‘riiis‘i-I LnjuRi QF GHFIIR‘i"‘i‘ISC$i-‘\§€H if? EiLi\$i"IJR Through PS. Kansabeli District Ja§hpur (0G,) {Criminal Appeai under Section 374‘u‘2) of i'ne SLRQ. sent S’nri K.K. Singh, counsel for the appeiian‘t. Shri Arun Sac); GovL‘'Advoca'Ie for the mate (ifii-ii. JiJbGW i‘i'I’ ('01 .OT‘2G‘iO‘) The anneilant has nreferred ims criminai appeai under $ection 374(2) of the Soda of Criminai Procedure against the judgment of conviction am: order of sentence datod 29f“ January, 2904 passed in $ession Tog! Case Mafia-[2063, whereby !eamed 2"“ Addétéone! $eeeienm Judge. g‘FTS), Jas‘npur, atter homing the appenant guilty for caueing murder o? his own father nameiy, Thaula Ram, has convicted ‘nim uncier Section 302 oi t'ne inciian Penei Code and sentenced him io iiie imprisonment and i'ine of Rs.’i,i§00i—, in defauit of payment of fine, further additionai RA. ici’ ()5 months. Brieiiy‘siaied, facts of the case are that appeiiant Budhram 'nad gone outeide to earn hie iiveiihood. His father Tnauia Ram resides with his younger son Bud’nnath. The appeiiant returned hie viiiage and raised a dispute with his father for partition and fn reiation to the same ‘ dieoute. on G5.t)5.2od3. he assauited his father Thauia Ram by an l iiB: Hongbie Sim ijhirenu'ra iViishra a Hag’bla 5m: R=N= Qhagétakar; Jé: Crimingi iippeai N'o. éii$2iiiili Appéiiant Budhram Sio. Late Thaula Ram.‘ HR ..' J, in Aged abaut 4O y m :J caste — Dfharé Kama, Occup? Rlcv ViHage — Marc! (Machri Kachaf) Paiice Siatiun - Karisabei, \ District— Jashpur (CG) Vs. kespunuem State of Chhattisgarh v axe aver his head on the veranda of his house, as a resuit, he died on me SPQI. O3. Report of the incident was iodged by Budhnath (PW-1) against t‘ne appeiiant on the same day at 22.10 hours vide Ex—Pl’i and merg intimation (Ex-P/2) was also registered on the basis of his information. »Ai‘ter registeringine offence, poiice proceeded for the scene of occurrence, prepared inquest over the person of deceased vicie Ex- PI3, and thereafter, ‘nis dead body was sent for autopsy to Community Heaitn Centre, Kansabei, vide Ex-Pi4, Where Dr. S. TirKey (PW-4) conducted“ postmortem and gave his report vide Ex—PIS. The investigating ofticer prepared spot map vide Ex—P/Q. Qn the basis of disciosure statement of the appeiiant vide Ex—Plti), weapon of offence, a’x’e was taken into possession vide Ex—Pit 1. $eized weapon of offence was sent to the doctor performing autopsy, for his report whether the same is stained with biood and whether the injury present over the body of the deceased was caused by this weapon. The doctor in repty to the a‘oove query vide Ex-Pl? opined that the injury present over the body of the dweased couid be caused by this weapon and aiso opined that brood was present over the axe. Eioodstained appareis of the appeiiant Were taken into possession on a being produced by him vide Ex—Pitz Wearing appareis of the deceased, received from the hospital after postmortem, were taken into possession vide Ex—Pl’ifj. $eized articies, i.e. wearing appareis and axe were sent for medical examination to Forensic Science \ \ vLaboratory, Raipur vide ‘x~P/’i6, however, report of F-fEL is nut ava’u’abie in the record. uh. After compieting investigation, charge sheet was fiied in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jas'npur wha in turn committed the easeio the Court of $essions Judge, Raigarh and the same was received on transier for triai by iearned Additional Sessions Judge. \ Learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Seciion 3132 of the indian Penai Code against the appeilant; who abjured his guiit. Prosecution, in order to'estabiish the charges against the appeiiant, examined 6 witnesses in aii. Thereafter, statement or“ accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminai Procedure, in which he, denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case and pieaded innocence and faise impiication. The triai Court after hearing counsel tor the respective parties convicted and sentenced the appeiiant as mentioned in paragraph one oi‘ this judgment. Homicidai death ot’ deceased Thauia Ram is not in dispute. Even otherwise, from the ocuiar evidence of his mother Budhni Bat (PW—3) and chtfd witness Radhika Bat {PW-2), who have deposed that the deceased was assauited by axe on his head, and further from the evidence of Dr. S. Tirkey (PW—4), who conducted postmortem and proved his postmortem report (Ex—Pi5) tn which he found the toiiowing injuries present on the deceased and opined that the injuries % were caused by hard and blunt object; the deceased died due to cardio respiratory faifure as a resuit of head injury and ihe death was homicidai in nature, the homicidai death of the deceased is established. iNJURiE$ (1) Lacerated wound size 3 cm x 1 .57 cm x bone deep present over just above the right eyebrow. \ (2) Lacerated wound size 7.5 cm x 5 cm broken right eccipttai bone in muitipie fragment and brain matter coming out of skuii. Shri K.K. Singh, learned counsei for the appeiiant submits that even it the version of the aiieged eyewitnesses 'Budhni Bai (PW-3) and Radhika Bai (PW-2) is accepted, conviction of the appeliant under 3ection 302 of the IPC is iiiegai and erroneous asstrom the evidence avaiiabie on record, it wouid be evident that the incident occurred aii of a sudden and the appeiiant gave oniy a singie axe biow on the head of the deceased, which resuited in his death. The appeiiant had neither intention to cause death of his father nor he had any knowiedge that the biow wouid cause his death. The incident occurred on spur of moment due to sudden provocation, as the deceased was not giving the appeiiant his due share in the property. We have heard iearned counsel tor the parties and perused the x. records as aiso the impugned gudgment. i On the other hand, iearned Govt. Advocate supports the impugned judgment. \ i i h 15. Conviction of the appe!iant is based an the evidence of Budhni Bai {PW-3), who is the mother of t‘ne appellant and a!so the evidence of Radhika Bai (PW-2) who is the niece of the anoeiiant. Budhni Bai has deposed that Budhram is her son and the deceased Thauia Ram is her husband. Her eider son Ronha, who is aiso known as Budhram, has murdered her husband. The incident is of jefh of the year and on Monday at about film) pm. she was standing in front of the door of her younger son. She has oniy two sons. Her husband was preparing tobacco near the door. At that time, the accused came there and assauited his father with an axe, as a resuit, her husband sustained iniury on his head and died. At the time of incident Racihika was present. She has aiso deposed that the appeiiant assauited his father in reiatton to dispute about agricuiture. From perusai of cross- examination by the defence, it is evident that the defence couid not eiicit anything from her which makes her version unreiiabie and doubtfui. Radhika Bat (PW-2) is 'if year oid giri and daughter of Eudhnath (PW-1 ), brother of the appeiiant. After putting to her some preiiménary questions; her statement was recorded without administration of oath. She has aiso deposed that the appeiiant is her elder father and name“ of her grand father was Thauia‘ Ram. The day on which Thauia died, she and her younger sister Hoiika and her Nanni - Budhni were there. They had aiso taken their meats. At that time. the deceased was preparing tobacco in the veranda when the accused came there with . an axe and assauited Dadi on theback of his head by an axe, as a 3§ result, he died. She narrated this incident to her father and mother. Blood started oozing from the head of her Dadi. In the cross- examination, she has stated that-she saw the appeiiant running away from the house with an axe and her Dadi fei! down. (.m scrutiny of the evidence of these two witnesses, we find that there is no infirmity in their version and the same inspires confidence. Further, keeping in View that they are mother and nieoe of the appeiiant, their version impiicating the appeiiant in crime in question e cannot be doubted. Budhnath EPW—t) is younger brother of the appeiiaht. He has lodged the first information report. He has also deposed that on the date and time of incident, he was in the market andhisldaughter Radhika {PW-2) came there running and totd‘him that Budhram has assaulted Thauia Ram by an axe over his head and thereafter when he returned home, he found that his father had fatten on the ground and there was injury on his head and biood was oozing, from his nose. Thereafter, he went to iodge report against the agapeiiant. Thus, the version of the above two witnesses is corroborated by Budhnath as weii as by the first information reoort. The prosecution has been abie to prove its case a Qainst the a eiiant beYond reasonabte doubt. $o tar as the arguments that since the deceased sustained oniy two injuries on his head, the appeilant’s conviction under $ection 3&2 of the IPC is unjustified and the offence would faii under Section 304‘ E’art—il of the IPC is concerned, we are unable to accept this I .r / \f\r argument. From the evidence avaiiabie on record, we find that there was some aispute between father and son regarding share of property and on account of this dispute, the appetiant assauéteo' the deceased with a deadiy weapon axe on his vitai part — head with such a force, without any provocation from his father, that it resutted in his instantaneous death. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction of the-appeiiant under $ection 302 of the IPC by the triai Court is iuiiy iustitied. We iind no substance in this appeai; the Same deserves to be and is, accordingiy, dismissed. Sdl- if Sd/— Judge Z i Judge . i \ 5 RN. Chandrakar Dhirendra Mishra i if