EiIGg €%URT 9F CgEATTE§GAwg 3ELAS?E}R €riminai Agwea! @5m153 0f 203?; AF?EE¢L&E¥T ~ Paléiiu Ram, sjo Memgru, agsd about 3‘5 y€ars, 110 ViElage Jhimki, PoliC€ Station Bagbahar, Distt. JaShpiir {CG} , Ekfm REfguPQENEEMT Siam 0f Chhattisgarh, through RS. Bagbahar, Distt JaShpur {QG}. Dg: EIQM’BLE $Hm ‘EEESTICE Lw€. BHADQG &5 H$EWBLE $HRI JUS’TICE $EIKEL K‘UMAR SENHA, J 8hr; Sudhir Verma’ counse} for $116 agapellémt 3111i U,K.S. C11a11d€L Pafml Laiw’sr, for £116 $$atri @gAL mmmmm gaam2ws3 Th6 foEmR/‘ing §udgm€nt offhé Court was passgd by Ls’; EBaé-iowi J: i1} This appEal is dimctsd agamst the judgmEnt of convictisn and oi‘dar of S€nt611C6 datsd 14.1.2002 passad by Ei Additiona} SESsiong Judgs {ETC} JaShpumagax (CG) in SsSSions Trial N0,166/2001 whereby the kartwd Addl S€ssions Judgts, affar iolcimg ‘Ehc accuSad appsllan: Guilty fer commi$sion Sf Tim o§bnc6 uf's 802 LP‘CV for cammitiing muraa‘ of Ram Prasad, SE11t€uC6d him to undargo imp11'somnm1t for lif€ and to pay a fme of RS5900§ —, L11 dafauit of paymant of ihle to furthsr undargo RI. for 3 mogmg 133 ho. cass of tho prosecuu'oa, 3'11 bn'ef, ifs that tho accused appollaat 1321115111 Ram (lug a pond Ln tho floki of Ram Prasad, for iish farlning and catchos the. iishoS 1'11 tho pond. H6 was not giving ally share to Ram Prasad, thsl‘aforo) Ram Frasad was unhappy. O11 1.8.3.2001, fhoaccused caugh’i $01116 fiShos and he did got givo the sham to Ram Prasad, tlasmforo, oio 19.3.2001 at about 9 a‘m” Rain Prasad f’s‘mce docoasod) wag abuoing tho accuood Pandu' Rom as to why ho is Eating fiShSS vv‘ifhout giving J )b. any Sham. On which $01116 quan‘el took piact ham/@611 thc: two and $116 accusad attacked ths daceased Ram Prasad with a woodgn Club on llght sick of hi$ 1162K}, as a msuh of which, Ram Prasad susteu'xlad injmiks amd c‘xied on 20m March 2001. RWI Phoomet Bai, Wifs of tha {16csased Rgml Prasad, lodgsd Dehaii Nah‘shi EXP. 1 m tha Poiica Station Bagbahar. The Enveg’rigating Offlcsy took up thE immstiga’iion and 16ft for t11€ scam of occurrence, H6: pmpaxed ma mquaST EX.P.2 011 the body of Ram Prasad £11 tha prestmce of Pai’xcl'zvas. He took into possosssion tho 91am soil and blood stained Soil from tho placo of oocurronco unctor EXP-3. Ho soizod tho woapon of offonco to, bamboo club under EX.P.4. He also segzod tho clothos. of tho docoasod under EX.P~5. Tho sito 1313.11 EX.P.5 was proparait by tho LO. Another site p183 was also oreparod by tho E—ialka Patwari xmdar EX,P.7. The l‘ovoous records of the field of the Phoolmet (EX.P.9) alongwith the map of the. field (EX.P.8) was aleo oeized. Merg iotimation {EXP-15) was given by Phoolmet Bai and based on the investigation papers; Fl}? (EXP— 14-) was registered. The body of Ram Prasad was sent for postlnortem examiiiation to Community Health Center, Pharsabahar Where E1 (Slut) K. Kerketta conclneted the postmmtem on the body of Ram Prasad and preparecl postmortem report EX.P.20. She opined mat the cause of cleath was due to compression of brain. {3} After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was tiled in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaslipnr Nagar, who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Raigarh, from Where the leained Second Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial o {4-) The prosecution in order to establish the charge against the o accused examined 7 witnesses and the statement of the accused was recorded u/s 813 Ci‘.P.C., in which he denied the material appeaiing against him in the prosecution evidence, pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the. crime 'ni question. He examined one defence. witness namely Sulthdeo Singh in defence. i5§ The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after hearing counsel for the. respective parties convigted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned. : rushed to hm‘ husband and amkad tha accusgd not to attack him, Th6 accusati rushEd towarcls hErxalso. S116 informed m6 viJlaGe AO K'u and Sarpanch Thé‘y asked :o take 1161 husband i0 11m houSe and give treatmant. N6xt dc y morg'mg har husband died i11 ‘“ tha heusg, Thm‘EforE, SE16 gave Dehm‘i NahShi EX.P.1. 111 £116 cross exgmina‘iiml, she. has catagoricailv stated that it is meomact to say that tha pcmd was in ths 1mm of the accusgd, m fact m6 ponc‘; was :iua m 1Lull £36k} Emd smc€ last 4 years, fhe accueed used fhat noud far z1 h fajmmo grad when ihey use t0 demand we share 111 the fshes, he usea to quamel with themv 111 Parael2 she has; further stated mat the quarrel took place m the middie sf vicinity 311d if is ‘mcou‘ec’i to say that on mat (My, her husband was in a damkei: conciitien, she haS denied fhe Suggeetion that she did 11m wimeee the mime in question. In the cross examination 0f Qlis W ill \ 1 lefe (‘e his not been able to ehctt an“ Circumstapce wh" 3 1sc1 Vdlt the evrtence of this Wt‘mess She is a natural witness and she io&ge:1 the repoxt. on the 11ext day moxmiog i11 the loLee ation arid in that she has categotically mentioned that she W 1t11essed the illcideltt when the accused was. attackmc her hush: W2 h 3111.1 ‘39 as also stateo mat on th= fateful may ef meldeht WK, of \am Ptasad 11 £0111 d him that Pahdu Ram has attacked her husbahd, He weat to that place and saw that Ram tasad was 1 mg on the road there a as ah mjury oh 111$ head ear teas c at teeth were broken and he was breathing. Thetea‘fter the Sarpanoh was called. He asked that Ram Prasad he taken to his house and he given treatment. in the cross examination he has “ted that on account of Veason of the Mama people of ”1C Vlcnnty x nt to plucr Marmot tlox ers rle has domed the suggestion thathe haa any animosity against the accused Panda. §9r§ The above ocular evidence of Phoohnet is con‘ohorated l medical evidence of Dr.{Sn1t.) K. Kerketta and her postmoitem report EX.P.20, therefore, there is no reason before us to discai‘d or disbelieve the evidence of Phoohnet and that inspires coniidenoe of the Court about the complielty of the accused 1n the crime in question. To that extent, we do not find any illegality or nifnmity in the tinding of the tlia‘t Court. u ‘ (1%}? Lemned counssl for tha appeilallt argusd That ev€n if {hE prosecutian cast: is acceptml as it is, the avidanca agamst ’rh'e accusml c10€s not traval beyomi section $04 Part H LRC. b6cau$e Q16 d€ceaS€d himself mafrad» quarmh'gg with t‘na accusmi a11d " abu$€d him saymg that Why he has not givgn tha sham 1'11 Tim dishes azac‘i 1'11 that promss, in a suddsn quarral emd 1'11 11€af of Gais$ion {116. accusad pickiid up E116 woodsn club and has 11m atéadmd Lhé dgoaafsed 1'11 a1} unusual 841d cruel 111211111431“, H5 further argual that 110 medical irsa‘tmant was given to T316 Ram Prasad, inskad of providmg t1‘eatm6nt To tha dacgagali he ‘WaS taken to thB house Whm‘a 116 £11€d 011 m6 next day. Ev€11 $116 Doctor has; not staisd fha‘t 1316 i11july was sufmiam 1:1 th€ ofdineuy course. of 11-31111? 10 CauSé daath; tharefore, 1116. 111161111911 of the accusaj ”£0 cauas the {Iaazh of flgcsasai has 11o? 1139,11 estabh'shed. 5113 O11 111:: ofhsr hand, MrD‘KGwalm, Govt Aclvocato S1111Portod tho J 11111 g1116111 of the 111:1? Court. mm uh n. ‘ 31a ‘_ ‘ 111 ordor to approciafe Tho argtimoui advauced by comma} for the a§3peEa11t Wt: havo scrutiuizod. the evidonco of RWQ PhooEmot a11c1 medical ovidonco. As par the prosocutioa co'so, 1116 acousod dug a pond 1'11 tho agricuhura? {161:1 of Phoohnot for iish fawning. He wao ongagod m. fish fa1m1'ng since last 4 yoars. Ho has not given the sham to 111E docoasod. Therefom, on the' fatsfal day 11o, 1935 March 2001 tho docsasod Ram Prasad 512111651 aimsing tho accusod saying that 11a is oatchimg ”£16 iishes; Why 11o is not giving sham to him, 011 ihis, thoy staltsd quarrsling 811d in that process {has accused attacked Ram Prasad with lathi on the head, 117111'CE1 prove—1i fatal, Apes/“t from this, thers was no oarh’er aomosig beiweeo The iwo and :‘lm attack was made 1'11 a suddoa ouea‘rei and in heat of passion 1711611 the deceasod was abusiog the accused. More-over, the deceased died on the next day and the Doctor has not. stated that the injmy was suiiioieot 1711 the 011111131)!“ course of 11at111~e to cause death of deceased, therefore, from the above facts, it ca1111ot be inferred that the aeeused hael attacked the deceased. with an i11te11tio11 to cause his death, but it can safety be hafelred from the above facts and looking to the mahiier in which the accused attacked thesdecweased with Imfhi on his head, defmiteiy the accused had knowiedge that. by such 2111 assault, he woulci likely Gauge daam 311d tbs same was C1938 m a sudd€n quarral emd it) haat of pawion. Thegsfora, W5 am of the o;3i111'o11 that i116 cas5 $quam1y falls under EXception 4 of Section 300 of LPG. and th€ caSLi {106$ 11m Ham] beyond seciion 304 Part H IPC. {i%§ In L716 yesuh? file appeal of the appellallt partly succseds. Th6 conviciiou a11d salteime impossd on him uf s 302 IPC s IPC am sst asidg, Ezlstead thawfi hca is convictSd ufs 304 Part H of XPC 311d Seniencasd EO undm‘go RI. for 10 yearS. Thg appallallt is said to be L datslnion since 22.3.2081. ThmEfom, 116 shall b6. siltitlad ta S€t off pen'od agains’t tbs $€m€11ce impoged 1113011 him. I :gL.c.B‘HADOO Sunil Kumar Sinha» )' x g 1 Judge .. \ Judge W ‘ ‘, Rm)