—78 3?n^r ^r'f^Nr ^T^T -STT^T^FRNT ^EET ^liqi^^, ^Tfi-M^Ko, [cf^l'yy w^ir ^qfsp•••••••••^•'••"••••"•••••••"•'-•••^•y"-"^^ 200 f 3^lit?T ^!^S (^^^) '^nw^H^^r APPELLANT7T (Accused) (In Jail) RESPONDENT: {Criminal appeal under Sjection 374 (2)ofthe Code ofthe Criminal j3rocedure, 1973} Division Bench: Hon'ble Mr. L.C. Bhadoo an<t Hon'ble Mr. Dhirendra IVIishria. JJ. 10-7-2007 Mrs. Hamida Siddique, Mr. D.K. Gwalre, A respondent. Oral judgment dictated L.C. Bhadoo.J:- Today this appeal is list^d for admission. Mrs. Siddique, learnec| accused is in detention since about 6 % years, therefore, Gwalre, learned Additional Pitblic the appeal is heard for final di^ obl^f<rt4l 'WI^Tf ^fet3t <f^^l< ^ 37ft?H 3?T^T Kisun Gond, S/o Soman Gond, Aged about 32 years, R/o Bharwamudha, P.S. Chhura, District Raipur (C.G.) - Versus - State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Chhura, District Raipur (C.G.) sounsel for the appellant. Iditional Public Prosecutor for the State/ >n Dais. counsel for the appellant submits that the iFebruary, 2001, thereby he is Jn detention for appeal itself be heard finally tp which Mr. Prosecutor has no objection. Therefore, Iposal. the w XI-IiC—78 ^q^RT ^T f^rti.ch TT^TT 'STT^T 5h^icb 3^cT ^ll^t^, ?$Tfl-y^i(S, (s|0W^< NINdl *^|cb &.f\.W^> *W1, 200 \ 3T^?T ^(^ (^1^<^) 1 nis appeai is airectea| sentence dated 19-9-2001 Raipur, in Sessions Trial No.1 Judge after holding the accut under Section 302 of the l.P.tt life, however, no fine was accused. (against the judgment of conviction and order of p]assed by the 3 Additional Sessions Judge, 160/2001, whereby leamed Additional Sessions >ed/appellant guilty for commission of offence '•„ sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for im|posed upon him looking to the poverty of the Case of the prosecuti^ Dhanbai were sleeping in on|e February, 2001. Lomsingh (F|W- Hearing cries of ttie child, wjhen accused who were sleeping and asked the accused to orfen door, therefore, they approacjhed but even then the accused Lakhanlal Dhruv (RA/-5), brof accused to open the door, bu\ they said that if he will not hearing this the accused oper & Lakhan Singh chased the S|CGU! room that Dhanbai was lyin^ reported by Lomsingh (PW-1] that the first information repoi| OfRcer, Police Station: Chhur^ of the I.P.C. He left for the sci 4 to the Panchas, prepared <=bi^(<n<11i ^i*i<nf ^f^^ <Fat^i< '^3?rRR3n^r >n, in brief, is that the accused and his wife room in the intervening night of 12th & 13th yw-1) and Roopchand (PW-2) are neighbours. mother-in-law & another daughter of the the adjoining room came, knocked the door the door, the accused did not opened the Loms'ingh (RA/-1) & Roopchand (R/V-2), |lid not open the door, then they approached ther of the accused, he came and asked the the accused did not open the door, therefore, Ipen the door. they will break open the door, |ied the door and ran away. Lomsingh (PW"1) i|ccused and caught him. They saw inslde the dead in injured condition. The matter was under merg intimation Ex.P-2 and based on i|t Ex.P-1 was registered by the Station House for commission of offence under Section 302 ine of occurrence and ^fter giving notice Ex.P- 1|he inquest (Ex.P-5) on the body of Dhanbai. •3^3S ^!N|<71><4, ?$T{iwi(o, (sl^l'My _......&....,.^:.. NINdl *Nlch •Wi, 200 ( 3?lt?T''^i^ (^H^<^) ^j^i^^i?? ^?T ^^ 'W^ ^T :R ^fi^ 3TT^[ '^Pjf^T^ W^ ^^S <fa^T^ ^^Rj^W^T ly of Dh^nbcai w<a» s^iil for pos|-rYiort6ifl 6XSllllll'3tto(l t6 Primdty Hoalth Centre, Chhura under Ex.P-6 whejre Dr. G.L. Tandon (R/V-7) conducted post-mortem, prepared the post-mjortem report Ex.P-SA and opined that cause of death was coma due to hejad jnjuryand the deathwas homicidal in nature. The stone, weapon of c|ffence, was seized from the place of occurrence under Ex.P-7. The si|te plan (Ex.P-3) was prepared by the Patwari. The stone in question w^!S sent for examination to the Assistant Surgeon under Ex.P-10 and after 4<amination, the doctor noticed blood on the said stone and opinedthat the ir(jury found on the bocly of Dhanbai could be caused by the stone in question. After completion of investigatgon, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First ClassJGariaband, who jn turn committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Rai||)ur, from where Jearned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur received th^ The prosecution in order t6| examined ejght witnssses. Statc Section 313 c me Cr.P.C. in which case on transfer for trial. establish charge against th accused |nt of the accused was recorded under \\e denied the material appearing against him, however, in reply to question ls?o.5 he has stated that he was sleeping and when people knocked his dooi woke up. In reply to question No.7 Devnath & LakhanIaLcayght him, h^ said yes, Roopchand & Lakhanlal ©Ql@^satm9=te4riwr,4h^caught hin| Learned Additional Sessioi) respective parties, convicted and seij with great force, hearing the cries he that he was runnjng away, Roopchand, and brought back. is Judge after hearing counsel for itenced the accused as aforementioned. GR ~5:^f -^i^i^^, t$T{1'(-i4i(o, f^wry 'RTO^T ^^^"••-"•'••••"•••••v""-v--'-l"-:T"^"""-"^200 31lt?T XT^^ (^l^^) ^r^T^T'fe;?N? W^ ^i^l \W^W ^<nW ^if^a ^H^I ^F?feFN ^FR^f ^ tt^ ^T^R ^^fww^f We have heard Mrs. Ham appellant and Mr. D.K. Gwalre, behalf of the State/respondent. |ja Siddique, learned counsel for the lcjarned Additional Public Prosecutor on Learned counsel for the apt death of Dhanbai. Moreover. Dr. evidence that on 13-2-2001, he Dhanbai and found that there was a| of 5" x 5" x 3", frontal bone was bro} wound on fore head in the size of 3T of 2" x 1"x 1" on right side of eye; Allthe injuries were caused by h^| haemorrhage, coma and the death ^ of the doctor is corroborated b^ Roopchand (PW-2), Devnath (PW4: accused made extra judicial confesfsjon with the stone on the body of Dhan|>ai. death of Dhanbai was homicidal in njature ()eliant has not disputed the homicidal |G.L. Tandon (PW-7) has stated in his c|onducted post-mortem on the body of llacerated wound on forehead in the size |<en and there was bleeding; a lacerated x2" x 1"; a lacerated wound in the size ^nd a lacerated wound on frontal region. |rd & blunt object, cause of death was (/as homicidal in nature. Above evidence the evidence of Lomsingh (PW-1), ?) & Supedram (RA/-4) before whom the regarding the assault made by him Therefore, it is established that the GF As far as involvement of tll concerned, Lakhanlal Dhruv (PW-5] in his evidence that in the fateful Lomsingh came and asked him to ^ brother's house and his brother 1s 1.30a.m. Therefore, he rushed door, but he clid not opened the d| opening the door, after some tim^,| 3. |e accused in the crime in question is I. real brother ofthe accused, has steted night he was sleeping at his house, 1/ake up as his niece was weeping in his |iot opening the door, by that time it was towlards the houseof Kisun and knocked the bor, thereafter, he abused Kisun for not Kisun opened the door, he went inside 'S^ ^<|A||0<q, ^ITfl'M^KS, fs|^l<1^< wwir ai^.......&?..,...A..-...U.^...^....,.....^ 200 / ^t?r ^^ (^f^<si<^r) /^. ^l^l^lfei?^ '^T WCT i'^^[?^ i^H^R ^?^ ^T^I sisNr forehjead this and saw the dead body of his and there was injury on her brother <Kisun) started running awal brotheris running away, they chasejd Therefore, from the evidence of brother of the accused, it is establi^ were sleeping in one room, the rooijn accused was weeping, even after not open the door, then Lakhanlal accused did not open the door, the< the door, the accused opened the saw that his sister-in-law was lying b^ing ih djsclolsed Lomsingh (R/V-1) has statep brought back, on enquiry, he his wife by assaulting with a grindij runnjng awayto hang himself forth|e 2) has corroborated the above evid^ made extra judicial confession. have also corroborated the abov4 defence has not been able to elicit evidence and their evidence corrol (R/V-5), brother of the accused. instance, being neighbour, they cs|n door, but he did not open the doo( (R/V-5) who came and abused, the| after opening the door, the acqy^|d ^FifeRft^ '^TTOff "^ 'ft^t l1^5R ^^tf^T^n^T Ir-in-law Dhanbai, her head was crushed 1, after seeing this he fell down, his ^. When Lomsingh informed him that his him, caught him and brought him back. wltness who is none else than real ^hed that the accused and the deceased was bolted from inside, daughter of the asked by Lomslngh the accused did (PW-5) came and called his brother, the |efore, he abused him and asked to open loor. This witness entered the room and injured condition. in his evidence that when Kisun was that he has committed the murder of ifig stone and he further said that he was i|e crime he committed. Roopchand (R/V- ^nce of PW-1 and stated that the accused pevnath (PW-3) and Supedram (R/V-4) evidence. In their cross-examination, any circumstance which discredite their >orates the evidence of Lakhanlal Dhruv [They have also stated that in the first and asked the accused to open the thereafter, they called Lakhanlal Dhruv j-eafter, the accused opened the door and tri6d to run away, they chased. caught cstme GRPRJ 3^ST '^Sl<>.)10^, ^Tn-M^KS, fsj<^l^y _...&.,6t..,. NINdl sh^ich 6 •^ 200^ 3i?t?T x?3^ (4^H^<^) ^n^^i^i^it?? 'OTIW^l'^^w Soma ^^TW ^rft^ ^T^I and brought him back. Thereforej made by the accused and the circtjmstantial the deceased were all alone in thel doorwas opened by the accused entered the room and saw that th^ saidroom and the stone, weapon o| based on the extra judicial confession evidence that the accused and room which was bolted from inside, the |n the presence of these witnesses, they dead body of Dhanbai was lying in the 1 offence was also lying there. In the circumstances, based the accused and the circumstantial established in committing the murd< illegality or infirmity in convicting th< and sentencing him to undergo i murderof Dhanbai. |on the extra judicial confession made by levidence, involvement ofthe accused is l^r of Dhanbai. Hence, we do not find any accused under Section 302 ofthe I.P.C. itnprisonment for life for committing the In the result, the appeal i; dismissed and it is hereby dismisseti Sd/- L.C, Bhadoo Judge ^Rfepfl^ ^n^f ^* f^zi' ^f^^R ^^1T3:IT^T devoid of merit, same is liable to be , atthe admission stage itself. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007—50,000.