ii”V g, 200 (Criminai Appeal L DE Hen'bie 53m L C BM: 5- §- 2608 Heard Ku. Swift: Jam, counsei for ‘rhe appziicm? c3. Shri Sudhir Qajpai; Dy. Govt Advocma for fm $m‘re. LC. Bhaciao‘ J §czgaiiiy and rcorreo‘mess o? sgnfence dated 16—1—1997 iodssed by 1“ Addi‘homi Sessions Judge, gastor 't‘riai Na.397/95 whereby iaarne¢$ Addifiona? a? Jawalyarl in sassions Sessions Judge after hoidmg ‘the accu’sgd/appeIEanT guii‘ry for- commission of of'fznca made!" Section 302 v Madavi Tangudui senfenced him f0 andergo \ nder Section 374 (2) of The CraPL‘.) ao & Hon’hle 5hri TP. shaman. JJ The appeai is admi‘fmti 1‘03“ hearmg. Orai Judgmsn? dicm'i‘ed on dais. T‘g'w accused/appellan'r hds preferred fhis upped quesfBonmg ‘a‘he “Hie gudgmenf of convicfion and oqégr of r? tha Indian S’ena! Code {for $16014? “#12 .Z‘PC’Q for cammih‘ing murder of \\ imgriwnmen‘i‘ for iife. (:mA’. [U0 - 5Q? 7&0} mm Wm (W) WWW am m matmm mm#&wm % 3mmm “Q. Aippeilm‘r PadiEyami Bajc‘. S/e Mam Mudiya, aged 4G years, R/o Handapam, Kaldur, ?0iice 51‘a1'ion Darwla; Dis‘rr‘icf Basmr (MP) (now CG). Versus Responde'n? S‘m‘re of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhcm‘isgarh). Through Poiice Siniion Darbhai Distric‘l' Bastm‘ (MP) (now CG). WW,W,W Wm v1 200 W W (W) 3211mm mwm maig‘am WW @W %e;i1%maa1%¥r 2) Case of The prosecu?inn; in brigf’; is Thaf or! 21-9-1g95 when ‘i‘he firsf Enformum‘ Medavi Mossu (PW-1) was a? his house his younger §nmf§ner Ku’i‘a came and mformed ’mm #51:? Padiya‘mi 533030 has she? armw on Madavi Tangudu (since decwsed). Easea‘ on this informa‘?ion Madavi Mossu (PW-1) dang wi‘l'h Kum wen? near Modavé Tmguéu where he was iying on The grourad. Thay saw Thar Tangudu was wr§Thiog in pain gmd fhey enquh‘ed from Tmguda *hcr? who has affackad him which Tungudu repli-eezi '§'hcr¥ Podiyami Eoja has aifnckad him. Thzreaf‘fzr; awgudu saccumbed To ‘§'he ingary suo‘mined by him Merg inferma‘rmn {E .WEE was vaEveo by fyiadm/i Mossu {PW—1}. Receivmg this infimmion fiw S‘i‘a‘i‘ion House Qfficer‘, Poiioe Sm'iion Barbha registergd fine Firs? Infor aiion Repor‘r Wider EXP/1. The Iavas‘iiga‘iing Of‘aicar iaff for the scene o? occurrence and offer giving myrica {ExoP/3) 1'0 ‘iizz Ponchos; he orepar‘ed in as? on ’z‘he body of Tangudu umier EXP/4. The arrow was seized under Ex P/5n Bow mid foui‘ more ori‘ows were sgized wider EXP/6. The seizad ariicles were sen‘r To ‘i'i'ie Forensic Science Labamiory; Raipur. Body Tamgu‘du was sen? 1’9 wimary Heaii‘h Ceza‘ir’e, Darbha under Ex.P/8 where . AD. More (PW-8) coaduc‘wd po§morfem 0?: ‘ihe body of deceased ano piees fhc? ‘e‘he cwse of dea‘rh was shock as a resuii‘ of excessive bieedimg from iriviury. “injury was or: smmoeh. There was ,oene‘imi’ii’ig wourad over abd men wifh hard :3: sheep cufi‘ing looimied obJeci‘. ?osi'mori'em reoori‘ is EXP/ : i n o r 1 . WW, Wm,W 3) Affer comyle‘fion of ir m‘ Q’ijdiciai Magis‘fm‘rer Firs casg m ‘H'ae Cour‘r o‘F $2ss% Sesb‘iem Judge; gasfar‘ a? for friai. 4) Ir: order f0 es’mbEsh pmsecm‘ion examined $ wi‘m remwed under Secfion 313 alapecxréng agamsf Mm. Hg s Emwica‘i’ed m “me grime in aw 5) Lem‘ned Addi?ionu§ respemWve par‘h’as; convisf afcremenfioned. 6) We have heard Ku. Su Shri 5udhir‘ Bajpai; Dy. 64w?“ .7) Ku, Jain; warned cot. hamkidai dea‘rh on” Tangudu. an 23-9-1995 he conducted g a gene‘rmtmg cu? waund in e 6 cm‘ x 5 cm. x 14 cm. Cla‘H’ \ \ ,f\ vzs‘riga'tioni charge sheet was fiied in fhe Cour? i' C§ass,, Jagda!pur; whe m mm wmmi‘a‘kd ‘rhe ons Judge, Jagdaipur‘ fmm where AddifiomS Jagdaipur'i :“aceWed we same cm Trms‘fgr fhe cmr'ge tigainsf fhe uccused/apg:zi§anf a‘he asses. $1‘a’mmard‘ at? ‘a‘he acwsed/appeiianf was of ‘5’he CrRC. iv: which he demed “the mmaria§ fated 14m? he is imacem’ (md ha$ hear? faiseiy $‘i’km. ssioms Judge affer hearmg counse? far The id and sememed We accused/appeiiam as niw Jain; ieamed counse! for fhe apyeiian? and Advecaim fsar 1412 5%?2. nse! for “$2 appeliant has na‘r dispu‘fed fhe Moreover; PW-S Dr. AD. More has grated 1’ha1' osfmor‘rem on The body of Tanguo‘u. There was :pigas‘rric reghm of The sfomach Er: ‘H‘re séza m" ad biood was presen’r around The wound‘ injury \ WT m 'H‘L 200 Wm (W) WWW ammm mmm WW§WW amimm WW, m,W mm 1n 200 mm (Way) mmm WMifzétW éwfiwm was awe moWem am mm.” weapon. There was a w? it was haemorrhage and injur‘ Dr. AD. More $3 carmbor. fhe deceased) & PW-4 Mac gafn ?hesa wimesses hav decaased (Madavi Tangudu ha d§ed. Therefore, in vie zs‘ra‘biished Thm death of 1 8} As far a$ cemyiiaiw i$ wncemedi PW-S Aya?i Thadgm have cafegoricaiiy presem' m The {Aime cf 0c Jadm (maéze com) accused ha has m? gWen Pevi (iiquia i‘hey are giving him Peg: A? 'the degzased md The acau: The armw‘. which hi? m #gqe 9f Wasa ’rwo wifnzsszs “‘ e and The same was caused By hard :3: paimad ijury on The s‘romach & Ever. The cause of death y 1’0 fhe s'romach. The abcve medica§ evidence of :‘a‘ed by The evidence of PW-B Ayai‘i (mofher' of avi Thadgu; who wifnessed The crime in question. e sfzrred We? +he accused she? The armw oi: i, which hi1” en his sftsmachi as a resui‘? of which N of The above medicai and ocuiar evidence ET is ‘Emgudu was homicidd in racrmre of "Hie aewseWwgehan? in The crime m Céues‘Hm {mafher’ 0‘? ‘§‘he deeeased} mad PW-4 Madevi sTa‘I’ed fnaT a? ‘Hie fime af mdeen‘!’ fhey were currence. When Tangudu ($4 Tha&gu were eating came on fine scene and asked Thadgu as ‘m why mdde of rice) on which deceased repiied 'kha‘n' ‘Wm? time some ah‘ercation fook pinceheiween ed. The accused trough? bow & arrow we she? s'rameclh cf The deceased In cross—examinmica circumstanca; which é§scrzd '$'1e defe‘me has nm‘ been able in: eiéch" any x Efrs Their evidence. WW,W,W QO ( 9) Mmhii‘ag has haw asked §n crass- eouaseQ regarding fhe wai dying deeiamfmn made by ‘rhe deceased befor 1rhese wimesses. 1a) Java regardiag oroi tiying dedam’rion maée by #‘na deceased ‘?he complici‘ry of f'ne accused Em affackmg The deceased wif§1 an arrew is esmbiished be oncs‘ reasonable éaub‘? (Md we do no? find any il§ega3iw or inf§rmify m The jJdgmem’ of the Wis! Caurt 11) record. We éeceased was We brofher-in—law of the accusee‘ {Safe} There was n0 ammosify behmeein, 1'3'2 min; aiTercafim Teak piece (m a pe‘i‘fy matter E?! G hem“ cf pass§en wh‘hau‘r am! we necuseci shot We arrow, which hf? om we E‘Eaere‘f'we‘ in The cércum§einces fhe affeme agains’!’ 'l'he accused/eppeiia! cf the 1PC. Moreover; PW-1 Madc vi Mossu and WV-Z Java have sfc‘i'ed fha‘r on wming 1'0 know abouT the inc enquired from Tangudu as 1's ?he accused has shm" aw examma’i‘wn by fhe deién in v§ew of fhe abave ?W-1 Mudavi MossL; and PW den? +hey wem‘ To The scene of occurreme am who has afracked him; on which he repiied The? m3 Wm. 1 Learned counsei fer 12) and fhereaf‘l’er' scuffie hank place Ememicn 1’9 cause dem‘h 1“ sfomatzh of #he deceased, 0n ‘fhe 01'her‘ hand; harried counsei for fhe 5mm seppar’md me judgmen‘r m‘ #he win! Court \ ewh‘nesses evidence as we” as 1'§1e evidence of he accused/appeilanf argueti fi’mf as per ?he 11 does,nof 1'mve3 heyond Section 304 Par"? II n c - WT m F‘L 200 mm (W) WWW ammm mwm wwwwz‘ém amifanm 13} In order 1'0 apprec’rafe fhe arguments advanced' by iehrned cuunsei for ‘Hae respecfive pm‘Ties, we have perusad fhe record. PW-3 Aya‘i'i {mofher of fhe dammed c$egor§caiiy sTraTad ‘H'mf we They are no? providing him Fe may are inrovidiéwg him Fe} Ir: fhe accused bmughf bow &, a‘ deceased PW-4 Thadgu who fur‘rher sfafed Thu? fhere was became enraged; he afMCke mfacked fhe deceased wiTh ‘r fhese eyew§Tnesses who an indegemem wi‘hrzess; if has cm and scuff§e be’mieen the decea fhaa The brothee-in—inw of ‘H aw mafher—im-§aw a? ‘ihe accused§ ‘rms accused came and askec? Teacigu as 'm why I: on which Tangudu {deceased} replied Tha‘l' 11m? process some a3‘rerca1'ion fook gate aw ‘row and shof arrow on The, sTomach of *he was presem' a‘t The sceine of occurrence has some dier'cai’ion Took piace and The deceased :i 1‘3"e deceased and m furn i‘he accused 1e arrow. Therefore; from fhe evidence of a fhe' me?§1er of The deceased aw one me on record ma? There was some aher‘cm‘mn " sed arid ‘fhe accused. Deeeased was noae eise accused. During ahercafiim <34 scuffk 'fhe aecused breaghi' haw & arrew and shm‘ arrow which iamdezi m2 #heSikamach 9‘? The deceased and he diet”! record We? fhere was any en {rha‘f amused came prepared arrow en me s‘mmach of f e deceased, bu? m fhe drwmsfcmces we mcferia! evmkxbie ma record ; a resukr m‘ said injury. T’iaere is nofhéwg oe sfwy be'fween ‘?§’1e deceased (3: encased and M1 an Tnferafiom “m cause deafh he 5310‘? 'Hwe cm safely be inferred The? *i'ae manner in i [u‘reW q i 3 e s J,, :7 WW,W§,W mm wt 200 WW (W) ammamia; WWW WWW mm a; mam . w.wm whick fhe accused she? ar on The dezceuseé he had the knwjiedgg fhcn‘ ha may ‘!i§<eiy 1m cause dz ”a‘h cf fhe deceased by shooting an arrow. Therefsre; the cffence agai s? the accused dues no? travei beyond Sec‘ricn 3G4 hirf-EI of 'rhe IP‘C. 14) Iii fhe resLiFi fhe clap Qi yar‘?%y succeeds. The canvic?ioa & senfeme imposed upan me accused/a. peilan‘r under Sam‘mn 302 of “rhe IPC are 5e? aside: instead fhereef he is onvic‘x'ed um‘ier‘ $ec1’§on 304 Part-XI of fhe LDC Gad he %s seme‘need 1'0 and rgo RI. for 10 years. I? is sta‘l'ed we? We accused/emaiam is €21 xie'i‘en §on since 24—9—1995; 'thereby he is in. éewa‘i‘mn for mare ‘tha‘a 12% years. has aEready aompQefed tke seMeme imgwsed m e ugmn him. Therefere. he be se'? a? iiberw fawi'wviw; if W? requir'eé in cm}! 0‘?her case. r, Sdl- 57d!- ‘ 4 L.c.BHADOO ‘ a T P. Sharmw Judge 3 Judge