!’'!'l‘'£' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICE ATUR AT JABALPUR Cr.A.No. 2. 1*1 a & .19 ppelant Accused (In Jail) Jagarnath, aged 3O years, alia$ Manjhi, son of Somar Sai, reside ¥ éf village Shivpur, P.S.Baikunthpur,'Dstrict $arguja,MP x VerSu S The:state of Madhya Pradésh E CODE\ F CRIMINAL PROCEDUPEt 1973 SENTENCE : CONVICTION: / . i us 304,Part-II, I.PC. R I for 5 years and fine m.500/— in gefault additi¢nl k lgi/g '““Ul£'£!'i££’!""H 9 Al: i H é ) x glr\JH’’ IGH COURT OF CHHATrISQARI-I‘AT almspun (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) CriminalAppeal N0. 2274 of 1996. i AéPELLAmT Jagarnath VERSUS State cf Madhya Pradesh R$$WNQ NT ,v V ‘ Shri Ravi Bhagat, counsel for the appellant. 1 Shri Vivek Sharma, P.L. for tf'ié State. § ’ : P U CODE» OF QRIMINAL PRQCEDHREM J U D G M E N T (22.06.201i) This appeal arises out of judgmént and arder dated 28,11.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur in Sessions Triai No. 209 of 1994 convicting the aocused/appeiiant for the offence under Section 304 Part II of I§C and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine of Rs.500{ in defauit of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonmentafor six months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.04.1994 at about 5 p.m. the accusedlappeiiant is alleged to have assaulted the deceased Sumaria Bai by a bamboo stick as a result of which she died on the same day". Merg intimation (Ex. P-4) was given by Dadu Ram (PAN-5) on 19.04.1994 and based on this report, unnumbered FIR (Ex.P—3) was registered against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and after receiving Post mortem report, FIR (Ex.P~2) was recorded on 19.04.1994. After. completion of investigation, Challan was. filed on 19.05.1994 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant: wee ‘i. ,' r ,wrzWys. w. H \ M, EV \A)’ "/; -g- 3; So as to hold ‘the accusediappeliant guilty, prosecution hés examined 07 witnesses in support of its case.- Statemant of the accused/appellant. was aiso recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has though acquitted the accused/appellant of the offence under Section 302 of IPC but convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment ‘for five years and pay fine of Rs. 500, in default to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment, hence, the present appeal. V 5. Contention of Shri Bhagat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is the offence under Section 304 Part II of tPC is not made out against the appellant for the reason that only one injury was caused by the appellant and that too by bamboo stick but unfortunately the deceased died. Alternatively it has been argued that the appellant has already remained in jail for about 2 years 22 days, the» incident had taken place about 17 years ba§k, now it will be too harsh to send him back to jail and therefore his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. 0n the other hand supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by Sign Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the State that the Court below has already taken a lenient view in acquitting the appellant of the offence under Section 302 of IPC and convicting him for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC and therefore no interference is called for. (5/ -‘3— 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material \ \ available on record including the judgment impugned. € 8. Dadu Ram (PW-5) in his court statement has stated that the deceased was the maternai grand mother of his wife and on the‘date of incident the accused/appeiiant assauited the deceased by a bamboo stick (Bahanga) despite of his request not to do so Thereafter the deceased went to the house and slept but later on she/was found dead Statement of this Witness has been duly supported by Dr R N RaJouria (PW 4) who had performed the Post-mortem examination of the body of the‘deceased vide Ex. P—6. According to DrZ’R. N. Rajouria, the death of the deceased was homicidal and he found four injuries on the person of the deceased. Dilbh'aru Ram (PW-1) is the Patwari who had prepared the spot map Ex. P—l. C. L, Kushwaha (PW-2), the Sub-Inspector had recorded the FIR (Ex.P-2) and Merg Ex. P-4. Chandra Pratap Tiwari (PW-3) had recorded the unnumbered FIR (Ex.P—3). Sambhu Das (PW—6) had made the inquest Ex.P-9. Asgar All (PW-7), the InveStigating Officer has supported the prosecution case. 9. Minute examination of the evidence in particular the statement of Dadu Ram (PWJS) which has been duly supported by Dr. R. N. Rajouria (PW-4) appears to be quite trustworthy to arrive at the conclusion that on the date of incident the appellant assaulted the deceased by bamboo stick as a result of which she died. Nothing has been brought on record to discredit the testimony of the prosecution and take a view cdntranitrto that of the Court below. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part II of IPC is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. This Court is further of the view that the sentence awarded to the appellant is also appropriate and needs no interference in the same. .wr ._u- 10. Cansequentiy, the appeal fails and the same is heraby dismissed. Accused/appellant is on bail. His bail bpnds stand cancelled. He be‘ sent to jail forthwith to serve out the remaining part of the sentence imposed on hE/ > / sdl: / /