u‘, %N¥51§ w i @ / » Kago— «P BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF IUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHATTISGARHJ Cn‘minal appeal No. ”22% /2001 APPELLANT :—- Potami Raghu ,S/O Potami Bodda ,Age 37 y'ears Occupation - Agriculture R/O Bhonsaglda, P.S.— BeSJ ‘a pur,Distt. a;W qnT’euucadq VERSUS RESPONDENT :-— STATE OF CHATTISGARH Through Police station-BeejaQuLDistt. Dantewada(Cha_t.ti§garh) CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S ,374€%im k2 mS§§mf Cr.P‘C.against the jud/g‘gent dated 20:1 1.2000 and‘sgentencing order gassed by learned Session JudgqBASTAR at Jagdalgur 1Chattisgarhypresided by Shri Yakoob Ali in session case No.32/99 Potami RaghuN/s State of Chattisgarh . XI-HC-78 WNW mW,Wm—§3W T4.4{Q1&QE.)/R( 1H 200 mm (13W) WWW WWW WWW WWW§fgQ°rW éamm DIVIsION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. LC. BHADOQ & ON'BLE MR.DHIkBdDRA MISH H R 23 . 11 .2006 Mr. Ram Krii'ma Shawna, Ad Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Addifional Pu Oral judgmenT dic'ia‘l'ed on D is. Par LC. Bhodoo, J. By this appeal under Sec‘rio 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. accused/appellanf has quesTioned The legaliTy 6: car-r cTness of The judgmenT of convicTion and order of senTence daTed 20.1 ZOOO‘passed by The Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur in S.T.No.32/99, where lem~ned Sessions Judge affer hoiding The accused/appellant gullTy for c mission .of offence under SecTion 302 of fhe IPC sen‘renced him 1'0 underg The prosecuiion case, in brie reparf in fhe Police Sfafion Beejap brofher -in-law Pofami Raghu had co he was sen? ro jailgnd a year back h jail. As a piece. of 5 acre land sfan Po‘rami Pandu and Potami Roghu, th refore, accused used f0 qwrel wii'h her husband for his shore in The s id land, on which her husbmd replied Thai he will pnrTiTion The land. Ther afTer, The accused sTorTed quarrelling daily for parTiTion of land. On 5.12 1998 aT abouT 11.00 a.m. her husband lefT The house saying ThaT he is g ’. JJ mu for The appellmf. lic Prosecu‘ror for fhe Sfate. imprisonmenf for life. , is 'ihaf PW—4 Polami Bandu lodged a on 6.12.1998 fa The effecf fhaf her miffed murder of his wife, therefore, has come hack after his release from s joimly in ihe name of her husband ing To Beejapur To bring Tobacco. AT P.T.O. J XI—HC-78 HW,WW,W . mm Fri 200 WW<W> mam wmm ' . WW§WW mmm agarraqm ‘ abouf 4 pm in The offernaon The accused came ‘ro fhe field, carrying knife in his hand: and informed her Thai- he has cammif'i'cd murder of her husband and he will kill her also, “herefore, dne took shelier in file house ‘ fhe of her village, daughter informed Budri The in Village Village Grimm P At abou‘r 5 pm she came back 1'0 el and ofher persons, at abou‘i' 8 pm in The nighT a meeTing was convened in The village and ThereafTer, They wenT To see The body of her husband PoTami Pandu, which was lying in The foresT near The planTaTion. Based on Thi informaTion‘ 5hri I.C. Shaydilya (PW-3);? regisTered The FIR (Ex.P-8) ior mmission of offence under SecTion 302 of IPC w also merg inTimaTion (E .P-9)J lefT for The scene of occurrence ohd affer- giving noTice To The Ponchos prepared The inquesT (EXP-1). He ‘ also prepared The siTe plan. He Took inTo possession The blood sTained soil and plain soil from The place of oc currence under Ex.P-2, sen? The body of PoTami Pandu under Ex.P-10 for :osTmorTem examinaTion To The Primary HealTh CenTre, Beejapur, where Dr. D.‘P. PrqjapaTi (PW-1) conducTed The l posTmorTem and prepared The reparT EXP-5. He opined ThaT on accounT of haemorrhage as a resulT of injuri s on The body of PoTami Pandu, he died l and injuries were sufficienT To c use deaTh. On 7.12.1998, while in police cusTody accused gave memorandu EXP-6 To The InvesTigaTing Officer and in pursuance of ThaT he goT reco weapon of offence i.e. knife & rod. AfTer compleTion of u invesTigaTion, chwge sheeT was filed againsT The accused/appellanT in CourT of Giief Judicial MagisTraTe, DanTewadaX who in Turn commiTT d The case To learned Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur. if .. P.T.O. v d s e ’ XI-HC—78 HW,WW,W . o .oooo....o.o.o.oo.ooo WW (W) WWW WWW mmefwm mwm %axf%wan%w The prosecufion in order- Ta establish *he charge against fhe accused examined 5 witnesses. Sinfemem- of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and after usal of the record, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant i the manner as mentioned above in Para 1 of this judgment We have heard Mr. Krishna Sharma, Advocate for the accused/appellant and Mr. U.N.5. co, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Learned counsel for the mused/appellant has not disputed the homicidal death of Potami Pandu. Apart from that by the extra judicial confession made by the accused before PW-2 Dhurva Kanhaiya & PW4 Potami Bandu, wife of deceased as also the evidence of PW-l Dr. DP. Prqjapati, who conducted the pos ortem on the body of Potomi Pandu and stated that there were 6 incise wounds, 8 stab wounds, there was’one injury on the backbone. He has further stated that injury No.14 was passing through Thoracis Cavity, l ng was cut, injuries were anti mortem in nature and were sufficient to death. The cause of death was head injury and haemorrhage on accoun of other injuries. It is established that the death of Potami Pandu was ho icidal in nature. As far as the involvemen of the accused/appellant in crime in question is concerned, there is no irect or ocular evidence, the conviction P.T.O. r R c e XI—HC—78 HW,W§,W c oo~oo‘o.o..ooo..oo... .\ WW<W) WWW wmm WWWMg‘aWR mmwm §;31%m611%31 : is based on rhe extra judicia! corr‘ession made by fhe accusad as also 'rhe recover-y of weapons of offence .e. Knife & Rod af the instance of The accused. To resfing 'rhe convicfi based on the exfra judicia! confession i1' is necesscry fha‘r The extra judi iai confession made by fhe accused mus? be voiunfary & true and some shoui inspire confidence of the court PW-Z Dhurva Kanhaiya has sfafed fhaf abau'l' 6-7 monfhs accused came To him md said fha1' he hw mmiffed murder of Pofami Pandu wifh knife & rod, on which he along wiT oTher villagers wenT To The place where body of Po‘rami Pandu was lying. ey saw 'rhaf There were injuries on The body of PoTami Pandu. ThereafTer They reTurned To viiiage and convened a PanchayaT in which The accused also called and before The PanchayaT The accused confessed ThaT on ac ounT of land dispuTe he aTTacked PoTami Pandu wiTh The knife 6i rod. He urTher sTaTed ThaT on enquiry accused informed ThaT he has concealed T e knife oi rod in The foresT, some was reduced inTo wriTing as EXP-6 an in pursuance of ThaT boTh The weapons of offence i.e. r‘od & knife were r covered under Ex.P-7. This wiTness hm noT been cross-examined on The ecT of exTra judicial confession before There is noThing To disbelieve The evidence of This wiTness. Even oT erwise The evidence of This wiTness has been corroborated by PW-4 PoT mi Bandu, wife of deceased, who has sTaTed ThaT The accused came To er and informed ThaT he has commiTTed murder of her husband by aTTack ng wiTh knife & rod. 5he has fur-Ther Therefore, There was a moTive also for commission of The crime in quesTion. P.T.O. o w p XI—HC—78 . Wm O‘Ov’..~.~t‘t‘t.o.u~. H1 200 WW(W)