rug/X: WW,W,W Wm m 200 Wm (W) WWifz‘éW $aimm WWW E m 1 . 5 mmmm ’CR.A NO 929 OF 2002 \‘APPELLANT ’ Mehtu Ram, Sfo. Bhun‘a, agE 66 years, Occupation— Agriculture, R10. Bulawand, v RS. Antagarh, .Distt. Kanker (CG) Vérsus af ‘RESPONDENT ‘ State of C.G., Through RS. Antagarh, Distt. Ranker (CG) APPEAf. UNDER SECTIQN 37412! OF THE CRIMINAL PROCE DURE CODE \‘DIVISION BENCH: HON’BLE E‘vHRl L.C.BHADOO, J. 85 HON’BLE S HRI T.P.SHARMA,J. Present: Shri Vishnu Koshta, counsel for the appellant. Shri Akhil Mishra, Dy. Government Advocate for the State. (18m e§33£§I§§§m The following judgment as delivered by L,C.Bhadoo, J : By This appeal under Se tion 374 (2} of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused] appell t has questioned the legality ahd correctness of the judgment f conviction and order of sentence by the Firt ditional Sessions ' é S s Ad Wm m 200 Wm (W) WWW WWW WW ‘1§€IW *afmm WWW ,Judgs, Kanksr in ST. N0. 356i2091 whereby the leagned §Additional Sessions Judge, hekiing file accusedfappellant guilty ?for commission of me offence uxlder Section 302 of the IPC, isentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a &1e iof Rs. 1,000] —, in default of pa} ment of fme to further undergo RE lforf six months. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted the accused] appellant of me chgxge under Section 376 of the IPC. 4 ‘2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.03.2001, PAM—6 i' lSumitra 8a RW. 5 Manaro infon ned their uncle Dukalu Ram (REV.— l4) that their grandmother Ram‘r ati Bai is breathless she is neither drinking water nor talking. (3:1 hearing this from the two girls Dukalu Ram along with his brother Kanwal went to the place where their mother was lying. They tried to give some Water but she was not able to drink and at about 1.00 noon, she died. On enquiry by Dukalu Ram from his niece v Manaro, she disclosed that on 17.3.2001, at about 5—4.00 p.111. Ratan Rawat (REAL—l3) along with accused Mehtu Ran] and deceased Ram Bati Bai (since deceased) had consumed liquor. Ratan left the place. She also told ’diat thereafter, accused Mehtu Ram dragged Ram Bati Bai inside the house. P.W.—6 Sumitra and P.W.-5 Manaro peeped inside the house, whereupon the accused asked them to run away. At this, they went‘to Rain Pyan' Bai (P.W.~7) and informed her. When she came to see the accused/ appellant, he ran away. On 19.03.2001, a i ‘. \ ‘ Wm m 200 WW (13W) WW§1§¢TW §€aimm ammm WWW matmm panchayat was convened ang thtereafter the matter was raported ‘ by Dukalu Ram in the police station Antagarh under Ex. P—5. After ; registering the case under tion 302 of the IPC, Investigating 2 Omcer left for the scene of Q urrence. After giving notice (EX.P— 1) g to the panchas prepared inq st (EXP—2) on the body of Ram Bati §a1 Dhoti of the accused] ap ellant was seized under EXP—6. One towel (gamchha) and lungi we e seized under EXP—7. Body of Ram’ i Bati Bai was sent for post m rtem examination to Pn'maly Health Ce‘ntre Dmg‘Kondal under E .P-9 where Dr. Smt. P. Lal (P,W.—14~) 1 conducted the post mortem on the body of Ram Bati Bai and“ opined that the cause of dea was due to throttling and death was homicidal in nature. She pr pared pOSt mortem report Ex.P— 16. ' After completion of the inves ' non, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate irst Class, Bhanupratappur, who in turn committed the case to Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, from where the learned First A tional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur received the case on transfer f r trial. ' I i x I i i > i i i i 3. The prosecution in orde to establish the charges against the accused/appellant, examined tifteen witnesses. The statement of er Section 313 of the Cr.P.C,, in which he denied the mate al appearing against him in the ’ prosecution evidence and stat d that he is innocent and has been the accused was recorded \ falsely implicated in the crime question. a S c a d i e d WW,WE,W (5) mmm ammm WWW mm#wm §53Tmm 4‘, After haaiing the counsel Additional Sassions Judge, accused] appellant as aforementioned. 1 ‘ ‘ r 5. We have hsard Shri V1shnL Koshta vounsel 101" the app€11an+ aji‘d‘Shn AkhJl Mxshra karasd Dy Govt. Advocam, for the Stata :br the respective parties, learned convicted and ent€nced me 6. Lsamed comsel for the ac the hom1c1dal death of Rdm Bat] RLal, who conducted the post mt kllas stated that there was a sw< Were marks of bruises which Wi right side of the neck ajld Whicl part of the right side of the Che ear, there was haemotoma in bot the right eye, The tongue was t the soft tissues were fouild preSE which was excessive in front o trachea, laryngeal cartilage a1 Cartilage C2, T2 & T3 were &ac congested and decomposed, The was reddishness and froth was I private parts. throttling and homicidal in nattue which was w: No definite opinion can he given dom the time 0_f poet mortem. 1 i ‘ l “used/ appellant has not disputed Bai. Moreover, P.W.—14, Dr. Smt, )rtem on the body of Ram Bati Bai illing around the neck ahd there are more in number in front and 1 were also present on the upper st. There was bleeding from right h the eyes which was excessive in luish. On dissection of the neck, ;ed, the clotted blood was present, Ethel neck in the right side. The 1d hyoid bone were fractured. tured. The brain membrane was food pipe was congested and there She opined that >resent. There were bruises on the the death was as a result of m 48 60 hours Wm wt 200 WW (W) s @ mw,m,m WW i 200 n WWW 3911mm m m (Wat) WWW WW WIW évaffaqimw ,m-w.- m ragarding the commission of ape on Ram Bati Bai and further stated. that the report is EXP- ‘ 7.: The above medical evid ‘ce is corroborated by,the evidence of‘P,W.-5-Manaro and P.W.-6 Sumitra, who have stated that the ace§§ed Mehtu Ram along Wi Rataxx consumed Equor with Ram Bati Bai thereafter, Ratan 16f the place whereas accused Mehtu Ram dgagged Ram Bati Bai in ide the house and closed the door. When they tried to peep inside the house, accused] appellant asked them to run away. Thereafte l they called Ram Pyari. When she came to the place of occurre ce, the accused ran away leaving lungi. Therefore, in View of th medical evidence and the presence and the act of the accused the house of the deceased, it is established that the death of Ram Bati Bai was homicidal in nature. 8. As far as the involvement of the accused in the crime in question is concerned, in thi case, the conviction rests on the testimony of P.W.-5, Manaro, P.W.-13 Ratan. b 3.W.-6 Sumitra, P.W.—7 Ram Pyari d5 9,. P.W.—5 Manaro has stated that on the fateful day, she along with Sumitra and Ram Bati Bvai, her grandmother were present at their house, The accused/appellant came there. After sometime Ratan also came .there and thereafter three of them consumed i l v t i x r\\\ 23 ,g/ Wm an 200 am§$ Wi’messes the presence of ths accused/appellant has been established. P.W.-5 Manaro and P.W.—6 Sumitra has categorically stated that when Ratan left‘ house, the accused] appellant took Ram Bati Bai inside the hé e am closed me door. When they accused and on seeing her, ex‘a’minatioxr of this Witness, axly circumstance which ' scredits the teetimony of these. accused] appellant 1'11 the house of Ram Bati Bai is established The accused/appellant consumihg o established and thereafter taking Ram Bati Bai inside the h by the accused/'appellant is also established from these witnes es. Wimesses, The presence of liquor with Ram Bati Bai is o e 1 1. ' P.W.-14 Dr. .Smt. Pl Lal, who conducted the post mortem has V categorically stated that there were bruise injuries on the neck and chest of the deceased. The heck was pressed as there was reddishness and haematoma as present in both the eyes. There was bleeding hem the Iight and the soft tissues were pressed. Blood was present in the mu les. Moreover, the trachea, cartilage and hyoid bone was found actured. Cartilage C2, T2 8r. T3 were found fractured. Thus, the p sence of the accused is established. He consumed liquor with deceased, thereafter he took her inside the house and clos the door and when Manaro and / t}a. e i s e e e WT m Hi 200 WW (W) I “mwm mm1§wm amimém ’V 3 &Hc 7s WW,WW,W rg /~\ Wm m 200 @ EW,W,W Wm m 200 mw,m,W x 3mm (W) WWW Wmwi’érm K, éw‘amm 1 ‘ For the foregomg reasons m 1ty m the muhng of the mvolvement of the accused] appe them ls no moi-1t m this appec . i‘of ‘ 16. In the result, the appeal be dismissed and is‘accordingly, dis u , we do not find any illegality or amed trial Court regarding the ant in the crime in question and ing devoid of mexit, is liable to be nissed. Sdl- L.C.BHADOO Judge ‘1‘ T.P. Sharma Judge WW in 200 afléw anW am 311wm Suguna