l / IIIIllIHHH I/II/l/I arraa'a PW W? WT ”(W W/3TW “WET” Hmm— 3m} 3a<ig a faanff “ ’ ff 3TH? arm ‘gam W “m 8 W m W a ' Nam 330-0: ya? ET‘T‘E w TH W 77 W 0 aota bim- ma 303 3T r i 3" 31‘31W WW ma? m“ . 1 W w mT W Wg— gy ; 19 / 'XI-HC‘22 WW mWW‘ DIVISION BENCH: - v 2)‘ Thecase ofJthe prosecution, in brief, isthat PW/4 -‘Savit11’' ’ k ‘Bai lodged a report (P/6)‘ in the Police Station: Samngarh, ’on Flaw HON’BLE SHRI L.C.BHADOO & - HON’BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAV A, JJ. 27IO2I2006 rMrs Usha Chandrakar Counkel Chandrakar for the appsllant 7 Mr U N S D60 Addltlonal Publlc Prosecutor for the State. Heard ‘ V’ ORAL JUD EMENT Hon’ble ’ Per Hon’ble Shri LC. Bhadoo. J. A’ v ‘ " LN \ By this appeal undo} SeCtidn 374‘of the Cr.P.C. a§pellant Shyamlal has questioned the. le ality and conecmess 10f the judgment of convicn‘on and order f sentence dated 19/03/1997 ’ saw passed by II Addmonal Sess1o s Judge, Ratgarh m Sessmns Tnal No 84/ 97 Wheleby learned ddmonal Sessmns Judge after W holdmg the accused appellant gull .for comnusslon of the od‘ence under Secuon 302 of the IP C and sentenced tum to undergo 1mpr1son1nent for hfe XLHC-22 , hedu Ram was also sitting on the all, in the meantime, accused i 7 Fhyamlal cank and slapped Mah'k am and when Dayaram came k0 rescue Malik Ram, accused slap d him also and picked up the %pade lying on the spot on which aya Ram and Malik Ram and her father came towards their ho se, accused Shyamlal came g and assaulted Wifh the S de on the head of her father —- three times on which she s ted shouting for the‘help. Her ' i father > Chedu ‘ Ram fell down and S yamlal throwing the Spade on Lthe spot ran way. Receiving this report, Station House Ofhcer S.S. I Shanna, registered Crime No.3,3/97 for commission of odence underSection 302 of the I.P,C., and left for scene of occurrence. After giving notice to the Panchas (13/9) prepared the Panchanama of the body of Chedu Ram He took into possessmn the Spade ‘ mm the place of» occurrence undr. (P/ 10 A) Accused while 1n i custody, i i i ve memorandum (P/ 1f) regarding his blood stamed clothes and m pursuance of memdrandum P/ 10 shirt Was taken i c ' {aeéaa 9W XI-HG22 3W3§§§ W55 mm . ....................‘.................m 200 a1mm Vmv§a rs, WW‘fiwim‘ é5awm 1 into possession under (P/ 1) and ful. pant of the accused was taken into possessionlmder (P/ 2). Ono shirt and shawl were taken into possession under P/3. One bag and pair of Chappals were taken ‘into possession under (P/4) and blood stained clothes were taken into possession under (P/ 11). Body of Chedii Ram was sent for post mortem examination to the Government Hospital, Sarangarh gvide (P/ 12-A) where Dr, J.N. Shukla conducted the post mortem xamination on the body of Chedu Ram and Dr. J.N. Shukla [prepaied I the poshnortem report_(P/ 12). The site plan (P/ 14) was repaled by the Investigating Ohicer. The recoveted articles were l l ent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, aipur, under P/ 15 from where report (P/ 17) has been received). i lothes of the deceased were taken into possession under (PI 20); "cles were also sent for examination to Serologist nom where I port was receiVed. After completion of _ investigation; charge-sheet was @ed i in the Court of Judicial Magi‘strate First Class, Sarangarh, 1;;vho in turn committed the case to the Sessions Court, Raigarh, ' L V [naéfat t»_._m XI—HC‘22 1 mmwgfw , \4 2 $W§W from whcrc the learned Additionan Sessions Judge, received the ‘ case on transfer for trial. 4) The prosecution in order to establish the charge against the accused/appellant examined 12 w'tnesses. On the other hand, ! statement of the aécused Was recoftded under Sectiou 313 of the Cr.P.C‘ in which he denied the matcn'al appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and. has been falsely implicated in ,the en'me. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for ' the accused] appellant convicted and dentenced him as mentioned in. paragraph one of the judgment. i5) We have heard Mrs. Usha Chandrakar, learned counsel for the appellant and'Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 6) . The homicidal death of Chedu Ram is not in dispute. §As t far as involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime in i question is concerned, learned counsel for the accused/appellant iargued‘that no. independent wimdss has stated that he saw the i i iaccused assaulting Chedu Ram d the evidence of Savitri Bai l hisW —:/ XI-LICQZ WW .qa m zoo m man mm WW ‘ feafmwrraw ‘ mmmaawf‘za ,8’,” (PW/4) does not inSpim cox$ ence as she has statcd that two ~— threc assaults wem made by e gccused whereas mom number of ' injuries were noticed‘og the b y of Chedu Ram. ‘ 7. In ordcr to apprsciato e argumcnts advanceg by learned counsol for the appellant, we ave perused the evidence of PW/4 Saviti‘iBai who is none-else e daughter'of the deceased and- she = hasstated that on the fateml ay she went to collect the cow-dung and returned in the evening. The house of Ramlal is adjacentto ' ~ their house and some cons tion work was going on. Daya Ram was talking and her father W s sitting on the wall, at that time accused came running and lapped Daya Ram, thereafterx he nicked up the Spade lying o the spot and attacked her father which he stopped with the elp of hand. ‘The accused again i > assaulted her father with Spa e on his head as a result of which he fell down and accused ran ‘ ay throwing the spade onk‘the spot on which she raised sore ' on which Shyam .Charan, Sahju i ' and Bharat came and she‘appn'sed them about the incident. Thereafter she went to lodge e report and lodged the report (P/ 6) , in the Police Station. In the c ss examination she has stated that {ala’éfaii XI—HCA22 mmmw PQ,’ agmww one bag Sh€ had scan the meld nt from the d1stance of 10 — 12 ft Shyamlal attacked her father 4 5 mmes In the cross exammauon of this witness defence h s not been able to ehcn any cilcumstance Which makes the evidence of thls witness unreliable .andpzrustwormy. 7 l Mgxeover, thd evidence r of Savitn' > Bai has been corroborated ‘ to ceftain extent by PW/2 Daya Rant who was working as mason at the place of occurrence and stated that he was constructing the staircase of the house of Ramlal and Malik Ram was working with him and Chedu Ram was sitting on the a boundary'wall.‘ Accused catne pearto them and demanded money ,.._..v: she mturhecl at abo1it 4AM p.m.' fm—MamWl Was Wean‘ng blue colour Paijani and Kurta and he was canymg lu n‘om Malik Ram and slapped him on the cheek on which he @s" stated that money had been wnhdrawn by you people, nom where should he glve the money on wh1ch he slapped hlm also and whe the accused started looking here and there, they beeame fi‘ightened and ran away. WhL they Bal (PW/4) were nmmng daughter 1n the of Chedu street they heard screammg of Saw i Ram and she was shounng $come come her father has been E [asea/ n XI~HC~22 ‘aér&“¥f an 1%??3‘ 31?:?? WW é1rhr-mmm 'I ‘3 f, f they ran away. “Was also . murdered by Shayamlal, but wwm§luwmi %5azf?rcre1r%€f stated that the daughts‘r of Ciédu Ram came and informcd that i Sav1tn Bal has been corrobo ted by Daya Ram who was workmg on tbs spot as mason The ev1dence of Sav1tn Bal PW/4 has also 'been corroborated by the med cal ev1dence of Dr J N Shukla who e postmortem on 07/ 02/ 1997 and lacerated‘ wounds on the body of noticed as many as eight deceased'out of which four injuries wexe on the right hand, one was on the light side 10f the 1 has stated that he conducted mandible and maxillary bones were found &actuied and lagerated wound over occipital region was there. There was a lao :rated wound on the occipital bone deep up to the bone and there was lacerated wound on the right side of the neck deep up/ to the bone and lacerated wound on the parietal and frontal bone, _ bone, right anterior parietal fractured. _ All the injuries wer . g . of death was coma as a result of head injury. Therefore, in View of .Shukla the evidence of PW/4 Sayim' the above evidence of Dr. ‘J.N Therefore, the evidence of PW/4 I her father has been murdere . ‘ace, bn dissection of the body,» occipital and right nontal bone were found e ante mortem in nature. The cause XI-HC-ZZ V-g’ éamnm&$1 Bai, is corroborated. Dr. J.iN. Shukla, has also examined the'‘ Spade and opined that the in ‘es which were found on the body of Chedu Ram could be caus%d by Spade in question. As far as ' question that Savitri Bai has fated that four. - five assaults were made by the accused where s eight injulies were found on the body of the deceased, is concerned since injuries were caused by the Spade, there was evexy possibility that more than one injury could be caused by one assault; Moreover, Savitri Bai has stated that four assaults were made by the accused on the body of the deceased but it is not possible for any of the eye-witness to count each and every assault and number of injuries received by the deceased. Therefore, we‘ are of the considered opinion that in crime in question the accused was author of the assault made on the body of Chedu Ram and we do not hnd any illegali or infirmity in the judgment in question. i 7) Learned counsel r the appellant argued that from the prosecution evidence, it is n t established that accused assaulted the deceased w1th anlintentio to cause of death of Chedu Ram. It is evident from that evidenc of Dr. J.N. .Shukla (PW/8) that as i i - [Vila W XI~HC-22 amiammqfa rqf § Raju many as eight injuriss were c used with deadly weapon like Spade and out of which four lacera d wounds were on the hcad ‘as a result of ‘Which' occipital, pan'etal and frontal bones wexe 4x 44w» fractured. The intention of ca se can begather‘eii from thekart/of the body on which injuries we e inflicted, the nature of the weapon and the background of the time. If we look into the evidence, .accused caused as many a eight 'injuxies out of, which four injurieswere on the vital part‘of the body i.e. head and as a result of which almost all the bon s Of head and skull were fractured. Therefore, the intention of the accused to cause the death of Chedu Ram was writ large, therefore, we do not iind substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant. In the result, the appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed ._w n \lwn. and it is hereby dismissed.‘ Sd/- Sd/— L.C. BHADOO V.K. Shrivastava f f ’ Judge Wizooa Judge 2710272606" ’