m THE: HIGH $QL‘RT C’F JW£I¢N¥mkE A3! 3m3m 3E-WTT $3GARH. {:mmmm Appeal bée.wi_£§__w/zaol. $ " Kawai mailman: 3/:3 Ezawa Mariya, (in Jail custwy) aggeci 2% Enaara. resiriiemt caf A13§1ELM§P§ Gaésa, %itgna&igaata. £3. Kate 'Kalyan. 313thict Eaatewada. Eaa tarmhattmgarh) V$ mm A??Lmm¥ h 5wta M3 Chattmgarh. hhrcmgh $53. Kate Kalyan. wmtrict Eaamwatk Egaaatarg \ mmamn Awmza {my wwzm 374W} ¢:’&.3?.€:. . XI—HC—78 mwim,W ,,Wm L736: Q98 .LA’Lk‘; .7 an; 200] mmwima) mam WWW—e5 mmmm ' E-gggig‘w DIVISION BENCH*: - HON’BLE SHRI L.C. BHADOO AND HON’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA ‘MESHRA: JJ. 21—12-2006 Shri VP. Gupta, counsel for the appellant. Shri GD. Vasvani, Govt. Advocats for the State] re$pondent. Orai Judgment diétateti on Dais. ?er L.C. Bhadoo, J. This appeal is directed agajxlst the judgment of conviction aJld order of sentence dated 1-1-2001 passed by d Additioal Sessions Judge,‘ Bastar at J‘ algaur in S.T. No.77; 000 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judgeafter holding he accused] apeellant guiloj for commiss on of oEence under Sction 302 o the I.P.C., sentenced him to ergo imprisonment r fe and o pay a tine of Rs. 1,000] -, in efault of payment o iine to fuer undergo RI. for 1 year. Case of the prosecu 'on, in brief, is that. on 6—10—99 accused Budhram attacked awasi Bheema with axe on his neck, as a result of which Kawasi eema died on the sot. Te matter Was reported by eyewitness PW-l Kawasi Bandi in the Police Station Katekalyan, on whi h Station House Ofcer registered crime under Section 302 of e LRC. under Fae—Pi 1, left for scen of occurrence, prepared inq est (Ex—Pf 2) on the dy of awasi P.T.O. 2n n a d 2 t e f d fo li t f rth h p h n e bo K Vs. XI—HC—78 mm,m,%mg{ o oooo.o..o.oooo...oo.o WW (13W) WWW mma‘wm ammm WWW W ~ ’ ém%wan%w Bheema. Tim body of the dsceased was scnt for postmortem examination to the Pn'mary Health Centre, Katekalyau Whem Dr, A.D. Bara conducted postmortem, prepared postmortem report Ex.—P] 4 and opined that injury was ante-modem in nature. Skull bone and mandible bone were cut. There were two incised wounds, nrst on the light cheek in the size of ’2” x 1” X 3" and second on left temporal region in the size of 2" X 1" x 3". There was fracture of temporal bone. The deceased died on account of injury, excessive bleeding ant. damage to the brain. The death was homicidal in nature. After usual investigation, charge sheet was med against the accused in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantewaia, who, in turn, committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur from where learned 211a Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. The prosecution in order to establish the charge against the accused examined 7 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the C1‘.P.C. in which he denied material appearing against iiini in the prosecution evidence, stated that he is innocent and has been implicated in a false case. Learned Additional Sess ions Judge after hearing respective counsel convicted and sentenced the accusedjappellant as aforementioned. P.T.O. XI—HC-78 HW,-m,W o ....‘o.o.ooooo...oo.o .\ WWWEW) WW§WWK WWW %?3T%H31T%ST We ham haard leaxncd qlounsel for th€ parties. Shn' Gupta has 110t di‘bputed homicidal death of Kawasi Bheema. Apart from that, 1E‘om the evidence of eyewitnesses namely PW—l Kawasi Bandi, #‘W—Q Kawasi Somali and the medical evidence of PW—6 Dr. AD. Bar‘h, it is established that the death of Kawasi Bheema was homicidal in nature. As far as invoivement oi the accused] appeilant in crime 1'31 queStion is concerned, leained counsel for the accused] appellailt argued that no independent eyewitness has been examineti alld all the Witnesses ale related Wimesses. Confession is said to have WWW mmm ,g_, been made before Panchayat ifvhereas; Panchayat members have not been examined. We have perused the evidence. it is true that PW.—1 Kawasi Bandi is related to the dec ed, but at the same time, he is related to the accused also. P —2 Kawasi Somdi is the wife of the deceased Whose presence in e house cannot be denied. The. mime was committed in the house of the deceased, therefore, there is no occasionjthat independent eyewitnesses might have been present. There is o suggestion in cross‘examination of these witnesses that some other witnesses were present and those witnesses have not be n examined. PW-l Kawasi Bandi and PW-2 Kawasi Somdi iave categorically stated in their evidence that at about 12 n on when the deceased was at the residence, the accused came v ‘th axe and attacked him on his I RT.O. e' s o r