WW,W,W W mCVQwgQ3 “i 200§ mm (W) $E - gon’ble $hxi L E-ion’me ghri §hife 4-?—ZQQ7:- Shii VP, Gupta, com isel fox the. appellant, Shri G. D. Waswar respondent. Oral judgment dictat< Lasa Ehadae5 J. This appeal is direct and order of sentence d: §dditional Sessions Judge leamed Additional Sessio: appellant guilty for commie l‘P.C., sentenced him to un‘ fme of Rs. 1001/m (Criminal appeal iimr‘ier Section 374 (52) of 13m Cr.P.C.) Li, Govt. Afdvocate for the State] 2d or; Dais, ed against the judgmerit of conviction ated 19*11 April, 2002 passed. by the Janjgir, in ST No.14f2000 whereby 1s Judge after holding the accused] sion of oEence under Section 302 of the iergo impiisonment for life and to pay a e Wéi‘rm WWW $"""‘a‘§"$‘§§“w APPELLANT; Budku alias Pardg§hi Ram {in Jaii) Sarthi, S/o Banmali Sa1‘31i, aged about 3O years, resident of village Sarthipaj‘a, Janjgir, District: JanjgirvChampa, C.G. - Versus — RESPONDENT: State of Chhattisgarh, through RS. Akaltara, District: Janjgir- ‘ Champa, Chhath'sgarh \ XLHC~78 @ 2 mm (WW) WWW 3911 W WWW 'WW wm aiaif‘aqm Case of tha pmsecut 1 p.311, accused Budku 4 Chitrarekha was present Chitrarekha, at that time, axe and milicted injlui instantaneously in the kitt was Sarpanch of villag€ P Ex.—P,l 2 was given by Loori 011 that first information Investigating 0&C€r left fo‘ ' EX.—P/3 to thta pallchas, I} Chitrarekha. The Clothes Pll8. The accused, While i1 BBL-P] 10 regarding place v axe was seized under Ex.— was sent for postmortem t the Community Health Centre, Baloda where Dr. Kalpana Chach ion, in brief, is that on 941-99 at about 1 pardeshi Ram along with his wife in the. house of Lom‘ibai, mother of the accused attacked the deceased with is as a result of which she died :hen of the house of Looribai. Looribai ahompara Budgahau. Merg intimation bai in the Police Station Akaltara, based repoxt EX.-P/ 1 was registered. The r place of occurrence; after giving notice repaired inquest EX.—P]4 on the body of of Chitrarekha were seized under EX.- 1 the police custody, gave memorandum Jhei‘e he kept axe, in pursuance of that, / 13, The body of deceased Chitrarekha e conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased, prepared r ostmorteni rePOXt Ex.-P/ 16 and'opined that cause of death was aemorrhage due to injuries. Site plan EX.—P,l 19 was prepared by the Investigating Otlicer. After completion of he investigation, charge sheet was tiled in the Coiut of Judicial M gistrate, lst Class, Janjgir, who in tuin committed the case to th Sessions Judge, Bilaspur fTom where ‘ loathed Additional Session Judge received me case on transfer for tidal. U m Wm a1 200 ‘ )XI-HC——78 amW W Wwm wwwwg‘ém aaaimm W m W 200 mam (W) En oydEr t9 astablish p_osecution examined 20 w mCQIded under Section 31 appearmg agaigst him 1'11 t1? Witnasxs are deposing age; further stated that murder Satnami He has been false Learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing learned counsel for the respective e the charge against the accused, the imesses. Statement of the accused was 3 Cr.P,C. in which he denied matelial e prosecution evidence. He stated that 11st him on the saying of Looribai, He 3f Chitrarekha was committed by Vijay 1y ixuph'cated by his mother—in-law. parties, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for tl'Le accused] appellant has not disputed homicidal death of deceased Chitrarekha. In View of the evidence of Lootibai before whom Ctlnarekha made oral dying declaration. that the accused had attack evidence of PW—ll Dr. postmortem on the body of the deceased and stated that on 10-1 1- 99 she conducted postmort was on the neck, cause of death was shock as a result of haemonhage and hijtnies sustained by her, it is established that death of the deceased Was homicidal in nature, ‘ As fal as involvement of the accused] appellant in crilne L11 question is concerned, learned counsel for the accused/ appellant grandfather of the deceased, was .d her with axe 61, inflicted injuries and Kalpana Chacheme, who conducted lacerated wound, 5th injuzy 6m, theie weie 3 incised wounds, one argued that PW-l Aandha, WW (W) XI—H€—'78 WW,W,W Wm Hi 200 W mwm mm @m éia‘mlmw ‘mwm man-1113? present and his eyesight was 1116 person who attacked ( cannot be believed. As far as argued that at the time 0f ii. ev/idence to the effect that Ch before her callnot be believed evidence of any other indepen has been falselv implicated 1h 0n the other hand, leat supeorted the judgment of tlm Havillg heard leanled perused evidence, As far concerned; he has stated the her husbahd were present in has admitted that his eyesigh the crime weak, he was not in a position to see )hitrarekha, therefore, his evidence evidence of Looribai is concerned, he .eident she was at the pond and her trarekha made oral dying declaration because same is not corroborated. by dent witness. The accused/ appellant ned counsel for the State/ respondent 3 trial Court. counsel for the parties, we have as evidence of PW—l Aandha is it at the relevant time deceased and In cross—examination, he t is weak, therefore, sometimes he is unable to identify fainily members but he is able to identify the erson. On that dav, he heard. voice of was saying to her husband not to ath has stated that PW—l Aandha He has Pw-4 anhai, has stated that on the fateful She heard cries )n hearing cries, she came out of her n and saw that the accused was the house, person by healing voice of a p his granddaughter that she attack her. PW— 17 Kedam infomed him that Chitrarei further stated that sou—in—lav Kheekh Bai, neighbour of Lo day at about 1 p.111. she wa: from. the house of Looribai. C house ih the kitchen garde iha has been murdered. v Pardeshi was in the house. ; at her residence. )EI-Hc—78 WW (13W) mmw a; glqi W’ WW §éW mmmw $afaum gunning away from the bap’k’ side of me’m-OTITO'OTm—af; at that time, hE was wearing full black pant and he was not wmring any shirt or baniyan, MCraover, the accus€d himself has stated that on the fateful day he came to the in-laws’ house in order to help them for agricultural operations. PW~2 Loon‘bai has stated that on the fateful day she along with Chitrarekha, her son—in—law Paxtieshi, accused] appellallt and he T father-in-law were in the house: After plastering the courtyard, her daughter and son-in—law went to pend for taking bath, However, they returned after taking bath. Thereafter, her son-in-law asked her that she should also go and take bath, therefore, she left for pond for taking bath. In the meantime, PWel? Kedarnath came and informed her about commotion towards her ‘se, therefore, she returned back from the pond without taking b 1:11. When she caine to her house, she saw Chitrarekha lymg in a pool of blood in the kitchen. There were injuries on her body. Sh enquired from Chitrarekha asto who has inflicted injuries on h .r, on which Chitrarekha informed that the accused has attacked her. When she further enquired as to why he has attacked her, itrarekha said that when she went to hond for taking hath, she was talking to Vijay, therefore, the accused suspected her fid ,lity and he attacked her. There was a lot of blood splashed on th , ground where body of Chitrarekha was lying, Therefore, in viex of the evidence of these witnesses, house is established. PW~2 Looribai just before the incident left the house for taking bath, her daughter Chitrarekha and accused ere in the house, thereafter the accused i i ‘ iresence of the accused in WW Hi 20f} h u h e XI-HC—78 Wm w: 2% mm (W) 'm%&wii6 WWW mm§wm WWW éVwm .. E111 Kheekhbai. T116 accused as not explajlmd anything that why ha He has taken defence in his statemant that in fact, Vijay attackcd and caused death of Chitrarekha. .ouse o 40011 a1 y PW—4 e was; runnmg away from t e house. But, he l‘as not statcd. that when Vijay was ,attacking} then why he ha . net protected Chitmxekha, he has n01: eyqalajned that circumstan , On the contrary, as per established fact, he rem away from th house and this conduct of the accused also establishes his invol Now, comihg to th oral dying declaration made by the deceased befere her moth .r, PW—Q Looribai has stated that when she retumed and enquir d from her daughter as to who has attacked her, Chitrarekha lied that Pardeshi Ram has attacked hey. On fulther ehquiry, he said that whea she along with her in the pond, she had talk with Vijay, therefore, her husband wa suspecting her fidelity and that is why he has attacked her with t Ye. not been able to eh'cit an eat in the crime in question. husband went to take ha In cross—examination, defence has ing which falsiiies or demolishes the above evidence. Froin cirlminstantial evidence the above dying declaration gets cotroborated because the accused was in the house. He ran away and he has not explained when Vijay attacked Chitrarekha, then why he has not protected his wife and ran away. From the ahove circumstmces dying declaration made by the tdeceased Stands corrobora making dying declaration accused was author of the ed and evidence of Loorihai regarding by the deceased before her that the injuries is established. Evidence of e v p h a XLHC—78 WW w 290 7 3a? oral dying declaration bef Chappal of th€ accusad sayologist raport EX.-P/ 27 ( of 0 €gce, were found stair /the above oral dying de( aar3€31 3m ‘Fq‘ai'oH 8W W Wm (WW) Moreover, axe and As per the )happal of the accused and axe, weapon .ed with human blood. Therefore, from tlaration and Circumstantial evidence involvement of the accused: in the crime in question is established beyond reasonable doubt. ' For the foregoirlg re; infnmity in the judgment o under Section 302 of the 1.1: I1; the result, the appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismiseed and it is hereby e Sd/- L.C. BHADOO l Judge lsons, We do not find any illegality or fthe trial Court convicting the accused ’. C. ismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra x” /, Judge mwawm ‘ €~7Simm iwEeToufE that Ulilfr'afeKEa made 3re this Wimess. were seized from hihl. o/