’x J;V 2. Cage of the prosmutim abcut 2.00 p.111. accused} am} Yuktibai with pickaxe. Th€ Avanhai} Wife of the accusml pickaxe was snatched by Dev: 3" The mattm‘ was; rep0rted by that First Information R€p0rt Station Baghbahara, for cgmr 302 0f the IPC. Elverstigatmg for the scene of occurrence an prepared the inquest (EXPf 6) Body of dec eased Yuktibai was Primary Health Centre, Khar {PW—Q conducted postmortem 1, 1'11 brief, is that 0n '17,1.2000 at eliant Setram attackedshis daughter trime 1'11 questien was witnessed by and mother of the deceased. The iingh, father of the accused Setram. Devsingh under EX.Pf 13, based on {EX}; l4} was registered by Police lission of the offence under Section )iEcer after regstration of crime, lef id after giving rlotice to the Panchas, 011 the bod}; of deceased Yuktibai. sent for postmortem examination to ar Road Where Dr. Jagmani Sahu and prepared the postmortem report (EX.Pf 7). He opined that mode of death is sync ope due to injury to liver arid stomach. Piokaxe w Khariar {Qrissa) under EXP] 8. doctor gave hiS opinian under on the bmdv of the ideceaseé portion of the iron part of th prepared by the investigating investigation charge $heet was onence under Section 302 Devsingh for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC in the Court hief Judiciai Magistrate, 7 / as sent to the medioai officer. PHC, X for examination and opinion. The 3X.Pf 8 that injuries 1 to 4 sustained can he caused by Ringer projected 3 W’éap 011 . 1 Site plan éiEx.P/ 9) was ofticer. After compiletion of the iiled against accused. Setram for the of the 1PC and another accused i asamund who in turn committed ,: 7 . :(dio‘W) of C ~\‘ t .L/ XI-HC-22 3am, mm,W mm .Cm.3...(¢%a. Hi m”... mm .uun. u... n. the case to the: Sessions L Adéitimlal SeS$i0ns Judge rec 3; Pmsecution examined establish the charge against ‘ the accused persons W€re I Cr.P.C. in which thev dmiéd in the: pmsecution evidmlce imph'cai'ian 1‘11 the crims in qm 4. the accuscdf appellant as afm‘e1 Devsingh under Section 201 underge RI. for six‘mouths. Learned Addiiional Sess parties resy ecuve convicted and sentenced tentioned and convicted accused of the IPC and sentenced him to it appears that accused Devsingh has not pr eferred any appeal a 5. We have heard Ms. Nix behalf of the accusedfappell Lawyer for the State! responde} 6. Homicidal death of Yuk Nirupma Bajpai. Moreover, fr mother of the deceased and Jagmam' Sahu, it ie establi homicidal i11 nature. fudge, Raipur from where learned :ived the cage on transfer for trial. l to? Witnesses at the trial in order to ‘he accused persons. Statements of ecorded under Section 313 of the the material appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false :stion. ions Judge after hearing counsel for the gajnst his conviction. 1pma Bajpai, counsel appealing on ant and Mr. Althil Mishra. Panel 1t. .ibai has not been disputed by Ms. 3m the evidence of PW— 1'2 Avanbai, .vife of the accused and PW—‘Y Dr. shed that death of Yuktibai was , ,,,1:3% ’ t i r (me elem \ \f; XI—HC—ZZ 3am, Wan—er, 3mm 359; ~2oo[ ”u m u... u. mmmm; H WWW§W®EAR §§ai1§11m m r1 As far as invelvement Lf the accused] appellant in crime in qu€sti0n is; cancernéd, in thirs iase exccpt PW— 12 Av‘anbai, all oth€r witnessw have turned hostile and they have not supperted the pmsscutinn casa PW—lZ Avzmbai has stated that at the time 0f incident, she was seeking meal, con$tructi0n of the adjfJilmlg house was going mi Where hueband Setram attacked her m1 hearing the sound she ca accused was standing there daughter Yuldibai was lying ch out uf her stomach and tiJl t} father—in—law Devsmgh snatched the pickaxe from accused $et1‘am. She being frightened went to t Wiih Yuktibai. Her father-1'11- Raja Khariar HoSpital Where about 6.0!0 0’ clock in the mar] '11g. the children were playh’lg. daughter Yuktibai with pickaxe and me out 0f the house and saw that holding pickaxe in hiswhand. Her Her mm 0n the greund, blond was 002mg en she was alive. At that time her 8. Learned ceuneel far th‘ per evidence mi” PW— 12 Avemba aSSault made by ’accused Set Ava11bai accused cammt be CIHILE. 9. On the other halld. lean thejudgment of ”Lhe trial Court. ' 1;, 2 accused} appellant argued tat as it in fact she had not Witnessetl the ram, therefare, on the evidence 0f 1eld guilty for commission 0f the led couneel far the $‘tate supported H7 / 1e house 0f her mother—in—law almtg law Devsingh took her tiaughter t0 she succumbed to the injuries at h / XI—HC-22 mmmaf%a vs” mw§wm *Wmf \ x /h 10. Fmm the evidenm of Avanbai [PW—1'2} it appsart; that at the time 0f incidtmt shs was conkiag méal and after hearing the sound, she camé Gut and saw her (1.1ught6r Yuktibai 1y1'11g 1'11 an injured ccmdiiiOn, blood waS oozing out of stomach and that accusod was st'a11dj11g there hoiding piukaxe in his ha11d., which was This fact hag not been challenged by ‘l1e accusedj appellant iin the cross— subsequently snatched by her father—in—law Devsingh. examinatien and he has net eqilained as to how he Wias present on the acene of occurrence hok'lmg pickaxe in his halld gmd as to how his daughter Yuktibai sustaLned fatal injury on gthe stomach. Therefore: in view of‘the evidence of Avanbai that after hearing the sound, she immediately came seized by the police ‘alld sent t g pickaxe in his hand, which was injury sustained on‘ the bod}; of longer proj ected portion of the iron , Avanbai (PW— 12) is mother of the sed, therefore, there was no reason before her to implicate her husband i.e accused Setram, in a false ease. that too. in such a heino of her own daughter, it is estt the crime in quezstien. i out alad saw the aomiaed standmg near i11jure<1 Yuktibai holdjn, {PW—7}, Who has stated that o examination to Dr. Jagmani Sahu Yuktibai can be caused by the part of the piekaxe, moreover deceased and wife of the accu 1 1.’ in the cross—examination it has come on record that accused was sutfering from unsoundnes s of mind at the time of commission I ,_ ., mam ( In 2001 . ..... .. ..... n. ..... .. .......”m. ...... u... ..... u ........ .. us crime for committing the murder ihh'shed that accused was author of XI-HC-22 neither a111,: medical evidence has ; pf the crinm but axcept that, 136611 adduced 13v the defence to substalltiate it 110x the accusecl in Eu's statemant under Section 318 0f ”(116 C1‘.P.C. ha3 stated that he ‘Was éuEeriilg from tinemmdnesss of mtncl at the time 0f commission / of omincet therefore. he 'was net able t0 consequenceg of the act he w on record‘to show‘that aecuscJd waa suEering from unsaundneS's 0f . mind at thta time of in'cident; 1'2. "Far the foregm‘hg reasm that there‘is 1m illegality or i1: the trial Ceurt. The appeal bei ‘ dismissal and is hemby. dismi Sd/- ‘t L.C. BHADoo Judge under stand the as doing. Therefore, there is nothing 1s, we are 0f the considered opinion Ermity i11 the impugned. judgment of rig devoitl of substance is liable to be ysed. ‘ Judgé ‘ I x I \ ‘ t Sdl- i Dammmm 1%W)