XI-HC—78 3^5T -Ml^l^, s$Tfl^<l<o, is)<r'>l'yy ^ii^di ^W^ "m^ 200 air^r •x?^^ ( ^?^^T) ^i^T^Tf^Nr ^s?T37?^T^?^N? ^^TW^ft^ 3?1^I +B@H-€©OftT^F-CMM^ <^6^l<41^! 'W^ff ^'fet^ ^R$TC ^3?f^T3?1^r ^S©7tKH-?tTBILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. L.C. BrtADOO & HON'BLE MR. DHIRB slDRA MISHRA. JJ CRIMINAL APPE^L N0.1046/2001 APPELLANT Vs RESPONDENT Ramnat aged 4 residen Darima, State barima, Harijan, son of Jairam Harijan, years, Occupatioin- Labourer, of Village Chhindkalo, P.S. bistrict Sarguja (C.G.) f Chhattisgarh through P.S. >istrict Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) Present: Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate for the Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. Public Pros ippellcint. cutor for the respondent-State. ORAL J ^ DGM E NT (28th Juhe, 2007) iPer L.C. Bhadoo. J; This appeal is directed agains' of sentence dated 22nd June, 201 |Sessions Judge, Sarguja, Ambikapur |Additional Sessions Judge after fcommission of offence under Secti [undergo rigorous imprisonment for li the judgment of conviction and order |l passed by learned 3rd Additional |in S.T. No. 166/2000 whereby learned ho(ding the accused/appellant guilty for ^n 302 of the IPC, sentenced him to re. XI-HC—78 T^T r^|^|0^, ^iTfly^KS, fs)<>'»t'y^< 'WT^IT *NI<*» '^ 200 aii^r .1^^ (lp^^^r) -Sli^l^T^iN' ^is?i 3TI^¥T^T3N5' ^^TW^ft^ CT^T Z-- "Cose -0^—1^1^p'r'oi>^cu'l iu^'i, dispute arose between accused Ra|nnath & deceased Tegnuram, who are closely related. After the disputej house, accused went there, dragg^d him out of the house and attacked him with an axe as a result of Incident was seen by the wife of Singh, who in turn lodged the repo on the report of Thakur Prasad, tl Section 307 of the IPC vide Ex.P-; where his injuries were examine merg intimation (Ex.P-15) from] converted into Section 302 of IPd inquest Ex.P-4 was prepared on tl^ <^i<<I<vi<ili ^Fi^ff ^fe^ '^^K '^'^ifOT^ii^T 1 bricf, is> Ihul un 20.3.2000 surne when Tegnuram was taking meal in his |vhich Tegnuram became unconscious. ^amnath, she informed Thakur Prasad ht in the Police Station Darima. Based |ie police registered an offence under t. Tegnuram was taken to the hospital \i and he was being treated in the Ambikapur hospital where he breat|ied his last on 21.3.2000. On receiving Ambikapur Hospital offence was . After giving notice to the panchas, ^ body of Tegnuram. Postmortem on the body of Tegnuram WQS conduc|ted by br. Azad Bhagat (PW-7), who =X.P-( prepared the postmortem report |Ex.P-6 and opined thot the cause of death is injury to brain and intr^ many as 12 injuries on the body prepared by Halka Patwari. Whil| memorandum (Ex.P-11) in pursuan< under Ex.P-12, the same was sent f| cranial haemorrhage. He noticed as of deceased. Site plan (Ex.P-1) was ^ in police custody the accused gave fce of which one axe was recovered or chemical examination to the doctor, who after examination gave his r^port Ex.P-7 and opined that injuries —r" ^l_J_^^=^^_r=^.=L^^g- XI-HC—78 •3^3[ ^l-qi^q, ^^1(5, Is|01-H^< NHdf Wqr^ ^ 200 3!li^T ^F^ (1I?^5?) BTI^T^T'^W ^l^? 'S^T^T ^^Jch '^nw^rf^^i?^ ^FlferiN 'RTH^if ^f^fe^ '<fa^S< '^^fiR^?i^i susrained by Tegnuram could bej articles were sent to Forensic report Ex.P-20 was received and the axe. jcaused by the axe in question. Seized pcience Laboratory, Sagar from where as per FSL report there was blood on , After completion of usual the Court of Chief Judicial Magis) the case to learned Sessions Additional Sessions Judge recei^ prosecution in order to el accused/appellant examined accused/appellant was recorded denied the material appearing ag stated that the deceased after enemies and it is possible that in has further stated that he is inno the crime. He examined Kaleshwai DW-1. |investigation, charge sheet was filed in 1-rate, Ambikapur who in turn committed |Judge, Sarguja from where learned zd the case on transfer for tn'al. The |?tablish the charge against the 13 witnesses. Statement of u|ider Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he agjainst him in the prosecution case and c^nsuming liquor had quarreled with his |that quarrel he sustained injuries. He ino^ent and has been falsely implicated in ^i, wife of deceased in his defence as Learned Additional Sessionsl, learned counsel for the respectiv( accused/appellant, as aforementior^ed We have heard Mr. Rahul Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. Public Proj Judge after hearing the arguments of parties, convicted and sentenced the fshra, Advocate for the appellant and ^ecutor for the respondent/State. XI-HC—78 3ii^?^i'feii^ •asn'^T^T^^t^ •^sss ^ii^i^, ^>Tn^jic, [sj^i-y^ ^IINdf ^NIch •^ 200 3?i^?r ^^ ((y?l<^<^) ^mw^^^T^i ^- -As- fur us lliy quybliurii concerned, the same has not be| appellant. Moreover, from the ocju deceased, who has categorically] father with the axe in his confession made by the accused the above ocular evidence and ej by the medical evidence of Dr. A\ the postmortem and stated tha-| nature, it is established that death As far as involvement of question is concerned, learned co\ that the prosecution witnesses h< accused was the author of crime deceased first attacked the acc injuries on his body and thereafl accused attacked the deceasec accused/appeltant does not travel there was no intention of the accu On the other hand, learne( State supported the judgment of ^FFiferih ^w^ff ^,ft^ ^iwgH '^'^RfH^IT^T of homlcfdal deam~~oT legnuram is ;n disputed by learned counsel for the jlar evidence of Chhotu (PW-14), son of itated that the accused attacked his prejsence, as also from the extrajudicial >efore Thakur Prasad (PW-2) and that ctrajudicial confession is corroborated sad Bhagat (PW-7), who has conducted death of Tegnuram was homiciddl in of Tegnuram was homicidal. ^he accused/appellant in the crime in ^nsel for the accused/appellant argued Ive not been able to establish that the question. He further submits thot the lused in which the accused sustained t|er, in right of private of defence the as such the offence against the jbeyond Section 304-11 of the IPC, as ^ed to cause death of Tegnuram. Additional Public Prosecutor for the Ihe trial court. XI-HC—78 3^5f ^jl^l^, ^Tdy^Ko, fs)<?'>l'y^< •^I^T^I^W ^^^Tf^T^RN? TWRT ^i*t(^ "^ 200 aiI^T-q^^ (^??^^) ^^IW ^fi^ ^I^T In order to appreciate thej for the accused/appellant, we Ijic Chhotu (PW-4), aged about 11 y^ars that accused Ramnath is his matehnal the axe, accused attacked his / dispute, as the accused was askin^ his mother. Accused attacked his| parts of the body. In the cros^ that it is incorrect to say that stated on his own that accused af-1 father sprinkled water and coverlsd further stated that it is incorred was inside the house. In the c( defence has not been able to elicil evidence of this witness or whichl aggressor or he in the first thereafter only the accused attact The above ocular evidence Thakur Prasad (PW-2) before confession. This witness has statedi residence, at about 1.45 p.m. wife beating has taken place in her hou; ^i^i<yi<ii'8 ^Pi^f ^fe^ 'rf^^R iF^R^?T^T |arguments advanced by learned counsel ^ave examined the evidence of PW-4 ?, son of deceased, who has stated uncle who attacked his father with Ifather in connection with some land for the land which was in the share of |fother on his head,face, leg and other ^-examination, this witness has stated |he had not witnessed the crime. He \er inflicting injuries on the body of his l|ed the same with a jute bag. He has to say that at the time of incident he I'oss-examination of this witness the any circumstance, which discredit the show that the deceased, in fact, was instance attacked the accused and ked the deceased. |of Chhotu (PW-4) is corroborated by w|iom the accused made extrajudicial that on the fateful day he was at his (f accused came and informed him that ^e, therefore, he should accompony her XI-HC—78 3^ST ^l^il^, t$T{i-Mjl<o, f®l<<>>l-M^< '^ 'WRr^rr ^pra? ^ 200 •^i^T^I'^W ^f^T'3TI^T ^RW ^?T-c^re Csj?t^9^) I^T^R ^?tt^ 3?i?^I ^^< and see. He went to the house lying in unconscious condition in ^ there were cut injuries on the Ramnath came out of his housl consuming liquor started quarrelli) with the axe. He also disclosed t| and thereby inflicted injury on hi! %l^f<rii^"i ^?iwff ^fe^ ^^R •^^ifipT^n^r )f accused and saw that Tegnuram was he courtyard of the house of accused, head, leg, eyes and ear of Tegnuram. ^ and informed that Tegnuram after |ig with him, therefore, he attacked him |iat Tegnuram attacked him with an axe ^ temporal region. Thereafter he went to the police station and lodged tljie report. In cross-examination, he has stated that when he went to the Ijiouse of accused, Tegnuram was lying in unconscious condition. He has fur|ther stated that it is incorrect to say that he saw only one injury on th^ say that the accused disclosed attacked the deceased. Therefor^ is established that the accused rr< attack made by him on the body of| There is nothing in the cro^ fact at the time of attack made b1 also holding axe. Accused was Shrivastava (PW-8) regarding the was one abrosion in dry condition body of Tegnuram. It is incorrect to ^im that Bhigu, Banto <& others have ^ from the evidence of this witness it |ade extrajudicial confession regarding deceased Tegnuram with an axe. ts-examination of PW-4 Chhotu that in the accused, deceased Tegnuram was ^\so medically examined by Dr. O.P. |injuries and he has stated that there on the back portion of left ear, one abrasion on the left side of neck a|id one abrasion on the right elbow. He XI-HC—78 •'ST^l^'^ra' ^^T3n^?^^w 3wT •:iii^i0^, ^Tfl-H^Ko, f^ray ,^ IWI^ff ^NIcb •^ 200 31l?^?T ^^ (^t^^) -has-TUrTlTeTS'tated that~all the if blunt and hard object. Therefore, in view of the the injuries were simple in nati| whe.reas. perusal of postmortem| that as many as 12 injuries were ii| 1. Repaired wound over frori central part 6 cm in size. 2. incised wound over right) x.5cm x .5 cm in size. 3. Repaired wound over left obliquely placed 3 cm in siz^ 4. contusion (abraded) over size. 5. Repaired wound over left 4.5 cm in size. 6. incised wound over left oc lobule 4cm x 2.5cm x 1 cm 7. Incised wound below left lcm x 0.5cm in size. 8. Abraded contusion over ric black 3cm x 2cm in size. 9. Abrasion over right elbow size bluish black. 10. Repaired wound over right and swelling. ^i^sfeNh ^IH^f '^,'fet^ '^R$R ^^JfeH^?I^T juries were simple in nature caused by ibove evidence it is established that all -e. caused by hard and blunt object. report of deceased Tegnuram reveals iflicted on his body i.e. t-al region longitudinally placed at the parietat region obliquely placed 2cm Tontal region above the left eyebrow, 'ight frontal region rounded Ixlcm in jccipito parietal region obliquely placed :ipital region just behind the left ear size obliquely placed. ^ar lobule, tongitudinally placed 3cm x |it forearm above the left palm, bluish joint on post aspect 0.5cm x 0.5cm in 1^9 on medial side at lower l/3rd region XI-HC—78 75ST -q|^|0^, ^y'Ko, 1«)0W^< tTPq^T *^Seb "W^ 200 ^II^T^T^ri^ ^^i?'STT^T'^lt^ 3ni?T'ct^? (^^^) I^IW^^^l^T -^- 11. Repaired wound over righ-) region 3.5 cm size. 12. Abrasion over left knee j(^i 0.5cm x 0.5cm in size. 13. There was a depressed fr^c in shape size 4x4 cm. Therje longitudinally placed. Fract|ure lower end. a^te Nature of all the above mercilessly attacked the decease|3l injuries were inflicted on the vitalj cross-examination on this osped deadly weapon. The deceased wasj deceased in a cruel manner. As weapon, the accused was having the deceased, therefore, right of available for the reason that as private defence of body continue^ the body exists. On the contrary| counsel for the appellant, the deceased quarreled with his him, he has not taken any defencd, and that is why in a right of privat^ enenlies ®JOTf<rriF?'3OT^ff "^^fe^ ^I^R ^'^ifeH^I^I leg on lateral side over lower l/3rd nt on medial side two in number each cture over left occipital bone rounded e was a fracture of left temporal bone of right tibia and right fibula at its |njuries estoblishes that the accused almost all over the body particularly Ipart of the body i.e. head. There is no that the deceased was hotding any larmless and the accused attacked the l|he deceased was not armed with any in his hand, he continuously attacked brivate defence to the accusedwas not jper Section 102 of the IPC n'ght of as long as apprehension of danger to |to the arguments advanced by learned c<ccused has stated that in fact the and in that process they attacked that first the deceased attacked him 1-^ defence he attacked him. ^ XI-HC—78 ^EET ^iiAii0^, ^Tl1<ri<i^, f^ray 'WT^T *^icb "^ 200 ^I^T^T'S^i^' ^^T^il^TW^TO 3T?t?T ^^ ( y<?^^) ^^T^R^H^Tt^ Ther'^fUTe, Wfe dd h6T fihpl any subsTance in the ^argumen'F of calise learned counsel for the appellantj right of private defence was availcjble was not having any intention to nature of weapon with which accu^ the accused attacked and the deadly weapon by accused estabti| attacked the deceased with an int4ntion that there is evidence to show that to the occused or that the accused death of deceased Tegnuram. The ^ed attacked, place of the body where r|umber of injuries inflicted with the ;hes the intention of accused that he to cause his death. Roshan/- Fpr the foregoing reasons, there is no illegality or infirmity i^i appeal of the appellant being de^ dismissed and the same is hereby cjismissed Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge <^^fd4I'i 'STR^f ^fe^ I?^R$R ^3?RR^n^r we are of the considered opinion that the judgment of the trial court, the ^oid of any substance is liable to be Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge