,K y-.'' ' 9W- IN THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. of2007. FS<~^ APPELLANT: Tiyajaa Son of Doohan Gond, ISA ./"' _..«^ (Injail) aged about 25 years Resident of ^.-•^""'^ Village - Biramkela, P.S.- Batauli, py^?T^> Distt--surgu)a(c-G-) y^^^^vERSVS RESPONDENT: CONVICTION: U/S 302 of I.P.d State ofChhatdsgarb. +kycz^, ^,5, Bate^ SEN'EENCE R.I. for life and fine of Rs.lOOffi?- in default of payment next RJ. for 3 months. CMMNAL APPEAL U/S 374 (2) OF THE CBIM1NALPROCEDURECODE1973 3T^t ?iTf<;-)i°h ^Eff Sff^V sh4i=c ^ 'SvSf ^wiiyi-^^ ^<nS\W16, Rl^l^y Cy,^, l^ ^r sn^?r wv (.'^Sys^si) TOiiwnfecian^i APPELLANT (In Jai!) T]iyajan, Son of Doohan Gond, aged about 25 ,'^ars, Resldent of Village Biramkela, P.S. qatau", Dlstt. Surguja (CG). -Versus- RESPONDENT (Appealunder Se Division Sench : stice L.C. Hon'bie Mr. Justice Dhirsndra i'vli ^4-^3"^;W Shri R.K. Jaiswal. counsei fd ShriU.N.S.Deo,Add!.Publi| Lavi'yer for the State. Record 'nas already been rei] Hesrd on IV!.(Cri.).P.No.322/! sppea!. As oer ihe office reDort ther^ For fhe rsasons mentioned Ihs same is allowed and the deiay i| Heard on the questio" of ad^ 'he appeal is adm'tted for c^ The accussd is in detention aboui nine vears. Therefore. the ao\ Oral judgment dictaled on D\ i*l''<fcl'iil-) 'WRlf ^f.'ft^t TfSn^R ^TSffcW 311^1 iaie ofChhatlisgarh. Thouflh P.S. Bateuli. rtlon374(2)offheCr.P.C^ .hra, |r the appellant. j; Proseculor and Shri Akhil Mishra. Panel tsived. '£007for condonalion of deiay in filing the is a delay of 2571' days in fiiing the appeal. |in the app!;ca{jon p.(Cri.).P.No. 322/2007}, (i fiiing the appea! is condoned. ^ission. jonsideralion. Isince 8-5-1998 therebv he is in detention for beal is heard for fina! disDosa'. 6is. 'w.'w XI-HC—78 TV^^WW, '^W'W, iafrtl^y C-^'A' 1'^Ml &V- •••^ ^} sn^r iwv (•'^y^y) sn^iv r^-fi'* •gqTsnt^'gffiw ^giWttosn^ L.C. Bh, The accused/appel'ant has conviction and order of senlence Judge, Surguja, Ambikapur, in Se^! heid guilty under Section 302 of th^ hls 'vvife Pavitri Bai and senienced a iine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of p| three monihs. The case of the Drosecutio =bllffl4)-1 •qTCff^^SifS^K ^; aifgrT 3ii^t sreferred fhis appeal againsf the jua'gmeni of (dated 27-11-1999 passed by the Sessions jsions Trial No.226/98 whereby he has been indian Penal Code for committtna murder of |im to underao imorisonment for 'ife & to oav p^yment to further undergo i.mprisonment for along wlth his wife Pavitri Bai. fathe; to attsnd the mam'age ceremony in Accused aiong with his wife retij Thereafrer, Doohan Ram & Sukini Bt Ihe morning after rising of Ihe sun ^ fhe accussd and tried to waks up J! s'auyhter-in-i'aw, but there was no r< 'ih.'ough 'ihe hote of the doo.'', she 4 which was )ying ors the bed. Seeii Ram, falher of ths acoussd. camel scfeam, Udayram (PW-5) & Sufals^ the body of Pavitri Bai drenchea' with| therefore, Doohan Ram lodged t| S C £ 5-5-1998 at about 9.00 a.m. in th( Officsr ieft for Ihe scene of occurre; body of Pavitri Bai. The body examination to Primap/ Heatt.h Cenfr Parihar (PA'-4) conducted postmori , in brief, is that on 4-5-1998 the accused Doohan Ram & moiher Sukini Bai haa' gone the house of cousin brother of Uday Ram. 'ned to the house prior to his parents. came and wentforsleep in Sheirroom. ]n ;ukini Bai '/ir-oke up and v.'ent to the room of ;er daughter-in-law. She calied her son & |sponse from ihe room. Vii'hen she peeped taw ihe dead body of her daughler-in-Iaw. |g this, she raised cries on whlch Doohan and sav.i the silualion. After hearing Ihe (PW-5) came and opened the door, saw blood. The accused was noi present there, |e Firai i.nformafion Report (Ex.P/1) on Police Station Batsuli. The Investlgating jice. He prepared inquesl (Ex.P/5) on the ^f Pavitri Bai was sent for posimortem '^, Bateuli vide Ex.P/6 where Dr.Roopsing.h ^m and prepared rspon (Ex.P/7). Doctor XI-HC—78 3:5^ "41-41^-4, ®TTly'IS,Rirtl^y ^^,{\. \V^\o;^- ^W^ Sh^l* sn^s 'wv (ipf^g^g) sy^v 951 h-i a'siH' 3TR?T sft^-n^ '^aiwttosii^T cf)T^[<n4h tnq^f Tf_ts^ ^-^K •^silwTan^i opined that the cause death was account ofcut oftrachea and cen/ii e)jcessive hemorrhage from Ihe injuries and on icja! spine. The death was homicida! 'n nature. g^tion, 3) After completion of investig^ti Judiciai Magisfrate First Ciass, Anfb the Court of Sessions Judge, Ambi' i, charge sheel was fi!ed in the Courl of rfbikapur, who in turn committed the case to tapur. 4) In order.to estabGsh the prosecution examined 7 wilnesse^ under Section 313 of the Code of| material appearing against him in alonci wilh his father & mother hac) was nol at his residence in the nigl^ not committed any offence, he is iniji the murder of his wife. 5) Learned Sessions Judge aft convicted and senlenced the accus' 9 We have heard tearned cour 7) In Ihis case, the only witness the house are Doohan Ram ffather] accused). In their Police dairy Sai (w'Te of the accused) and they| Sukini Bai (mother of the accused)! cousin brother of Uday Ram, rslurned to the house orior to them.' and went for sisep in their room. !n the room of the accused to Vifake sharge against the accused/appeilant, the .. Statement of the accused was recorded ICrimina! Procedure in whic'n he denied the [he prosecution evidence. He stated that he gone to atiend the marriagB ceremony, he f., his wife was aii alone in the house, he has iiocent and he does not know who committed ^r hearing counsel for the respective parties, td/appsllant as afo''emeniioned. Ise! fo.r both the oarties. |es who saw the accused was not present in of the accusea") & Sukini Bai {mother of the jment, they have stated that accused, Pavilri |i.e. Doohan Ram (Tather of the accused) & |v/ent to attend the marriage at Ihe place of |er, the accused/appeliant aiong with his wife IThereafler, Doohan Ram & Sukin! Ba! came jhe moming, Sukini Bai woke up and wenl.to pp her daughter-in-law. where she saw Ihe statejment 1-9C—7S •sii^rw ft-fi* ^fSTT 3TT^?T sii^l^ 5^. 3^cT ^|A||C><M, ^Tfi'y'KS, Ki<rti+<y C^.A- A^-^J^ VWM 'gFffdf? an^?r vss (4°it-i«<<«i) ?«!IW(feSD^g dead body of her daughter-in-iawj, Ihey Vi/ere examined before the suoDorted the Drosecution case wjth their son v>'ent to attend }he nti the house, Vi'ho committed the accused has a!so stated that on tj went to attend the marriage. in the cross-examination also th^ cireumstance which estabiishes li fatefui night a'ong with his wife P^vi il is no evidence sase to establish] fateful nightwhen Ihe murder ofP^v rrju Thdse Pdv 8) For the foregoing reason^ conviclion & sentence imoosed ad offence under Seclion 302 ofthe l' 3) !n the resuit, the appea! su S-5-1998. He be set at iiberty forth '*|t|f<"]<il-1 IWqff if.fe^t <("]«(K ^siRpr aii^i •which was lying on the boti, whereas when ;ourt they lurned hostiie and Shey have not (jiuring trial. They have stated that they along lamage ceremony, Pavitri Bai was al! alone at rjurder of Pavitri Bai they do not know. The t(ie fateful day he was not at the residence, he dse witnesses have been dedared hoslile and Drosecution has not been ab!e 'io elicit any tat the accused was at the residence on S'ne fitri Bai (since deceased). Therefore, virtuaiiy It'nal Ihe accused was at the residence on Ihe '^vitri 3ai was committed. [ we are of the considered opinion thal the ^insi the accused/appel'ani Tor commission of hdian Pena! Code cannot be sustained. ;ceeds. Conviction & senlence imposed upon Ition 302 of ihe Indian Penal Code are sei the accused/appeilant under Sec|ti aside; he is acquitted of Ihe saii) charge. The accused is in detention since ^ith, if not requ'ired in any olher case. Sd/- LC.BhadciGs Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge