[-HC—78 3TI^T ^T fqiich ^T^TT 'STT^T 9b+lich ^ T^T "41<M10^, ^Tn-M'Ko, (®t0W^< ^l*4dl **<|cb C£A.N,_jy^ 3Tii(?T 'q^F (TICrf55^?) '^nW^f^T ^TT^T APPELLANTS .(Accused in Jai!) 1. 2. ^ Ihanivaroboi @ Kukurbhokheen. VV/o IJJitram Kanwar, aged about o0 yedrs. mrawatibai @ Thetheebd, &/o.Ujitrom lanwar, aged about 24 years;: -;-, •>, 3. d RESPON&ENT (Criminai Appea! und Djvjslon Bench : Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo A HoiTbS®.Shri T.P. Sharma. J.F 22-2-2008 Shri Sotyendra Sohu, Shri Akhii.MJshro, Dy. H^ard on LA.No.l, appli copy of Judgment. c»»Mf<!1<fll_*<1*1<^ ^'fe(3t "^R^R '^'^iRFT^n^r uraworibai @ Sedabal, W/o Jagsai, •ii.'-R./o' Chandagarh, Thana pQthalgaon^ han Pathaigaon, District Ralgarh, CS, -Versus- Itate of .. Chhattisoarh. Throuoh Police ^tation PGthdgaon.-Dlstrict Raigarh (CQ}.. ^r Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C.) c4-jnse for the appeibnts. '. Advocatg for the Sta-re. ^otion for exemptbn from fiiing certified 'S^ ^WKft^, ^Tn^'Ko, {s|^»l^^< *41^dl **<!<* "^ 200 371^T ^T f<Tl[<=h TT^Tf 3TT^T $h*i|cti 3ii^?r xra^? (^cil^^) '^iTW^rf^T ^n^r Gt Learned counse! for th| this oppjication fI.A.No.l), c^ avajbble to the appSicGnts, appiication (I.A.No/2). In view of the abov^, 1.^ Heard on I.A..No.2, Judgment on record, por the reasons ir^ntioil j.^ albwed and the certified co| Heard on appiication for As per the office repor app^ai. It has been mentioned i^ thc Judgm^nt wos aiven to Sh| but the'.appeai wa^. not filed. oppeilants ore poor/iiSlterate, of bw; thereforei, Jnadvertenti In vl^w of.th^abov^, which the deby in filing t^ •accordinalv condoned. bnts sobrpjts that ofter. fiiing of rtjfi^d copy of the Jodgment made th^refore, the ^ame has been flted aiong with LNo<l is disposed of baing unn^cessary. ^pjjcation for toking certified copy of w^ cr)i<<t<n<i1i 'RW^f ^l^ft <P»i<^i< ^3?fRTH3TT^T icd in the oppiicatbn (I.A,No.2), the ^am^ iy of th^ jodgment is taken on record* |condonotion of detoy in fjiing the appeal. ^ there is dei'ay of 2714 days'jn flJJng this the appiication that th<a certjfied copy bf rii VIJay Sar'af, Advocate for fiiing appea!, It has further been mentioned thot the tribai and ar^ not aware of the provi^Sons ^ the deby jnjiiing the appealoccurred. k are of th^ opinion thdt it is a fitcase in e o.ppeal should be condon^d and it is 3^'^TPTT^T, «>Tfl-MII<o, ts|<?I>W^< *<l*4dl <b^l<sb "^ 200 ^TT^T^T'f^N? TT8H 'STT^T sfi^ich 3H^?T XHTO ( ^y^) '^TTW^f^T^T^T Accordingly, the appiic<3|tion for condonatlon of deby in filing the appeal is disposed of. AIso heard on admission. The appeal is admit^ed •(j( Learned counsei for the| p&rsons are in detention fo| Judgment 8-3-2000, therefbrej, With the consent of !ea| heard for final disposai. Oral Judgment dictated or consideration. Darties submitted that since the accused about 8 years i.e. from the dote of the appeal may be heard finaily. 'hed counsel for the parties, the appeol is >n dais. L.C. Bhadoo, J This appeal is directedi order of sentence dated 8-3 Judge, Raigarh, in sessions ti learned Additional Sessions Jt guilty for commission of offen< of the Indian Penol Code (^ murder of Vedmdti sentenced 2) Coise of the prosecutiori the wife pf Chamar Sai (PW-< <=bi^fd41'i 'Hrn^if ^f,'feT3t <P^^i< ^3Tfim^17^T agalnst the Judgment of conyiction dhd 2000 passed by 1st Additjonal Ssssions 'iol No. 177/97 whereby and whereunder dge ofter holding the accused/Qppeilants under Section 302 read with Section 34 ^ short nthe IPCff\ for committing the |iem to undergo imprisonment for life. in brief, is thot deceased Vedmati was ^ |). Shaniyarobai @ Kukurbhukheen is the XI-H' 3^- ^Nioq, ($Tn^|<o, R|01-M^< *<l*<dl (bNlcb "^ 200 3TT^T^T I^llch 'cT8H <3:n^[ $r)+iicft 3^?T X|5[^ ( <icl^<i?T) '^nw ^rf^T ^^TT^r florty dbout Acdised hjt wife of Ujitram, who is the eld Thetheebai and (Suraworibai therefore, the complainant relatives. On 25-3-1997 at with his wife Vedmoti (sinc|s coilecting AA.ohua fiowers. reached there and osked thel flowers. In that process, complGinant party Ond the ac| Mahua tree. When Chamar collecting Mahua flowers, storted attacking them. V^dmati with axe on her head her with iothi. When Chamar1 also, on which he ran awc ottocted Vedmati with axe a^ spontaneously. 3) AAerg intimation (ExJ Stotion &haramjaigarh, on th^ (Ex.P/16) WGS registered for of the IPC and the Investinq chl^fd4t»1'W^ff '?,fe1^ <fat$i< ^^iRm^n^T sr brother of Chamor Sai. Amrowatibai @ fiedobai are the daughters of Ujitram, and the accused party are ciose. 8.00 a.m. Chamar Sai (PW-9) along deceased) went to KumhGdehap for persons armed with axe A lathi also complQinant party not to coilect Mahua words were exchanged between the ;used part^ regarding the ownership of pai and his wife Vedmati did not stop persons, armed with lothi & axe, ^Surawaribai @ Gedabai ottacked jand other accused per^ons olso attacked pai tried to intervene they ottacked him |y from the place. Accused persons |d iathi, as G resultof which she died acdjsed Acdised P/l|7) was given by Chamar Sai in Police basis of which First Information Report cbmn^ission of offence under Section 302 (Pfficer left for the scene of occurrence. ^V^ ?FF f^-tich TT8H 37T^T '^ypNp 7^ ^WW^, y>T{1'H<l(o, fs)<^l^^< 'WtRTr ^hWvh .........................................................^ ^^ 3TI^T '^oR (^cll^cf^) '^ITW ^rf^T 37T^?r After giving notice (Ex.P/3) to th^ on the body of Vedmati. Site pi^n Halka. While in police custodyj memorandum (Ex.P/7) regarding weapon of offence. In pursuanc^ One bamboo stlck was sei: Kukurbhukheen under ExP/li. 8 of deceased Vedmoti were deceased were seized under Ex.F|/( of accused Ujitram under Ex.P/| postmorte.m examination to &r. J. Minj (PW-4) conducted Vedmati and opined that couse| coma, QS a result of head inju^y prepored postmortem report Ex-| 4) After completion of inve^ Court of Judicial AA.agistrQte, F|i committed the cdse to the learned Additionaj Sessions Jl transfer for trJGJ. cr»i<it<rt<iii +ii^<A ^'fe(st <P>i^t< ^3tRTH3?T^r Panchas, he prepared inquest (Ex.P/4) (Ex.P/1) was prepareci by the Patwari accused (Surawaribai ©(Sedabai gave |the pbce where she kept the axe i.e. ^; of that axe was alzed under Ex.P/12. ^ed from accused Shaniyarobai @ jood stoin^d soll, pfoh ,soi! and one shawl under Ex.P/10. Clothes of the >. One axe was seized at the instGnce 1.3. The body of Vedmati was sent for Health Centre, Pathaigoon, wher^ ^ostmortem on the body of deceased qf death wos hemorrhage, shock and f/death was homicidGl in nature. He 1/14. s^lized i^/9 Prir|iary inve^tigation, charge sheet was fikd in ths -•>'. irst Class, bharannjaigarh, who in turn Court of Sesslons Judge, Raigarh, from where idge, Rayorh, receiyed the same on 3TI^T ?FT fqiw ^TT 37T^T 5b*lich 3^- ^i^ii^, ^)TQ<I'I<O, (sic'»i'y^< ^Wv{[ <b*{|cb -^ 200 3iT^?T XHRR (4C<^<^) '^ITW Tlf^T 37T^T 5) In order to establish the prosecution examined 13 witnes^ were recorded under Section 3i which th&y denied the material a^ evidence. They stated that th^ implicatsd in the crime. ^arge against the accused persons, the ies. Statements of the Gccused persons 3 of the Code of Crimin<sl Procedure in )peoring aaamst them in the prosecution y are innocent and have been faiseiy 6) Learned Additional Sessio| respectiye parties/ convicted accussd/Qppeihnts as aforem^ntioned accused namely, Ujitram. 7) W^ have heard Shri Sal appe!lants and Shri Akhil AA.ishra, 8) At the outset, Shri accused/Qppelbnts, has not dis| Moreover, &r. J. Minj (PW-4) working as Assistont Surgeon in On that day, on the request conducted postmortem on the bo|ly were noticed : <=bl^i<rt4t'1 "RP^lf ^f.fe^ <Pnt^l< ^^tRw^n^T rs Judge ofter hearing counsel for the and sentenced the present three I, however, he acquitted the 1/endra Sahu, learned counsel for the by. (Sovt. Advocate for the State. Sahu, learned counsel for the luted the homicida! death of VedmGti. |as stoted that on 26-3-1997 he was |t-he Primary Heolth C^ntre, Pathaigaon. of Police Station bharamjaigarh, he of VedmQti and the followina injuries 3-c-^ r^l<41<7>^, «>Tf1<1<IC, fclCSWy 3TT^T ?7T f^li<=h 1TOT 3TT^?[ sh^li<=b ^l^l<rll W^icb -^ 200 3^?r-q^^ (<lc<^<^) '^ITW^TT ^TT^T 1, Incised wo| deep on th^ 2. Incised woj the slze ofl 3. Incised wo| siz®of 5i1 4. Incised v^ the right 2" x If" )<| stdned with blood. 5. Abrasion o< oforxi-'i 6. Abrasion o| si28 of 3i-'1 cbi^t<!i<i1i ^iM<viT ^f^^ <R»i^i< ^3TRR3^?T jnd in the size of li" x i" x bone skuil. jnd on the left temporol reglon in 2i" x i" x bone deep. jnd on the occipitol region in the x i" x bone deep. ouhd and lacemtecJ wound on parietal region in the size of ,f-"\ The hairs of the head were i the bock of the body in the size 1_55 Xf. ^ the left side of tlie body in the |x?"X7!i. ,. Injuries were ante mortem ii| nature. The sku)! bone was frQctured. Clotted blood was present in bro.in in on area of li" x 4i". Injuries No.l to 4 were caused by shar| & hard obtect whereas injuries No»5& 6 were caused by blunt A h^rd object. The cause of deoth was hemorrhage, shock and corn^ ^5 (1 ^®5ultof head injury. The death was homicidal in nature. Postmort^m report is Ex.P/14. The above medicai evidence is corroborated by t^ incident he was present ther^ e evidence of PW-9 Chamor Sai, husband of the deceased, who hos c^tegoricaily stated thot at the time of & and^he wos attacked by the accused XI-HC— 3:s^^TPn^T, ^xfl'y1!^, fs|0i^< ^V^ ^T f^'ljch 'cT^T 3T1^r 5h^i°b ^Mv{\ tb^lcb "-R^ 200 3n^?r xrsrar (^f^^) '^iTW^f^T 3?n^r <=M^f<vi<i1ti ^w^i ^f^t <Pn^i< '^3tRFT3?TT^T persons, In view of the alj>ov^, it is established that the deoth of Vedmati wos homicidal in noitlire. 9) As far os complicity of the occused/appeliants in the crime in question is concerned, ex^ept PW-9 Chomar Sai, husband of the deceased, other eyewitne^ses nainely, PW-7 Bichhuram and PW-8 bevkunwar Bai have turned hostile and they haye not supported the prosecution case. PW-9 ChG|nar Sai, who is the husband of the deczased Vedmoti. has stated thot on] to the fieid for coilecting ^ the fateful day he afong with his wife went ^ahua flowers. When they were collecting M.ohua flowers, the acci^sed Ujit, 6eda, wife of Ujit nomely, Kukurbhukheen, Thethee A. Bhokni came th^re, started quarrelling and said that Mahua tree belcjngs to them therefore, they should not collect^^Mahua flowers. U A arrow whereas other occul attack&d by Geda with axe with bthis. Geda is daughtel the deceased sustained Inc ^it, elder brother of Chamar, came with bow ^ed persons were holding axe. His wife wa5 n her head whereas other persons attacked of his elder brother. 10) Perusai of the above ^yidence of PW-9 Chamar Sai discloses that occused ^edabai ottack^d the deceosed with axe. as a result of which sed wounds. PW-9 Chamor 5ai has st^tsd thot other ladies ottack^d t|@ deceased with tothis, whereas no iathi was ^..- XI-HC—7 7^( ^W\<ft^, ^tn-M'Ko, fs|01<iy W^vi\ sbNlcb ^ 200 3?IT^T ?FT f<<rlich TT^TT 3TR^T 9t»^l<=h 3Ti^?T XRp^ ( 4^^^) ^RITW ^rf^f ^n^r a^e recovered during investigati been recovered at the instarlce this witness has stated thal and he hos not stated that| most of th^ fatal injuries shorp & hard object i.e. ax^. from the evidence of PW-9 attacked the deceased Shaniyarobai & Amrawatibai Even no weapon has Shaniyarobai only lathi Shaniyarobai and Amrawatib^si they are entitled for benefi abte to bring legal clinching assault mad& by them on the with be|en ha|s 11) As far as Surawarib^ii e.vidence against her. bone was fractured. The| by learned triol Court undef IPC. <=M^(<n<11Ti ^^<:il <^f^'<l <P»i<^i< '^siRm^n^r >n from AmrawatibQi and only one bthi hos of ShGniyarobai. But, in the first place, accused UJit and others were holding axe IShaniyarobQi WQS holding lathi. Moreover, incised wounds, which can be caused by There is no other* evidence. Therefore, (phamar Soi, it is ctear that oniy Gedabai had axe ond there is no aiiegGtion against that they attacked the deceosed with axe. recovered from Amrawatibai. From 3^ been recovered. The attack made by sjai on the deceased is not clear, therefore, of doubt, as the prosecution has not been ividence in order to connect them with the body of deceosed Vedmati. warib^ii ©GedQbai is concerned, there is cleor More^ver, there <sre incised wounds and the skul! ^efore, she ho,s rightiy been convicted Sectlon 302 ice<iaswNfrtSe?6twf-^4 of the ^...~ XI-HC—78 ^vSf ^l'qKVi^, ^Tfl^^Ko, (^<^l-y^< 10 NWdl **<!<*» "-^ 200 3:n^?r xi?ra? (4^flfl<<i?T) ^TI^T^T ^[cb ^T^T 3TR?T ^F'Rl^r '^TTW^lf^T ^?1^T 12) In the result :• > The appeal namely, S| Amrawatibol conviction 302 read ^ aside. They | appeilQnts Amrawatibcd set at libe?! other case. > The app€G namely, Sur merit liable dismissed. <=bi^f<n^1ri ^i+Knt ^fe^ "rf^R^ ^ ^tRp? <3?TT^T in re-spect of accused/appellants laniyarobai @ Kukurbhukheen & ©Thetheebai is allowed. Their ^ sentence imposed under Sections fith Section 34 of 1+ie IPC are set |are acquitted of the said charge. The ^hahiyarobai @ Kukurbhukheen <snd @ Thetheebai ar^ in jail* They be ty forthwjth, if not required in any in respect of accused/appelbnt awaribai @ (Sedobai being devoid of to b@ dismissed ond it is hereby Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge