CRIMINAL APP EAL NO. 45 OF 2001 DIVISION BENCH: HON. Hon. SHRJ sHRI Appellant Non-applicant Presence: Mr, VP. Gupta, counSel (20th PER L.C. BHADOO, J This appeal is dirécted gainst the judgment bf conviction allcl order of sentenc‘e dated 1 11.2000 passed by 3131 Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar in Se sions Tn'al No. 273/2000 whereby . ‘ V the HIGH COURT OF CHEATTISGARH AT BILASPUR L.c. BHADoo, &‘ DHIRENDRA MISHRA, JJ Lok Nath son of Ijakmu Gond, aged 37 yrs, rssident of V Mawali Gula, RS. Fajzalpur, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) Versu$ State of Chhattisgarh through RS. Fajzajpur, Distm'ct Bastar, Chhattisgarh. for the appellant. Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Dy. Govt. AdvocatE for the. Statal ORAL JUDGMENT pril2007) learned Additional Se sions Judge after holding the acoused/appellant guilty for commission of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, sente ced him i0 undergo imprisonment for h'fE and pay g fine of Rs.5,0 30/ 3 in default of payment of fine t6 fumler undergo one year’s RI. ‘2. > Case of the prosecution is that PW—l Bodhabai, wife of the deceased lodged a report in the Police Station — Fraizarpur to the eEect that on 24.4.2000 Loknath sent his son to call her husband to treat his boil by exorcism. Thereafter, her husband went to the house of Loknath for his treatment. At about 3.00 o’clock her husband returned and infonned her that Loknath has assaulted him saying that as to why he has come late. On 25.4.2000 at about 5.00 am. in the morning she went to the forest to pluck leaves. At about 11.00 am. when she was returning from the forest, she saw that her 1111s 3and was sitting in the house of Loknath, on which she asked her husband to accomiiaiiy her to their house, whereupon Loknath said that he will come later, he will not go just now, therefore, 5 he left her husband at the house of Loknath. After half an hour daughter of Somaiu: came and informed that Loknath has cc mmitted minder of ller maternal uncle, therefore, she went to e house of Loknath and saw that her husband was lying dead. T ere were injuries caused by axe on the jaw and back of her husbai d. She started weeping. Receiving this report Station House O cer, Police Station -—, Fraizarpur registéred the crime under Secti n 302 of the IPC, left for the scene of occurrence and heprepared the inquest (EX.P/ 2) 'on the dead ‘hody of Laikhan. He took into ossession plain and hloodstained , _ (what) XI—HC-22 soil from the place of occunfnce under EXP/3. While in police custody accused gave memonmdum (EXP/4), pursuant to which weapon of o§6nce aX€ was suized under EXP/5. Dead body of Laikhan was sent for postmortem examination to Maharani Hospital, Jadgalpur where Dr. R.B.P. Gupta (PW—4) conducted postmortem and prepared the postmortem report (EXP/8), in which he opined that cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to excessive bleeding from the injuries and nature of death was homicidal. 3. After completion of inves igation charge sheet was tiled in the Court of Chief Judicial Ma istrate, Jagdalpur who in turn committed the case to the Ses ions Judge, Jagdalpur from Where learned Additional Sessions J dge, received the case on transfer for trial. 4. Prosecution examined Witnesses at the trial in order to establish the charge against the accused. Statement of. the accused was recorded under S ction 3 13 of the CLRC. in which he denied the material appearin against him in the prosecution evidence and stated that he is innocent and has been falselv implicated in the crime. 5. ¢ Learned Additional Sessi ns Judge after hearing counsel for the respective parties, convict d and sentenced the accused as aforementioned. a _.(nnaaea) I / s' XI-HC-22 3am,m,W . mam mm‘CAKWQ‘..C/m at zooc 6. We have beam. Mr. V.P. Gupta, leam6d counsel appealing'on behalf of the accueed/ appelant and M1". D.K. Gwalre, learned Dy,G.A. for the State] respond int. KN! ‘ 7. Mr. Gupta has not disp 1ted the homicidal death of Laikhan. Moreover, PW—2 Bale @ Ba'mati has categorically stated that accused attacked the deceased with axe and PW—4 Dr.R.B.P. Gupta, who conducted postmortem on the body of deceased has stated that there were injurie on the body of Laikhan, wind pipe wascut, injuries were ante ortem in nature and the death was homicidal. His report is EXP] 8. Therefore, from the above ocula and medical evidence it is es blished that death of Laikhan was homicidal in nature. 8. As far as involvement o the accused] appellant in ctime in question is concerned, PW—2 alo @ Balmati, girl of 10 yeaxs, so- called sister of die accused h s stated that she knew Laikhan, he ,was her maternal uncle. She as stated that the accused attacked Laikhan with axe, she witnessed the accused attacking Laikhan with‘axe. On account of assault made by the accused, he fell down, thereafter accused agair attacked him with axe on his head. Her house and the house of the accused are adjacent. At that time she was standing on the wall outside her house from where she witnessed the accused attacking the deceased with axe. Thereafter, she narrated the incident to Bodhabai, wife of the i l. i . (m W) r XI—HC~22 ;, I / /