CF0000062158 ; i^^^3l^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR H.P. CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.'^~(3| OF 1999 UETOER SECTION 374(2J OF THE CODE OF CRIMZNAL PROCEDURE 1973 ./^p 'L^' ^l.-:' ^v'",< ^:-.<>; ^L-y" ..s^"' M j>-: ^\^'" --T APPELLANT TINT'JAID^ RESPONDSIST ^ ^L \^'i" $ Suklal»s/o Chamra (3ond^aged 37 years^ r/o village Pusapal»P»S» Farsagaon^ District^ Bastar M.E. , •VERSUS s The &fate of M.P. throygh S.H.O., - P»S» FarasgaoByDistrict Bastar M.P. XI-HC-78 W^T^Tf^rt^ cCT'3TT^T5b^J4) ^) ^l+l^ll Sb+licb ^cT -qi^ld^, ^Tfl^^Ko, fs|dl^^< ..CT7.fr..t^.ft.^.'^j |^ ^w- 311^1 451<h (licl^s<^!i:T) ^TTW^f^T^T^T Division Bench: • Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo & Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mish ct)i^f<^^nTi ^iH^T^:tel:^<r^<-di< ^3Tf^T3T[^T a. JJ. 28-2-2007:- Shri Alok Bakshi, couns^t for the appellant. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Pan sl Lawyer for the State/respondent. Oral judgment dictated ^>n Dais. L.C. Bhadoo, J. This appeal is directed ^gainst the judgment ofconviction and order of sentencedated 20/8/99 pa^sed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in S.1\. Sessions Judge after holding No.129/97 whereby learned Additional the accused/appellant guilty under Section 302 of the I.P.C. for committinb murderof Bhaktu Ram, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life|& to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undejrgo R.l. for one year. The case of the prosecjution is that on the fateful day Suklal came to the house of Lakhmu Ram that time Pankin Bai was at at about 9-10 a.m. and asked him that his meal be also cooked in his h<|>use, as his wife is not at the residence, at her residence and was busy in preparing broom. At about 11-12 noon phadkin Bai came there for selling paddy to Lakhmu, therefore, Lakhmu w^nt inside the house for weighing paddy. In the meantime, the accused deceased Bhaktu Ram whicll Ram, on which Lakhmu came picked up axe lying there and attacked was seen by Pankin Bai, therefore, she raised cries and called Lakhr|nu saying that Suklal has attacked Bhaktu |out and saw that the accused was attacking P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3:n^T^Tf^W cT^T^TWT^TW ll^fc 3^[ ^l^lld^, ^TTl^JI<o, l^Krtl^y Nl^ldl sh*lich ^IT 200 W^\ <4^<h (lic(^q^T) ^<n'w^f?cf^n^T offilcer Bhaktu Ram, thereafter he r^ There were injuries on the n^ out of the injuries. The Pharasgaon under Ex.-P/1. /^f ofthe I.P.C., station house of occurrence. He sent body to the Community Health Q conducted post-mortem, prep^ he opined that death was horr^ great vessels leading to custody, the accused gave m< of offence, in pursuance of thi the accused under Ex.-P/6. into possession under Ex.-P/7. After completion of the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1s the case to the Sessions Judg] Sessions Judge received the c| The prosecution in or accused examined 8 witnesse' under Section 313 of the Cr.f against him in the prosecutior has been falsely implicated in the respective parties, learne< sentenced the accused as afor <=bl^?d41-1 ^l^dT^tel:^<(^<-^< ^^Tf^R'OT^T m away. He saw body of the deceased. i^ck, temporal region and blood was oozing rr^atter was reported to the police station ter registering the crime under Section 302 offi|cer Rajendra Kumar Sinha left for the scene )f Bhaktu Ram for postmortem examination mtre, Pharasgaon where Dr. G. Mishra >red post-mortem report (Ex.-P/2), in which icidal in nature. Cause of death is injury to hae^norrhage and shock. While in the police ^morandum Ex.-P/5 regarding axe, weapon t, axe was got recovered at the instance of >lain soil and blood stained soil was taken Investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Class Kondagaon, who in turn committed ^, Jagdalpur from where learned Additional ase on transfer. r^ler to establish the charge against the Statement of the accused was recorded |.C. in which he denied material appearing evidence, stated that he is innocent and t|ie crime. After hearing learned counsel for Additional Sessions Judge convicted and r^mentioned. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^n^T^Tf^ri^ crsrrw^T^RT^ -< 3^ -qiq|<-t<L|, ^Tf|<-l^l^, [^^1^^< +11+K11 ?b+11<sh ^ 200 3^1^1 ^5|ch ^RrTW^fN'W^T We have heard learned Learned counsel for homicidal death of the deceas RA/-3 Pankin Bai and PW-2 accused assaulted the G. Mishra (R/V-5), who cor deceased and has stated that cheek in the size of 4cm x 2 c was cut, mandible bone wa; nature, death was homicidal deceased Bhaktu Ram was the accused/appellant has not disputed ^ed. Moreover, from the ocular evidence of Lakhmu Ram, who have stated that the deceasjed with axe as also medical evidence of Dr. ^ducted postmortem on the body of the ^here was incised wound on the right side of ^m x2 cm, on account of that great vessels fractured, injuries were ante-mortem in in nature, it is established that death of hohiicidal in nature. B^i Rah As far as involvement of is concerned, PW-3 Pankin relevant time, she was sitting) Lakhmu Ram and Bhaktu Rat about 11 a.m. the accused meantime, Dhadkin Bai camel Dhadkin Bai in his house for accused attacked the deceas therefore, Lakhmu came out evidence of Pankin Bai is Ram. He has also stated requested him that his meal not at the residence. In the selling the same, therefore, h< In the meantime, Pankin Bai ^l^td^-l ^l^-K-lT^fte^^^K ^3Ti^q-3n^T counsel for the parties. the accused/appellant in crime in question B^i has stated that on the fateful day at the at her house, she was preparing broom. were working in the kitehen garden. At ^fas sitting in the kitchen garden. In the with paddy, therefore, Lakhmu went with ^eighing the paddy. In the meantime, the jed with axe, on which she rajsed cries, (?ut the accused ran away with axe. The corr^borated by the evidence of PW-2 Lakhmu the accused came to his house and cooked at his house because his wife is m|eantime, Dhadkin Bai came with paddy for |went inside the house for weighing paddy. rfaised cries that the accused has attacked P.T.O. tlhat b^ XI-HC-78 3:n^T^rf^TW cf^TW^T^HW ^oET -qiqiol^, ^Tfl^^Ko, [cl^ll^^ ^ +11+1dl Sf)^[T^ H^ 200 311^1 <^^ch (lic<^c'^) ^RTT^K^cT^n^T accitsed further the deceased with axe, on wh|i Bhaktu Ram was already deac| he tried to cateh him, the of these two witnesses is Dhadkin Bai. She has statedl selling the paddy. When Lakfl heard cries of Pankin Bai thatl axe. Therefore, from the abov| scene of occurrence is estaj attacking the deceased, on he tried to catch the accused in the evidence of these of these witnesses which unreliable or untrustworthy. wHich witne^ses Learned counsel for th< has admitted in her cross-e> between the house of Lakhrlnu possible for her to see the inci< We have perused e^ examination, nothing has c< obstruction between the hous< the cross-examination, she ha; the deceased with axe. H< corroborated by the evidence came to his house with a because hjs wife is not availal cbi^?<n^-i ^i^<nT^:te1c^i'<l^<-4i< ^^rf^R'w^T lich he came out of the house and saw that and the accused ran away with axe. When tried to attack him also. The evidence corroborated by the evidence of PW-4 tthat she came to the house of Lakhmu for imu was weighing paddy, at that time, they the accused is attacking the deceased with /|e evidence, presence of the accused on the iblished, as Pankin Bai saw the accused she raised cries, Lakhmu came out and |>ut he ran away. There is no contradiction >. There is nothing in cross-examination rifiakes the evidence of these witnesses accused/appellant argued that Pankin Bai Famination that there was plant of beans and her house, therefore, it was not lent. tidence of Pankin Bai. In her cross- ^me which shows that there was total of Pankin Bai and Lakhmu. Moreover, in stated that she saw the accused attacking le|r evidence, as mentioned above, stands y Lakhmu, who has stated that the accused r^quest that meal be also cooked for him ^le in his house, even Dhadkin Bai has also P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3^T ^n^TT^T^^TflWTg', [ct^ll^^< +11*1^11 sh^lch ^ 200 311^1 ^5|cft ('ic<i^s<<^T) 3:n^T^if^ri^ cT§TT3:TT^T9h^l<=h .^-' Ban/e 1 ^cTT^K^TfNw^T corroborated the evidence of F| substance in the argument accused/appellant. not find any illegality or infirmit\| dismissed and it is hereby disrr^ chl^I^^l-1 ^l^<ylT^:te1[:^'<f^^<il< ^3Tf^T3TT^T 'ankin Bai. Therefore, we do not find any advanced by learned counsel for the In view of the evidenlce of these witnesses as also medical evidence, it is establjshed tha|t the accused was author of the crime in question who caused fatal injuity to the deceased with axe, as such we do in the judgment of the trial Court. In the result, the app^al being devoid of merit is liable to be issed. Sdf- L.C/Bhadoo Judge Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O. '4fv