78 sn^t ?ii R-ii'+i 'ffsiTsn^rwRro !fe8 Twf "liqirtt), tSit{)(1'|S, fslciiyy W^r g^.....^X.A.^3.....^.^.......^ 200 an^OT'wra; (<icit'j,«tt{ti) TOIIW ^lf^T 3lA?T APPB-LANT: ffn Jait) RESPON&ENT; (Criminal appecl ur bivision Banch: - Hon'ble Hon'ble 27-6-2 Shri Pawan Shri Akhil Mishra, Oral judgment dicta-^ed on Dais. L.C. Bhadoo. J, This appeal is direc^sd order of sentence dated 1D Sasssons Judge, Kanker, 4 t*ti-iif<n^ti TTPci^^fe1^ <t«i^k ^T3tRpT3n^T M.oa'irakhcm, S/o Rdmcharan, aged about 35 years, Caste ; Harijan, Occupation hbour, resident of. Sarona, P.5. , Narharpur, District Kanker (ChhattiS9arh). -Versus - State of Chhattis9ar-h, through the District AAagistrate, Konter, District Kanker. der Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C.) Shri L.C. Bhcdoo & Shri Ohirendra Mishra. JJ. Shrivast4va, counsel for the appeltant. Pcjnel Lawyer for the State/respondent. against ttie judgment of conviction sand th iftay 2001 passed by the 2nd Additional in S.T. No.203/2000 whereby learned XI-HG—78 3D^I ?il l<-fi<tl '^n STT^T Sti'qich 4T TS^ •^ww-'i, wS\wie, fsfrti'yy MIHdl **<1* Wl^ 200 3II^?T 'IRR; Cpf^SRtf) Additiona! Sessions Judg^ for commission of offerlce comfflittin9 the murder of undergo impr'isonmentfor The case of the p| father of the accused alt Ex.-P/7 and same was registration of the case) House Officsr C.S. Sharmb inquest Ex.-P/4-A on the^ Parchi of the house. Plairl possession. Similarly, bro were also taken into for postmortem examina^ where Dr. J.S. Soihu (8 postmortem report Ex.-P^ fracture of cervical respiratory paralysis and yertebra After completion the Court of Judicial ^)i*tt?pi1i »im<;if^f.fe^ <t<t+$i( ^aiRnsii^T after holding the accused/oppetlant guilty' ' t under Section 302 of the I.P.C., for •-1. his wife namely, Somwati,sentenced him to life. •osecution, in brief, is that on 21-3-2000 >ng with the accused ga'/e merg intimation ent to the Police Station Narharpur for After registering FIR Ex.-P/l, 5+ction left for place of occurrence and prepared body 6f Somwati which was lying in the soil and blood stained soil were taken into ^en pieces of glass bangles and Mcngclsutrc pssion. The body of the deceased was sent \'mr\ to the ©overnment Hospital, Knnker, pW-4) conducted postmortem, prepared ^5-A and opined that cause of death was i.e. injuries to the spinal cord leading to poss^ssion denth. ofl the investigation, charge sheet was filed in A/jagistrate, 1 Ctass, Kanker, who in turn ;a-HG—78 ssi^iv R;-ii* ~^\ 2FIT^?T sK<< 3^T -<<i<ii<;i<i, iSiTfl'y'Ko, Ri<?'>iyy,< ^nwir *^ii* 'V^ 200 3tI^?T 1RRR (4clt-i,«tc{«I) WITW ^rfpt SII^T committed ttie case to lesrned Additional Sessiohs The prosecution ir^ accused examined 9 recorded under Section material appaaring againsl that he has been falsely i order to establish the chcrge against thfe- witnesses. Statetr'ent of •ttie accused was 1313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the him in the prosecution evidence and stnted licated in the crime. i|inp Learned Additiondl counsel for the respscl accused ois aforementionejd Learrsed counsel homicidal death of the commission of the crimi. Ishwar &as and PW-2 established that the them that he has commjtts Atedica! evidence of Dr. some nbrasions &, contusi4ns '^ilflfy-iftH 'Wraf ^'fe^'^RgTC '^'stfiPT^n^T •he Sessions Jud9e, Jagdalpur from where Judge received the case on transfer. ; Sessions Judge after hearing tearned ive parties, convicted and sentenced the We have heard lear^ned counsel for the parties. fiir the accused/appellant has not disputed cjeceased dnd involvement of the accused in Moreover, from the evidence of PW-1 IRamcharcui, father of the accused, it is made extra judicic! confession before i|tted murder of his wife by attacking her. f.S. Sahu (PW-4) also shows that tiiere were on •rtie body of the deceased. 10 injuries acclased ^fT'-HT'-—' ^\^."s- antg' ?3 ft-ti.'h WT 3!RS!1 shlil^h fe?-7^"^^^^.. y?«Si23!i8igpJi 3:5^^tTzn?5ZT, QTfly'Ko, Rl0iyy< ^Tiwn' *NI* "W^ 200 sv^s vsv (lit<t-i<(<a) were found on the body also there. The deceas^d vertebra and injury to s^' system was affected. ^n illegality o" infirmity in involvement of the accusetl Learned counsat foj the admitted facts of drunken condition and not proyide food, he the deceased sustained in.l which proved fata! and th^ intention of the accusedi argued tha+, ther-efor-e, o| beyond Section 304 Part the dehanded attacked On the other hond supported -the judgment o prosecijit As per the when she did not provide •$ club icsnded on the back qipl^'pftl tTR^F^f^Sl' ^f^^R ^S SffOT oflSfl f tha deceased. Some other injuries were died on account of fracture of ceryical inal cord. On account of that respiratory view of the above, we do not find ony the finding of the trial Court regarding in ttie crime in question. the accused/appellant argued that as per prosecution case, the accused came in food from his wife. When she did with sbps and c!ub, as a rasult of which jury on the neck and hsr bone was frdcturec! h|e deceased dfed. Therefore, there was no to cause decth of his wife. He further Ffence against the accused does not trayel Ijlof the I.P.C. iearned counsel for the the trial Court. :^tion case, tha accused attacked his wife fpod. He attacked with slaps <& club and that side of the neck of the deceased which fe aa-He—78 3^? •<ll<<lci<), si^l.M'Ko, f5|<^lti^< <41Ndl **<!<* sn^iw Vw* ^TT 3H^T ^TlN? 'V^ 200 CT^T ira% (ipf^g^g) proved fatal. The bone o1 of respiratory system the view of the above fact, th^ that the accussd ct+ackeld However/the manner in w| inferred that the accus^d deceased with slaps an^ Therefore, offence again 304 Part-II of the I.P.C. In the result, the sentence imposed upon th counsel for the appellant ^ since 22-3-2000, which h^ set at libert^ forthwith, i'fl Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge cw<fef41i ^fff^ '^^'^ <Fq<$R '^'sff^T^n^T neck was fractured, on account of fcilure deceased died as per medica! evidence. In; s prosecution hcss not been able to estciblish '• his wife with intention to cause death. lich the accused aftacked, It can safety be had knowledge thct by attacking the J club, he may likely to cause death. !t the accused is made out under Section appeal part!y succeeds. Conviction and s nccused under Section 302 of the I.P.C. are setnside, instead ther^of he is conyicted under Section 304 Part- n of the I.P.C. ond sente^ced to undergo R.I. for 7 years. Learnsd ubmitted that the appellant is in detention s not been disputed by learned counsel for the Stcte/respondent, tl'jereby the accused/appellant has already undergone sentence impo^d upon him. In the circumstances, he bs not required in sny other case.