HIGH COURT OF ‘CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.577/1998 ’ Chaifram Vs. r7/ , \ ‘ ‘ . \‘ 7/‘\ R sfa're Madhya Pradesh 9f (Now Sféte of ChhnH’isgarh) v .‘ J'Lldgmen'l' for considemfion r A r o ’ ’ ’ “ Sdl- ‘ ‘ < V.K. Shrivatava ‘1 Judge ‘ Hbn'ble Shri‘J'usficz Dhirendm Mislu-n .T 9 ”‘3’“ L ‘ " ‘ i Sd/- msrmAiiu DHIRENDRA ‘ a g 5‘ Judge J U D 6 E \ o§=11—2006 J P°=* *Léii-zeqg» I Sdl- ’ ' J U D $ E - Q- 1 1 —2006 HIEH COURT OF CHHATTI56ARH AT BILASPUR Corhm : Hon'ble Shri Vijay Kumar Shrivasmva & Hon'ble 5hri Dhirendm Mishm, JJ. i Crimiaal Appeal No. 577 of 1998 APF ELLANT Chai'l'mm S/Io Ajab Singh, Viilage Kar'pimod, Pandariyu, DisTricT BHaspur (ca). Versus Smfe of Madhya Pradesh (Now ChhaTTisgar'h), ' Police Sm‘rion Pandar'iya, Disfr'ic‘r Bilaspur (C6). REsP‘okDENT Present :- Shri Manoj Kumar Dubey, counsel for The appellant 5hri UNS Dec, Addi'lional Public Prosecufor wi‘lh 5hri D.C‘ Pandey, Panel Lawyer for The S‘rm'e. JUDGMENT (Delivered on 6 November, 2006) The following judgmen‘r of The Cour? was delivered by Vijoy Kumar- Shrivas‘tava, J. The Four‘l‘h Addifional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur holding Th oppiellon‘i guill’y for commif‘l’ing murder of his br'o‘l’her Kolim, pun shable under Sec'l'ion 302 of The IPC vide judgment of convicl‘ion and order of senTence daTed 31.05.1995, delivered in 3essions Trial No.832 of 1994,,seni‘enced The oppellonT To undergo imprisonmenT for life. e m e 2) FacTs of The case unfolded during The Trial are Tha'r, on 1§5.03.1994, Balimm, To bring paddy sfmw wen’r +0 his field in The morning hour-s, leaving The appeilan'l’ Chaii'mm and deceased Kalimm, Ihis younger bro‘rhersrin fhe house. A‘i' around 3 in The affernoon, 30me uarrel erup‘i’ed befween Kalimm and Chaifmm. Chaifram carrying a ‘ eapan Sang (one kind of spear), chased Kaliram To affack and assault Buf he couid no? succeed in his a'r‘rempT, as Kaiiram ran away. Af‘l’er some Time, when Kaliram was coming back, The appelianT saw him and aTTacgked on him wi‘l‘h sang. He gave a blow wiTh ThaT weapon sang on is sTomach; The weapon pierced his sTomach. Kaliram on receiving aTal injury, insTanTaneously, succumbed To iT. The incidenT was wiTnessed by Khorbahara. '8) Baliram when came back from his field, saw dead body of kaliram, called Sarpanch, KoTwar and wenT To Police STaTion, Pandariya, where he gave FIR and Merg inTimaTion. KV Dwivedi, STaTion House Officer, Pandariya, afTer recording merg inTimaTion and FIR, lefT for place of occurrence To conducT inquesT. He conducTed inquesT, prepared inquesT reporT and forwarded dead body of Kaliram To Primary HealTh CenTre, Pandariya for auTopsy. He also collecTed blood sTained earTh and conTrol earTh from The spoT and weapon of The offence '— Sang from Baliram; recorded sTaTemenTs of wiTnesses under SecTion 161 of The Cr.P.C. Dr. Anil Kumar GupTa conducTed auTopsy; on examinaTion of The dead body, he found punctured wound n e «\J ’ ”r a?! over epigasfr‘ic region of abdomen and incised injury over dephrgmafic No.410/94 and commi‘r‘red fhe case To The Cour‘r of Sessions for Trial. 4)» Charge under SecTion 302 of The IPC was framed againsT The , appellanT, The same was read over and explained To‘ him who abjured { l { surface of liver. In his opinion, cause of dea‘rh was syncope from sfoppage of 'rhe hearf ac’rion due 1’0 profuse hemorrhage and shock caused by fhe puncfured injury. The injury was anfe mor‘i‘em in na‘iure. The injury was caused by sharp poin‘red and cuffing weapon and The dea‘rh was homicidal in nafure. He prepared his reporT and sen'l’ if To The Police 51'a1'ion. ProperTy recovered was also forwarded :Fo’Forensic Science Labora‘i'ory for examina‘rion. Affer complefion of The invesfiga’rion, charge sheef was led in fhe Cour? of Judicial Q Magis’rrafe 15*‘Class, who regisfered the case bearing Criminal Case The guilT, and claimed To be innocent AppellanT raised plea of insaniTy in his defence. 5) Injuries found on The body of Kaliram and his deaTh being homicidal in naTure have noT been dispuTed by The appellant Even oTherwise, from The evidence of Dr Anil Kumar GupTa (PW/8) and his auTopsy reporT (ExPflZ), iT has been esTablished ThaT Kaliram susTained following injuries and succumbed To iT. His deaTh was caused due'To syncope from sToppage of The hearT acTion due To profuse hemorrhage and she/ck caused/by injury. Punc‘rured injury size 4 cm X 2 cm x 8 cm» over epigasfr'ic region of abdomen. Margins of The wound are clean cu‘r and regular. Abdominal infesfine bulge fhrough injury. Injury is penefm‘ring because injury is passing Through skin, fascia, recTus muscle, l perifoneum,,.enfering To 1'he abdominal cavii'y injuring liver. There is incised injury size 2 cm X 1 cm x 1 cm over diaphragmafic surface of liver. Margins of wound of liver are clean cu‘l' and regular. Blood clof presen'i over wound. Deep sTaining of The edges and cellular fissues of wound presen‘r which is no? removed by washing profuse cloffed blood found inside The abdominal cavi'ry. Sfomach and infesfines are found blood sfained. ‘P 6) Khorbahara (PW/9) in his sTa‘iemen'i' categorically s'i‘a'red ThaT Chafi’ram and ‘Kaliram quarrelling wifh each ofher came ouf of fhe o house. Chai‘iram carrying sang chased Kaliram 'ro assauh‘ him. Kaliram ran away; ‘i'herefore, Chaifram could n01- succeed in his a‘H'empT. Affer some Time, when Kaliram refurned, Chaifram came ou‘r of his l lhouse, gave a pierced blow wiTh iron song (weapon) in Kaliram's chesf l and fled away. Kaliram susfained severe injury and ins'ranfaneously died. In his cross examina‘l'ion, nofhing has been elici'i'ed so as fo discredif his evidence. 7) Baliram (PW/1), elder brofher of The appellonT in his sTaTemenT deposed ThaT in The evening carrying paddy sTraw from The field, h'e reTurned To his house. He saw Kaliram lying in The badi having injury over his sTomach and blood Was oozing from iT. Kaliram was dead. Dukhuva and Khorbahara apprised him ThaT Cheram has killed Kaliram. He» called Sarpanch and KoTwar. GgwTiraha (PW/2) in his evidence e‘‘. l. Kalimm lying in The vege'rable field. 10) Kehar Singh (PW/5) in his s'ra'remen‘r deposed Tho‘r a1‘ around pm he was In his KoThar where he was Threshing gram He heard l as killed middle maTernal uncle He furTher deposed ThaT appellanT haITram is called younger maTernal uncle whereas deceased Kallram i known as middle maTernal uncle. He came ouT of his KoThar (Grain oom), saw Ch‘aiTram was coming shouTing from vegeTable field (badi), aliram was puTTing off The weapon of offence from his chest Looking To iT, he bewildered, saT on The ground. When he relieved ,-\i j i . ‘i / l déposed Tha‘r in The afternoon, he wgs fhr‘eshing 9mm in his Kofhm‘, aT i 1+i1a1' ‘hme Chal‘rmm afTer comml'r‘hng murder of Kahmm was shou‘hng aJrangbaII k/ jai', isko sar par chad/1a diya jaye”; he came ouT and s w Kahmm lymg on fhe ground havmg mJury m be’rween sfcmach and as? from where blood was oozmg and Kahram was dead 8P Johi’rmm (PW/3) in his sfafemenf deposed Thai he saw Kaliram l ing in ‘rhe vege'mble field who was dead, having injury in be‘rween chgs; and sfamach fram where blood was oozing. Viliagers were phesenf ’rhere. Appeiian‘r was absconded. He came To know ihaT i hai'rram had killed Kaliram wil'h an iron sang. I i 9) Tinha (PW/4) and Dhukan 60nd (PW/6) in ‘fheir s‘rafemem' deposed fha‘r in The evening when fhey reTurned, They came ’ro know T a'r Chaifram has killed his bro-rher Kaliram‘ They saw dead body of l i l me children who were saying loudly Thai younger maTernal uncle l ~ V; ’ RY. from confusion, he saw Kalimm was !ying in The vege'rabie field and {was dead. In cross examina‘rion, when asked by “the defence, he sm'red The? Chaifmm was running shoufing “mere b/mi k0 mar dlya". E11) Dhukan 60nd (PW/6) in his cross examinn‘rion sfafed Thaf when i'hey said Tha'r They are going 'ro repori “the maf'l'er, The appellan‘r fled away from his house. From the s'l'a’remen‘l' of Sewa Singh (PW/10), if is also eviden‘r ‘rha'i' appellan‘r offer fleeing away from his village, wen? if; his house from where villagers caughf ‘l’he oppellan‘l’ and Took him back. § 12) In ‘crossiexaminm‘ion of Balimm (PW/1), Gowfiraho (PW/2), Johi'l'ram (PW/3), Tinho (PW/4), Kehor Singh (PW/5), Dhukan 60nd (PW/6) and Sewn Singh (PW/10), noThing subsi’am‘iol has been elici'red , so as ‘ro disbelieve fheir version, even ofherwise, There is no oTher maTerial To disbelieve all These wiTnessesu Ex.P/1 is FirsT InformaTion ReporT and Ex.P/1-A is merg inTimaTion. Baliram (PW/1) and KV Dw‘ivedi (PW/7) have proved These documenTs. 13) Evidence of eyewiTness Khorbahara (PW/9), alThough he is a TruThfUl wiTness, yeT has been corroboraTed wiTh The oTher crediTworThy circumsTances proved by wiTnesses Baliram (PW/1), GowTiraha (PW/2), JohiTram (PW/3), Tinha (PW/4), Kehar Singh (PW/5), Dhukan 60nd (PW/6) and’Sewa Singh (PW/10), The medical evidence and by The FirsT InformaTion Report Considering evidence of eye—wiTness, circumsTances,|documen1;gry and medical evidence, we ‘ ®® are of The considered opinion Tha'r The uppeilanf by infHc‘l’ing injury wi‘l‘h an iron sung on sfomach of Kalimm cgused his dea‘rh. 14) Weapon of crime is an iron sang and if has been seized vide éeizure memo (E;.P/5) which has been proved by KV Dwivedi (PW/7). IT is evidem‘ fhof The weapon is made—uo of iron, if is 6 ff in ieng‘rh, bo‘ih “rhe ends are poini'ed and The edge of from side is 8% inch having widTh of 1% inch, edge of baek is 7 inch and The circumference of The heopon is‘Z inch. ’From The above descripTion, iT is monifesT ThoT iT is c heavy deadly weapon and if any injury wiTh ThaT weapon is caused, To any person, deaTh of ThaT person is likely To happen, and iT has been proved ThaT appellanT by piercing such a deadly weapon in The sTomach l of his broTher Kalimm wiTh force, caused his deaTh. 15) The appellanT Took plea of his insaniTy. Therefore, rile Caurf has fa ascerfain whefher af fhe Time of commission of offence, The appe/ianf on accoum‘ of unsoundness of his minaC was incapab/e of knamhg The nafure of acf or #Iaf lie was doing i/Vhaf was eihher wrorig or cam‘rary fo iaw. The crucia/ poinf for ascerfaining f/Ie sfofe of mind is fhe fime w/Ten fhe offence was commiffed and fo ascertain whe fher appe/lanf was wffer/ng from unsoundness of mind, fke Courf is required 7‘0 consider fne circumsiunces which preceded, offended and fol/owed fhe crime. Borden Is discharged if appe/iam‘ succeeds In p/acing maferiai before The Courf sufficienf fo make if consider fhe ® ‘ ‘exisfence of sych circumsfances 5'0 prabab/e leading fa his :unsoundness af‘mind #mf a prudem‘ man may acf upon #1em. }6) Herein The ins‘l’anf case, appellan‘l' in his examina'rion under x v ‘ : ‘ § I ‘ ? Secfion 313 of fhe Cr.P.C, pleaded his insani'ry. There is no evidence g o esfablish Tha‘l’ appeilunf was suffering’from insani‘ry or unsoundness of mind before, affer or a? The Time ’of incident Ai‘ihough Gowfiraha (PW/2) in his cross examincd'ion sfa‘red Thai uppellan‘r af Thai Time uppellan‘r was appearing like mad, but oiher wifnesses did no'r suppor? fhe above Q i/ersign. If is :nanifesf, fha‘r appeiiani' and Kaiiram were quarreliing. Kaiiram ran away, Therefore, earlier could noi a‘i‘iack him, appeilan‘r him, butsoon affer his refurn, appellan'i (rt-racked and assaul‘ied Kaiiram, ierced The deadly weapon iron sang info his sfomach and Thereaf‘l’er shou‘ring wen? ‘l'o his house. Afferwards, when he came To know Tha'r l i aTTer is 1'he he absconded from his ll being repor‘ied To police, from village l )i and wen‘r To anoTher village i‘e Khadhoda, where his in-law in relaTion as living. He was caugh‘l' from ThaT village and was brough‘l’ back from WA} s here. His conducT i‘rself shows ThaT aT The Time of incidenT, he was l ‘uiTe ‘uiTe sound and knew well The impacT of his acT. i l l l ‘ l7) In The resuljl', The appeal being devoid of meriT is liable To be x V\ l l l dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. "" sw— . {ill “7": l l i l i-I DHMNDRA MlsrmAi ' - 1 Sd/- ;—‘ .3 . Judge 17 if i l l l V.K. Shrivatava is W; l Judge r 111/2006wl l ‘ .. N.“ padm r A ~i~ ‘-—’ wmmmmww._ Wmml