3n^[ 5:1 R-ti.'h TCT ^Tf^r ai+iict) T:11 TE^-^ltlW-'i, •ST^WKS., ls|<?il<Hy *<Wdl *^l«b ----------- ••—--•---•^ 200 aniST '^Rff (4<!it-i<i<w) TOIRK ^lfct 3i)^t Versu Present: Mr. Sun''ak£m.tMishi-a, Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. The following iudgaien'S iqp,J : Tbis appeal is directec aiid order ofsentence dated Sessions Judge, Raigarh ia S Sessions Judge after holdij coinnussion offhe offence ui] •Iiim, to undergo im.prisorui^' ^3>——--''', A" <*l'4l<rl14l'1 ^Wv^ ^ts^ <R«$i< ^? 3TRIII 3D^[ Ratiram. S/o. NarsiagJl Koiva, agfe 35 years, r/o. Paresier, P.S^- Kaapu, Dis'tt. Raigarh State of Chhattisgarh, P.S. Dliaramjaigarh SHRI L.C.BHADOO, J. SHRI T.P.SHARMA.J. couiisel for the appellant. I ovemment Advocate for the State, Oove 4th MarchaOOS] ; v«'asdelivered by oaviction Leamed |l agam.st the judgiaeat of |11th Juty 2002 passed by the Leamed [.T. No. 1.20/^200A whereby tiie leam^d ^g the accused/ appeUaD.t g~dfilt'/ lor Ider Sectfoii 302 of fhe IPC, seatenc^d ^eut fcr life aad to pay a. fuie bf \ ^. XI-HC—78 3(1^1 ?il R<-li* '?TSH3TT^^)+it^) 3F5ET "i)WI<?i<l, »Ti1'M41S, Rl01tiy HWvi\ *41<*> WI. 200 amRT iraa? (4<ifl«<<i?T) ^t1It3T ^lF?d ^iT^f •2-- Rs. '2,000 -, iu default of p£|yini laonths rigorous uitprisonm.eijtt. (64 2. Case of tlie prosecutio^ arid his wife Kuuti Bai (since the date of iacident i.e. 19.< consuiued liquor. Thereafter) but his wife (siace deceasecj) soaie quaiTel started ben^ accused/appellaiit attacked 4e ser laurder. The incideiit accused/appeUant laade extr^. Deenaram aad Ottiers. Mei^ SaD.tram. whereupoa First registered. After registration took up fhe iavestigation. He iviag notice Ex. P-11 to the ffae body of Kiiati Bai. Site lavestigating Officer. Tbe custody gave ineinoraaduia Baiaboo stick v.-as seized uiidl was seized under Ex. P-8. Ii exaiajitation under Ex. P-2 ^ Dliarainjaigarli, where Dr. A.| iajuries oa_Qie person of Dej T^"3iT~i"i"i Ra'i ^wa<3- ^^Ti'i" +/^ +1h(=> /' 'hllfo'il'l *<WdI4fc^ <h<T;l< ^affipisn^r ;iit of fiiie to further undergo six* [; ia brief, is fhat, accused/appeUant |deceased) used to reside together. Oa l.2001, m fhe night, both of them accused/appeUaiit deinaaded food refased to provide food therefoie, \ees. fhein aad ia that process, ler witll club and axe aad coiaixdtted was witaessed by Brij.ram, The judicial coiifession before Saatram., ^g iiitiiaation Ex.P-6 was given by Information Report Ex.P-16| was j)f the crune, fhe Investigatm.g of&cer lleft for the sceue of occurrence after Lchas, prepared iiiquest Ex.P-12 oa [plaii Ex.P-10 was prepared by fhe l.ccused/appellaat, wlule i& poUce px. P-7. In pursuaace of which, one; ^r Ex.P-9. The axe-weapon ofoffeace| ^jured Deriha was seat for medical| '. the Astt. Surgeon,. Civu Hospital, ,|S.Thakur, examined aad fourid five jiha. His report is Ex.P-2A. Bady ofl ppll' II E-f>t7i(am -m<='n+ ?-T<~Ks'im+<~>1 T~^T~t.^>f/'!i-i>T^i4^'n/T!-i '1::{ u Sf^t W R-t '^STT 3II^9T snfl 3:5q'rf<]<)i<St|, siifl'y'Ko, Ri<'ii'yy NWrtl *NI«b •WI. 200 an^yr'fra? (4citl<<<li?) ^<IIW^lfe([ Sil^t -s- under Ex.P-lA where Dr. A.S and opined that the cause of a result of bead iajuiy and prepared post iiiortem. report 3. After coia.pletion of in'v^stigation, charge sheet was liled ia the Court of Judicial Magistr^te tum. coiniiutted fhe case to tH< prosecution examined as iii^iiy :stablish the charge again.st the question.. 4. Stateiaent of flie Section 313 of fhe Cr.P.C, appearing agaiast him and s against iTim. due to anim.osity th.e crime ia question. After bearuig counsel 0. Additional Sessions Judl; accused/ appeUant as aforeiiie^itioned 6. We have heard Mr. S accused/appeUant a&d Mr Advocate fQr tlie State. 'bWtdtil-t *111<-if"?jfSIzt <Rl«tl< ^ siRiH sn^r Thakur, conducted the post iiiortem.i .i.1 leath was due to shock aud coraa as,, deafh was honiicidal ia nature. He' sx. P-1. First Class, Dharamjaigarh who m. Sessions Judge, Raigarh where the as elevenl wita.esses inorder to accused/ appeUaiit in fhe criine itl acci^sed/ appej;Uanl was recorded | •j.iiider ta which be denied fh.e m.aterial tated that fhe witnesses havei stated |aiid he has been falsely impUcated in. for fhe respecti.ve parties, leamed ;e, convicted aad seritenced ^uya Kaat Mishra, counsel feir tUe Praveen Das, Dy. Govem-ment , i 1 .£ :e-78 sii^r q;r lt;-fwi ^v sffi^r »)+iict» 3:5^' •^n'sny'iq', aiTflwis; Rirti'yy wwir *t<icb WI: 200 siR!?r TCW (iyf^'st<!isf) ^ti^ -frl^fl 3iI^T —^ 7. At the outset, Mr.| accused/appeUant has not di^ Bai. Moreover, P.W.-l Dr. 20.04.2001, he conducted dec'eased Kunti Bai and founft died on account of head iiijur)! death was hoiniciddl iu nattl evidence of Dr. A.S. Thakur is| ofP.W.-7 Brijram, P.W.-{ Deenarain. Eveu P.W.-9 accused/appellaiit niadi Therfore, io. view of the abov^ established fh.at fhe deafh. -8 Dei-lha extfa 8. As lar as fhe coinplicily crime in. qiiestion is concem.e(|l, fhat the axe-weapon of ofFenc| therefore, ftie evidence of tye: Moreover, the relationship witlj he has been implicated ia. a fa.!|se Q tiie jydgment of fhe trial Co-urt[ 10. P.W-2 Ghasnin Bai, ?;tated^thiSt tTif^ acr'tisF'fi and q3i<i[<n*ili *IIH^ ^fe1^' ^Fait^R ^ sfRpr ^nt?r S.K.Mishra, counsel tbr t3ie , ».< (puted fhe hoiuicidal death of Ki.tnti ,; b.S. Thakur has stated fhat on Y post laorteia 011 the body of jt eight iajuries. He opined fhat she as a result of shock aiid coiaa. The Ire. .The above inedical aad oeiilar ;orroborated by fhe ocular evidence iha-uncle of the iaccused aiid P.W.-9 Deenarani has stated fhat the judicial confession before biso.. liiedical aild oculaT evidence, it is iaiwas heinicidal m. nature, ofKlunti.Bs of the accused/appeUaat iit fhe [, coTiiisel for the appeUaut subinits was not found stauied ^vifh blood, jese witiiesses caiinot be believed. t. Brijraia was not cordial fhat is why case. On. fhe ofher hand, lear^ied counsel for the State supported ia<j)fh.er of the accused/appellaiit;nas ?ns \vife "iisRd to i^side tos£-ther.: Ou ... -_-:1 ...JU-, ^y-^, -s^\. ^•';.. ^y^XI-I^—78 1 T^ 'J / '\.^ivy • sn^i ?? f';-fi'* ^!?T-sn^T ^w^ 3:5q'"iii<<i<?><<, ®Tf1'y'i<»,&<?>i'yy *<IH^I *MI* WI, 200 ani?r 'vw ('yf'i'iiiff) TOitW(ftg3ii^i -^- the date of uicideiit, in fhe heariiig the cries of her daT.lj husbaiid woke up. Thereaftei^ that accused was bunung Ku] agked the accused not to do to leave the place ofherwise that tiiue, Kunti. Bai was aiid blood was oozing out there holding the buniia.g wo^ 11. P.W.-3 Narsingh, fath<( that on the date of in.cident,l was sleepiag at fheir residenij his wife aiid one Yadav werel the cries of his daughter-iiji awakened Yadav aad sent persuaded ftie accused not to retumin.g, he agaiil heard fy; sent his wife Ghasnin Bai in d fhe ciies of Kuiiti Bai, he s| hisiiselfwent to the house of.1 th.at Kiuiti Bai was tyiiig dead fhe villagers; j'ateful night, fhey we.re sleepuig. On jghter-in-law Kuati Bai, she and her she weut inside fheir room aud saw .ujnti Bai wifh bumiag wood. When she |so, he threatened her and asked her |he wiU. g%fe coiuniit her niurder. At ei^piag. TIiere was injury on her hea.d injuiy. The accused/appellaiitwas td inhis hand. , ; wefp oftbe 12. P.W.-6 Saiitram faas ta persors. who-was-present ii <frl^<rl^l'1 'Wl^ ^1^I3l"^'^R ^r sfRiH ^i^i .i.1 •r of accused/appellaat, hasstated he along wifti his wife Ghasrmi Bai ;e. At that tiiae, his relative B£mgha, sleepia.g at his resideuce. He heard i-law Kunti Bai aad woke up. He hiiii to fhe hou.se of his son. He indulge in. ?7iffa?-Deeih. When he was \e: cries of Kunti Bai. Thereafter, he |rder to persuade his son. On hearuig gain sent Yadav aiid fhereafter,! he ^.ccused/ i |F,>i»1i *T Rati Raia and saw in fhe carpet. He asked Yadav to call jim.ed hostue. P.W.-7 Brijram.is the it the house of the fafher of fhe --=1 ...l, ^ —78 sn^r ?;? K-ii* 'deff 3TI^T'^[NT ^cST ^||<||(<iA|, yTfl^'Ko, Ridiyy WqMT *NI* W(; 200 an^?T TR^ ('yf'l'i'S.w) accused/appeUant oa tiie dalje was preseut in th.e hoijt accused/appeUaiit. When thej; house of Narsiugh, at about wife of accused/ appeUaut. accused/appeUailt awakened ofhis son Ratiram and persu^< with his wife. When he went the wife of ftie accused/ appeltj her body at itiaay places, part|i She was weeping. At fhat tim.4 in. his left haud aad buiTiias the accused not to beat his wi| two iniautes. Thfireafter, he c|i aud went to sleep. While he of ttie wife of Ratirain. Then, of incident. He has stated tliat he , >< ise of Narshingh-fafher of the ;, jy were sleepiag in. the night m. the '•< '.00 a.m.. thev heard the cries of the He was sleepiag, fafher of fhe (rim.. He asked him to go to the house to go aad persuad^ attackuig his wife \vi'Qi axe of her head. He canie out' accused/appeUaiit Deriha c draggiag.his wife outside fhe of Ratirain whereupon. he also 13. P.W.-8 Deriha,being i{ the whole case but in- examtu, 'tilllclll'f MIHtifif.fest <fii<si< ^T 3tRw <sn^r (de 1iim not to indTilge iu maar- peeth |;o fhe house of fhe accused, he saw ^nt ta a naked position aiid he burat :ularly ou fhe face, cheek aad chest. j, accused/ appeUaat was holdiag axe •ntood ia fhe right hand. He persuaded whereupon,'he reiuained silent for )am.e. back to the house of Nai-siugh sleeping, agaiu he heard the cries ^ther offhe accused/appellaiitiagain. Ratiraia, He saw that Ratiiaia was ai^d tiiere was injuiy on. the back side aad cried. At this, uitde of the w&s ^me. The accused/a was ]|louse. His uiicle Derilia caught hold lattacked him. :le of fhe accused has not supportedj uation-ui-cbief, he has stated th.af !:-„. :iiB dll^l ?ff R-fi'h '?TSTT 3TT^T *4w TS^ •^ww<t, wf\ww, Rirtiyy *1W<^1 **<1* 'W^ 200 an^W ^sra? Cpf^aRti) when he went to intervene, 14. P.W.-l Dr. A.S.ThaM irijuries on the body of iaji^ iiijuries on his body. P.W.-9 Village, has stated tliat a d^ inofher of accused/ appellaut son Ratirain has coitiinitted Sarpaiich of fh.e vfflage whe^ accused/appeUaat aad attacked his wife as she isfai mjury ou ttie head. iji|ired enquj.i^d 15; Thereforg, froin the abo is established fhat on the accused and deceased wei sustaia.ed bT.im iajuries as These witaesses saw the bumuig wood iii his band ac intei-vened, he also attacked uijuries and his iiijuries wen K.port is Ex.P-2. 16. Eveo—tlTeaccused/app) .Isefore Deenaraia. who was A tt»<4t<'1<<i'1 ^l^^lf ^jfe^ <R(|t^l< ^?3iRw sn^r •.( the accused/appeUailt also attacked;1 , has stated ttiat he exaiuiaed the Derilia (P.W.-8) and found five Deenarara, who was Sarpanch of fhe y thereafter the iacident, fafher aad came to his hoyse aad said fhat bis niurder of bis wife. At timp he was •eupon he went to fhe house of the froni him. He disclosed ttiat he ,ed to give food to Ynm and fhere was jveocular evidence offhe witn.esses, it |ate of uicideiit, in fhe fateful night, m. the same house. Kunti Bai ^yeU as other iajuries on. her |bcdy. ^ccused/ appeUant holdiag axe aiid ld attackuig his.wife. When his;uiicle 1 l|>im as a result ofwhich, he sustaiiied 1 ^ exainined by Dr. A.S.Thaklir imjun; :Uaiit inade extra judicial confessibn ?-SaroaD.ch at the relevant timle aiid S'W^^^Kfiff '::^S^S<!fi!'SS^ssif?s,^^ .^" ''•^.ff^'3^^? ^VSSj^ j sn^r ?n !<-ii?b "^TT STI^T »>+ilcf» M^T> 3'5'ET -^WW^, wS\W , IsK'il'yy <4Wdl **^leb Wt, 200 3II^?T 1RTO (4clt'l«l<tl) TOIRK^te3iI^I -•»' iadependent witaess. There talse case and that too, ia imt wife of th.e accused/appellanj house of the accysed, it is tlj thjC accused fhat he ought 1| uild.sr which the wife of the vtas no reason to iiaplicate hiin in. ttt^ irder of tus wite. Apart froin that, fhe'.'*s. t aiet wifh a hom.icidal deafh in. the icrefere the dut}r oa the stioulders of o have explained the circum.stances sustaiaed tioiaicidal injziries. a<t;cused 17. As per tb.e provisions o^ fact was witliia the special }a{i th.e accused was present in. tl{ explain.ed the injuries s'ustai4 factor agam.st of tlie aceused witaesses, except P.W.-9 De{ whOHl the accused inade extrb. are close relatives (father, mo| fh.cv have sfated fhe iiivolvedii criilie ia question aad fhere fhe accused vidthout EUIV reasd aatier 18. In cross exainuiation ofl been able to e.1icit aay circum|stanc of these wituesses, The inaiiber attacked the deceased i.e. wi1 inerciless beatmg by fhe acc tuae in tiie house itsetf aad «^wl<"l4l°iTnIRff^l^^ <^ai*^R ^sifinsn^i Secfiou 106 of,the Evideace Act, this }a|iowledge ofthe;accused/appellaat as k.e house. Therefore, he ought to have [ed fay his wife. This is tb.e additional iii the crune in question. Most^of the ;iiaram aad P.W.-7 Bryram, [before judicial conlession, other Vi'itoesses i|ther and uncle of fhe accused); Eveii :nt of ttte acciised/ appellaat ia flie (ras ao reasoa for fhem. to iinplicate 1'a. 1 fhese witnesses, the defence lias nof which discredits fhe evidence ia. which the acczised/appellaQlj pi axe aiid buiTiing wood, fhere wa^ fiised ajid Kuiiti Bai died '•vitliin. nd le attacked on his Ilead with fhe axel ..^y^si... /y^s3^s ^ t^-^..-^,.^. ^l B w&sSS^^t 'K '^S^^'s'i?-^ -^ ^ % ''—"—^ ^i ""^. ^-^•'J" ' "^cy 3t^T W W '^Tf sn^r ^tiN) Kuguna ^<^^v TEST 'tiMw'sf, ^v'i's,, K<ftwy. tll^rtt **<|cb "^ 200 an^?r •vw ('ySy^si) roluch proved fatal. The doc responsible for the death. 19. Therefore, Tor fhe ft copsMered opiuiou tfaat th^ accused/appenaitt giulty a^id coiruaission of the offeuce unjlei faid aiiy ulegaUly or infirmily _aisiaissed and is hereby disiai Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge <=hf<ft<n<ili J11<4<^1^f^^ ^tt^R ^ <tffcf+f <MI^?[ or has stated th.at Iiead illiury was'K 3resiom.g reasous, we are of fhi trial Court has rightly heM the iiaposed fhe sentence for the ler Section 302 of the IPC. We do not in fhejudgiaeut of trial Court. 20. Ia fhe result, tbe appea^ beiug devoid of Eierits, is liabfe to be issed. Sd/-;. T.R Sharma