^' .:/'. -XII-l aiI)CJ.P.R./9-94 ^A^ ^<b^ ^-^^ 3A^^) ^s- _3&-a< ^_ / CF0000060547 No- ,& ^n ,athei:<s:nan l'M'<: ^¥7^ Name ^<\ 's>\<\ . ^ ^\ ^ /^\ ^ ---' /\ - ^A —. ^-7^<w^ <c. ^^74^ Tirf^'^'^T Residence _1^_ <^^\ 577^^WS/^7 ^PfJ^^TT^^T Sentenced...to/%./- /4w^^(^3^ge ' ?0 <?<) u^^ €?>^/- %OSL l^/*^< ^7-on undersec-on^.-^^^--^^-s^^^a ^ s^^^^^^ff.^^^j ^ Tt is explained to tbe prisoner that ifhe states he'wishes to be. repre's^nted by'a legal practitioner the appellafe Court will not proceed with the case for seven days unless the legal practitioner appears earlier. Ifthelegal practitioner doesnot appear within seven 7.4ays ^2e may not heard at all if the Prisoner states that he does not wish to be repre- ^exited by legal practitioiier the court may proceed at once with the case and will not '^)G obtiged togive a hearing to my legal practitioner who should appear. 1 Date of Application for copy of Judgement 2 , Date on vvhich copy received 3 Date on vvhich Appeal sent J€- 2_-9^ 4 Whefher the prisoner wishes to be represented or not No ^/^•^^^^ Name ^ ^ ^^ Confined ia No. '733/^^ ~^ • S^<s^€6^/^^^^^^<§^7r |) /^@v^/^< 6^'^^) — I Dated //- ^ - 9^_ 199^_ Forwarded to the <^><-^^ ^^^-:^^ ^^fwy ^(^^^^) to gether with a copy ofjudgement or order passed in the case forf^voVir .ssion to the proper Appellate ccurt. smi- Date of receipt in _ ^ Office Date of receipt of record to accompany the, Memo of Appeal to the Appellate court No Dated Foiwarded to the Date' of receipt in. Appellate court n 1 \ 1 !, 199 (P.T.O.) H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR CmMINAL APPEAL N0. 469 OF 1998 Chhotelal @ Chhote Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhatti^arh) JUDGMENT FOR CQNSIDBRATION __^ r Sd/- <J 11 (Tjg^ET ,3(1 -^-2006 Hoxi^ble Shri Justice Y.K.,§b(lvastava "^T^ 2\ Sd/- V.K. Shrivatava Judge \ \. post fc^__2i^§-^©d& "A><^ Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge ^ rr:" ^ ^ ,.J^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAT-TISGARH AT BILAsFUR Crimlaal Aooeai N0. 469/1998 Chhotelal @ Chhote Siagh Vs. State ofMadhya Pradesh (Now Chhattii^h) Coram: Hon^bie Bhri Fakhruddin asad Hon?bie Shri V.K.Shrivastava,JJ Present : SBit. Kiraa Jain, counsel for fhe appeUant. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate/Addl. Public Prosecutor \vifh ShnAkhil Mishra, Paael Lowyer, for tiie State. JUD GM EN T Per FakhruddiD.,_J^ Heard leamed counsel for the parties. 2. The appeUaat has preferred mis appeal agauist the judgnient delivered on 11/2/1998 in Sessions Trial No. 164/97 by Uie V^Ith Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspiu', whereby he has beeu convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for coBiniitting niurder of his wife Murko Bai & his elder brother Sahazitu aad senteuced to iiadergo imprisonmeut for Ufe. 3. Briefly stated fhe prosecution story is tliat on 23/3/ 1997 when the Kotwar of Viilage-Giimatola, naniely, Kanasrani was ui Uie house, Maiigal Siagh, Sarpaiich, canie and iaformed that one person of ViUage Gumatola has killed his wife and has beaten his elder brother who is unconscious. Heanag this, Kaiiasram alongwifh Maagii went to the Village, where they found mat Murko Bai is dead aiid Sahantu is lying unconscious, Saliantu's wtfe namely Puniya Bai (PW-2) and Uie father- iri-law of me accused uainely Chetu were weepia.g.He asked froBi Piuiiya Bai, who told fh.at Chliotelal has done tiiis, Kaaasraai lodged the report (Ex.P/1) m tlie Police Station. Murko Bai died on me spot n ^ ^' ..^.^ 'v-^' ^ ^ and Sahao.tu was taken to fhe Goveninient Hospital where he died aad the Ward Boy Dhanesh Tiwad sent fhe iaformation of his deafh. which was recorded by the PoUce on 24-3-1997. The PoUce prepared the panchnaina, botli tlie dead bodies were sent for postm.orteni which was conducted by Dr, L,N. Patel (PW-8). Ex,P/ 11 is the postaiortein report of ftie deceased Murko Bai and the cause of deafh shown to be the head iajuxy< Ex.P/10 is fhe postmortein report of the deceased Sao.fh.aau aad Uie cazise of deafh shown to be the severe head iajury, The statements of Pw-2 Puniya Bai aad ofher witaesses were recorded aad the chaUaa was filed, 4. The appellaat abjured the guilt and contended fhat he has been falsely iinpUcated. The Court below relyiag on tlie evideuce ofwitoesses convicted fhe accused/appeUaiit ao.d sentenced him. as narrated above, 5. Counsel for the appellan.t contended that so far as evidence of Puniya Bai (PW-2) is concemed, it is not reUable. It is submitted tliat Puniya Bai is fhe wife of the deceased aad is ao. interested witaess. It is also contended that Man.gu, who was the witn.ess, has not been exammed. It is stated tiiat ao. adverse mference shoxild have been drawn. 6. Counsel for the State, on the other haad, contended fhat the evidence of PW-2 Puniya Bai aad other iiiaterial on record have been rightly reUed upon hi arrivuig at tiie finduig. 7, Perused fhe record. PW-2 F'uniya Bai is the wife of Uie deceased Sahaatu. She stated in. her statemLent fhat accused is her brofh.er-in- law (Devar). She further stated fhat fhe accused was beating his wife Murko Bai by rammer (musat] aad her husbaad Sahaatu was trymg to save Murko Bai, Accused also gave a raainier [jnusal) blow on his head. A-.. ^ y •d'.J' i'€ On receiviag fhe uijunes, Miirko Bai died 011 Uie spot and Saliaatu became unconscious. She hersetfhas seen fhe iiicident. She shouted aad ran away towards Uie Basti where she narrated fh.e iacident to the vUlagers that Chhote Siagh has killed his wife aiid her husband. She stated Uiat the accused ran away from the spot. She also stated that the accused beat her husband as he iater^ened and tded to save the appellaars wife Murko Bai. She has been cross-examiaed at lengUi, On being cross-examined, in para 4 she stated that when she went froin fhe house, she saw fhat fhe accused was beatmg his wife, who had failen down aad fhen he beat her husband Sahaatu, She was siiggested Uiat the appeUaiit is the person of unsound niiad. She denied aad stated tiiat fhe appeUant is not the person of unsound mmd. She further denied fhat as her husbaad died m fhe house ofthe accused/appeUaiit, fherefore, she is implicatmg me accused. She agaio. stated fhat the accused raa away froni ftie spot with the rammer. P.W. 1 Kaaasram also supported the version of her statenient, In his statenient, P,W. 1 Kaaasrain stated that on reachiag to me house offhe accused he saw mat the wife of fhe accused was lymg dead m fhe courtyard and fhe brother of fhe accused was lying unconscious. He farther stated Uiat the wife aad brother of Uie accused received iajuries on fheir head aiid blood was oozing. 8. P.W.8 Dr, L.N. Patel, who condiicted fhe .postmiorteia, was also examiiied. In his statenient, he narrated fhe iajunes found on the bodies of fhe deceased persons. Bx.P/11 is fhe postmortem report of fhe deceased Murko Bai and Ex,P/ 10 is tiie postmorteBi report of Uie deceased Sahaatu, which read as under: {!Ex.P/ 11- Rigor mortis was present in lower limbs. Bleeding from nose present Abrasion on the left knee joini in ihe size of 2 x 2 cm. Haematoma and conttision zuere present over left half of the forehead ..t I. •• v^' ^. and over left hyegonatic area. HaematoTna scalp top whole, The cause of death was due to coma caused by head injury. The death was hormcidal innature. EX.P/ 10-RiQor moriis was present all over Umbs. Blood was conung froni right ear and nostrils, SweUing & haematoma around left eye and over left hyegonaiic area. Abrasion on the right imisi posteriorly. Bleeding from nose mzd right ear present The cause of dealh was due io cnma caused by seuere head u'tjury. T}ie death u)Cts homiddal in nature,ff 9, We have gone tlirough Uie evidence miautely, The incident took place ia Uie house of fhe accused. The appellant was beating his own wife, namely, Murko Bai. Seeing fhis, fhe appellaurs brother, namely, Sahaatu caoie to rescue her. The appellaat also gave ramnxer blow on fh.e head of Sahaatu, who became unconscious aad was ultimately shtfted to me hospital where he succumbed to fhe injuries. 10. So far as evidence of iaterested witness is conceraed, the Hon. Apex Court ia the case of Hourbans Kaur and anather PS» Stcste pf Haruana reported in 200S AJR SCW 2074 held as under: wfThere is no proposition inlaw that relatives are to be treated as untruth/ul witnesses, On the con^ary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to shoi'j ihat the lyiinesses had reason to shield actuat culprii and fatsely impUcate the aca^sed, No evidence has been led in this regard.v In the iastant case, we found fhat fhe evidence of P.W.2 Puniya Bai is such on which tlie impUcit reUaace can be placed. She is fh.e naUiral witaess aad witaessed Uie nicident, She is not the tutored witaess. There is no iafinnity ia her evidence. There is also nofhiiig on record to show that fhe appeUaD.t was irisane at tiie tioie of coHiniission offhe cnme. ^ ^ H/- 11. At fhis stage, counsel for fhe appeUant contended fhat at the most the offence is purdshable under Section 304 IPC as fhere was no uitention to kill the deceased persons, 12. There is no substaace m fhe aforesaid contention. The maiiner in which me accused beat his wife and his elder brofher by raaimer aad inflicted fhe mjuries vide Ex.P/10 85 P/ll/ the intention is absolutely clear. 13. We are ofme considered opiaion-fhat fhe fiudiag, conviction aad sentence passed by th.e tdal cozirt do uot suifer froin am.y iafirmity which may call for any iaterference by this Court ia its appeUate junsdiction. ^4^^Accord^iigly, the appeal fails and is dismissea^-^7 Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge Sd/- V.K. Shrivatava Judge