XI-HC-78 +11+K11 St»+1ich 3'^T ^NKrl^, ^Tfl^^l^, f®<€ni<-iy< ^.&.:ft:.ss<?/. ^ 200 \ ^Tq^T^ (i^crf^^T) 3TT^T^T^ich cT§TT3TT^T$b^l<=h ^TT^K^fN'^TT^T APPELLANT: - V^rsus - RESPONDENT: Present: Mr. Anant Bajpai, counsel for the ap|pellant Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Additional Public P(- cbl^lfcrl<'J1v1 WT^ff ^T ff^ <f^^l< ^3Tf^'R'3:n^r Sopsingh, S/o Sunaram Gond, Aged 22 years, R/o Tihagaon, Chauki- Vishrampuri. P.S. Keshkal, DSstrict: Bastar (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Chouki, Vishrampuri, P.S. Keshkal, District: Bastar (C.G.) ^osecutor for the State/respondent. Division Bench: Hon'ble Mr. L.^. Bhadooand Hon'ble Mr. Dhirendra IVIishra. JJ. ORAL JlUDGMENT (Delivered on ^6th March, 2007) L.C. BHADOO. J. 1. Mr. Bajpai, iearned counsei for| accused/appellant is in jail sinj detention for about 6 years 8 nr| the appeSlant, submite tiiat since the =th se 25ffl June, 2000, thereby he is in lonths, the appeal itself may be heard finally, to which Mr. Deo, learn^d Additional Public Prosecutor readily agreed. Therefore, with the con|sent of leamed counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^ST r^iqicn^, ^Tn<H^^, [c«ni<H^< @ +11*1011 ?h+1ich ^ 200 3^ 1^1 M5|ch (^qI^qq^T) CT^T^rf^w cTSTTW^T^TW |2. This appeal is directed against sentence dated 12-7-2001 pas^ Judge, Jagdalpur, in Sessions Additional Sessions Judge after| for commission of offence un< committing the murder of his fath^r him to undergo imprisonment fo|r default of payment of fine to furth^ ^cn'^K^cf^TT^T ;the judgment of conviction and order of »ed by the 4th Additional Sessions 'rial No.423/2000, whereby learned holding the accused/appellant guilty ler Section 302 of the I.P.C. for namely, Sunaram Gond, sentenced |r life and pay a fme of Rs.500/-, in ?r undergo R.l. for six months. |3. Case of the prosecution is that a1| Sunaram Gond retumed from accused Sopsingh, son of the room with a pick-axe on which, breaking the lock, the accused with battle-axe as a result of whidh to the injuries sustained by hin|i mother of the accused namely, accused ran towards the forest. the matter was reported in Policej Keshkat under Ex.P-1 bySundar) of the deceased, same was sent |to flrst information report Ex.P-7 police custody gave memorandur|i which he attacked his father and the same under Ex.P-3. The lnv4 and prepared inquest Ex.P-4 on piain soil and blood stained soil| ^1^1^41-1 Hi^<nT^te1[:^'<fa^i< ^)3T^q'3TT^T 1 about 6 p.m. of 24-6-2000 deceased jhis agricuitural field, at that time. ieceased, was breaking lock of the punaram asked him as to why he is b|ecame angry and attacked his father Sunaram fell down and succumbed instantaneously. Seeing this, the SMndari Bai raised cries, therefore, the Next day morning at about 10 a.m., Chowki: Vjshrampuri, Police Station: Bai, mother of the accused and wife Police Station: Keshkal, where the w^s registered. The accused while in Ex.P-2 regarding the battle-axe with |n pursuance of that he got recovered istigating Officer reached on the spot body of Sunaram. He also seized |from the place of occurrence under P.T.O. Vie XI-HC-78 3^T ^II^Krl^, ^Tfl^^Ko, fa^K-l^< *fTK^TT 9h+1|ch ^ 200 311^1 ^^ch (l:I^f3?^) 3TT^T^)T^i<=h cT8TT3TT^T5h^lcb 5^TT^K^crW^T with sand is human blood or not. gave his report Ex.P-SA and a< mortem on the body of Sunaram (RA/-6). He gave his report Ex. was haemorrhage. chl^fol^-1 ^H^T^te^if^^K ^3Tf^TT3TT^T Ex.P-5. The Investigating Offic^r under Ex.P-8 sent a Jetter to the Doctor, Community Health Centr^, Vishrampuri requesting him to give his opinion as to whether the blot>d found on the battte-axe and mixed The doctor after examining the same Ivised for chemical analysis, Post- ^vas condueted by Dr. G.R. Dhaneliya P-10 and opined that cause of death ^. After completion ofinvestigation, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, case to the Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Judge, Jagcjalpui: for trial. lcharge sheet was filed in the Court of ^ondagaon who in turn committed the IJagdalpur, from where tearned 4th icjalpui:, received the case on transfer p. The prosecution in order to es|:ablish charge against the accused examined seven ws'tnesses, Stal under Section 313 of the Cr.P.I appearing against him in the proj is innocent, he has been falsely irtiplicated in the crime. ^. Learned Additional Sessions respectjve parties, convicted aforementioned, [7. We have heard Mr. Anant Bajpai,| Mr. U.N.S. Deo, learned Addition State/respondent. tement of the accused was recorded C. in which he denied the material secution evidence and stated that he Judge after hearing counsel for and sentenced the accused as learned counsel forthe appellant and al Public Prosecutor on behalf of the P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3^T -qNi^q, ^Tfl^Ko, f^<ni^^< 0 +11^011 a»+iich ^[ 200 ^11-[^^> 3T1^T^T^i<=h cT§TT3TTcRT5b^l4) ^RTTW^rfN'^TT^T 8. Mr. Bajpaj has not disputed Moreover, Sundari Bai (PW-1), deceased, has categorically husband Sunaram with a battle. instantaneously. The evidence medical evidence of Dr. G,R. mortfc ^ and stated that injuries 1 sufficient to cause death, the d< established that the death of Suni Ithe homiddal death of Sunaram. hiother of the accused & wife of the sl^ted that the accused attacked her taxe, he sustained injuries and died <|>f Sundari Bai is corroborated by the Dl^janeliya (PW-6) who conducted post- (slo.1 & 4 were serious in nature and l^ath was homicidal. Therefore, it is feram was homicidal. 9. As fer as involvement of the s|ccused concerned, whole case rests on| who is none else than mothet deceased. Her presence at the disputed. She has categorical|y husband returned from the agrici|iltural was breaking lock of the room advised the accused why he is up the battte-axe and attacked S^naram received six incised wounds.l' doctor has opjned that these sufficient to cause death. tw<) lO.Mr.Bajpai argued that in cross-^xamination has come that the accused was is entitled for the benefit of Sectioh chi^f^^l-i ^i^ciT^'tel:^<f^<<:di< ^3Tf^T3:Ti^T s|ccused in the crime in question is |the evidence of Sundari Bai (FW-1) of the accused and wife of the rlelevant time at their house cannot be stated that at about 6 p.m. her field, at that time, the accused a pick-axe, her husband Sunaram fcjreaking the lock, the accused picked as a result of which Sunaram & 4th wounds were on neck. The injuries were fatal to life and were wlth ofSundari Bai (PW-1) it uffering from madness, therefore, he 84 of the Indian Penal Code. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3^T ^l^lcn^, ^Tfl^Jj(o, fa<rtI<H^< <TWC<TT Sh+lich ^ 200 3< 1^1 <-15|ch (1:|^3^^) 3TF^T^r^i<=b cT^T3n^rT9h^ich J' 11.1n order to take the benefit of S^ction required to show by cross-exam|nation other evidence that at the timb suffering from insani'ty, therefor^, nature of the act, or that what he | law. Further, as per the provij Evidence Act, 1872, burden of prjoving he should show that at the tinbe suffering from insanity. ^n'w^fN'^n^T 84 ofthel.P.C. the accused is of witnesses or by producing of commission of crime he was k, he was incapableof knowing the is doing is either wrong or contrary to ^ions of Section 105 of the Indian the case is on the accused and of commission of crime he was |12.1n the present case, Sundari Ba| account of madness her son was |not by her on her own, not on the Defence of insanity was never tal^en from that, no other witness has that the accused was sufferingl Officer has been cross-examinedl insanity at the time of commissjon accused took defence at the insanity at the time of commissic(n on record whereby a reasonable) the accused was suffering from crime. In the circumstances, appellant is not based on any| accepted. Sadhuram (PW-2) & Shrawan <=hl^f<rl^v1 ^l<-l<nT^:teI:^t'<f^^K ^3Tf^T 311^1 has stated in her evidence that on liking them. This has been stated s4ggestion of counsel for the accused. by the accused during triat. Apart jbeen cross-examined on this aspect |from insanity, nor the Investigating that the accused was suffering from of crime. Therefore, neither the of trial that he was suffering from of crime, nor there Is any material inference can be drawn that in fact, |nsanity at the time of commission of ajrgument of learned counsel for the record, therefore, same cannot be j13.No other point was argued by l^arned for the appellant. Moreover, |<umar (PW-3) have stated in their P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^^T -^l^l^^, ^Tfl^JI<o, f^<^|^y< 6 *1T»T^IT ^»HT^> ^ 200 311^1 ^l^ch (<^c|^q(^r) ^TT^T^rf^rN) cT§TT3TT^T$h^i<=h Soma ^ ^TT^K^fN^TT^T accdised evidence that they saw the the incident carrying the battle-a^ evidence establishes involvemeht question. In the circumstances, in the judgment of the trial Court. M(/e 14.1n the result, the appeal is de|i/oid of mer'rt, same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismis^ed, 15.Consequently, M.(Cri.)P.No.2560|r2001 stands disposed of. Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge <=bi^f^i41Ti ^i^dT^Tte^ir^^K ^3Tf^T3TT^T running away immediately after ;e in hishand. Therefore, the above of the accused in the crime in do not find any illegality or infirmity Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.