharp edge side as a resuit of which he im>'nediate!y faint^d. In Paragraph-7 he has denied the suggestion thot under the influence of iiquop he fell over the boring as a result of which he sustaine; that both ofthem quarreled of this witness is corrobon 1 the above injury. He has further denied under+he infuence of liquor. Statement ed from the statement of Yogesh Kumar (PVV-1) who has s+ated that^n 25/8/2002 in the after noon at about 2:00 p.m. whe" he reached tfome/his wife told him Qbout the quarrel le wenT near Tii house of Tulsi and saw ©irwarSahu lying Irenched in blood and he v/ofe murmurinQ T^'y-reA'y' He Sodged the report of Ex.P-1. The otjie^- eyewitnesses namely ©qjgnand (PW-5), r-r^ -'.'-'. + XI-HC-22 ail^T^iT hii* sn^i 9f)li '^ftcT swsg.ySf y -SS1 •^lFTRTq. 'S'atoHS. facll'yy 3TT^?T 'IRT^I HIMWI ?h*11<»i""" """""""""""""TF^ 200 .V,'l^e^T'""""" 311^1 ^RIIWBfttt Lokhan (PW-6) & Bar|.shi (PW prosecution and they have be Victi in detait, credibility of these witness statement of fiirwar & V( s+atemeht is ciuty corrol 23 and further corroboratefci (PW-8);who has found victim. has convicted ooinion of this Couri- the involvement 6f the appella^t' }lU) have not suppopted the case of the ;n declared hostile. land Yoqesh Kumar have been cr-oss- , the defence could not impeach the ^s nnd +he tr-ia! Gourt reiying upon the »esh and also considerinQ that their ^d from the pr'ompt!y todged FIR of EX.P- by the statement of (Sr. AA.C. Patela ;ponding injuries over th.e person of the ppe'lant, Therefore, in the considered ;secution has been ab!e +o estoblish the illegaiity or infirmity in convj Section 307 of the IPC. circufflstanees under which t| and also considerinq that otll from the charge of conspir4 this Court is of the considett served if the sen+ence impo^ of the IPC is modified ond hi instead ofR.I. for lOyeors. (=t)|'4T<vl*ili ^Htrff ^ 'fe1^ ifvif't^K ^aifSgiiai^i ^ m the crime in question beyortd a!l court below has not comtnitted any cting and sentencing the appellant under IHowever, taking into considerotion the le offence is Gommitted bythe appeiiant ier accused persons have been acquitted :y by extending fhem benefit of doubt, opinion that ends of justice woutd be 'd upon the appellant under Section 307 is sentenced to undergo R.!. for 7years NN?"; XI-HC-22 3ni?i^ h-u'h sn^f ?h^icti ~^^ K38^^g).>-:. '^-^?.. "-'^ f^ 8 ^SI '•:'ITqRPt, 'S^ftWre. faciwy sni^r IRT^ HWWI VhWCh "a^ 200 ..^ ^t^SS' sn^I'S^ITW ^rfStT In the resutt, the a( Convic+ion of the appet!an'| maintained, however, sentencl is modified and now th^'app^ years and to pay a f'ne of Rs further underqoR.I. for 6 m^ ^•n^Id^l'1 4HWCll''^ ffi^ •l.^T^K ^7 sipgil sn^l of the appellant is partly ai towed. ler Section 307 of the IPC is ed imposed upon him under that section llo.nt is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 1,(X50/-, in defau!t pf payment of f'ne to Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge 8"