CF0000057558 1m T1111 rIIG£~1 pQ‘JRT Lh‘ I‘LmJHXA luAL/Eoh ”T JA%Ll;UR Criminal Appea No“ @LZBC} I uaJu Ram allas loaanlnljln dall), bon of Sukhdew Yadav, ‘ iaqed about‘ r26 vaars, z 'i‘ésijent of » ivaripa‘c, Holgce $tatlon— Akaltara, Tah51l Jan3q1H alwtmct, DwAaGR VmRaUS APPELLANT 3 —v N 37m, r lg} .‘wmwATav The State of Ma‘jh'ya wadesh, ‘ Throuah imkjméxwmkxmmx The District (Akalt'ara: Maoistra’ce, Tahsil, J'anjgi x District, BILJA Pub my)“ x‘l U ‘ Thar Appellant being aggrieved by the judigment :WExxaogANDUM 0" Ckliv’INAL APEEAL DNBER Ecnw 374(2) or vHE com: 0y QRmmAL m cwmxh. wMNsw rHE Jumivmw AND OTDCR “L 251m m {or 1989 HaaSEL‘ BY sum LaJ‘. SINGH, 533:3 wmTIDNADSESS’ioms JUDGE fro THE COERT u shadow JUUGb, HIMSPUR m $F$DIOM Tum-m M3 24/89 APkELuA‘Kr mm“ mc 3,04 . LAPT I AH.) mIM HExLUkDLa “E REQPECTIVhuL o‘Ei‘TENCES CQN SECUT I VBLY o 3 an§ Grier aforesaid begs to prefer this appeal interalia on the following grounde ;~ .-\ l x h E , 3 \ 0-9;. . X’I—HC-78 HWWW .. 9 (J1 ANA 1mm m u n n .. u uuLWxYlfL- w L‘Kmi u O MK wzob/ W wwwm ' 2mm ‘ ‘LaEwm I I 24m 2097 Shri CR. Sahu, ccunsei 1 Shri Arum Sac, Govt. Adv Arguments heard. w «Judgment dictat‘ed as foii 3W3 i GRii‘ §.' I SijNaiJ UN? ER :sii‘méHA J This appeai is directed as an séntence dated 25.08.1‘98E Fir t Additional Ses3ions wage ha ding the appeHant guiity of tr Pa % and 323 of IPC, sentenc R! or six months, respectiveiy. He also directed se ara‘teiy. The case of the prosecx the accused-appe“ant,showing deaeesed Sudarshamhad ma deceased Sudar5ha‘n, had re: ;isted. But, the dispute between them or the appeHant. ocate for the Stare. rL JUDGWIENT 24.01 .20Q7} ;ain3t thejudgment arid order m: senviction a passed in Session Triai No.24f89 by the r, Biias'pur. The ieameci triai Judge, after e offences punishabie under $ecrions 304 ed him to undergo Ri for seven years and the seniences t0 run :tion is ihat 4—5 days prior to 15.1f).i988, his right over the open iand (Kotar) of the G‘ :ie some fencing by plantarion on whioh Ni\ i i x ‘ L y Wamwiaw> ‘ XI-HC-78 @ WW,W,W (£A”08?2é€q200 WW'(W) , i i WW§WW r mwm "2* ontinued and on 1510:1988 when the aCcused again went to the said otar and started‘working over the iand, the deceased again resisted‘ due o which certain quarrei took pace and in the said quarrel the accused ave two pickaxe biows to the deceased causing injuries over his head and right hand. LaChanbaKP V‘ nten/ene, on which the accus d aiso caused injury to her.“ The matter Was reported to the Police Stati n by Lachanioai (PW-t) on which FIR (Ex- ~‘. ’ W15) was recorded. Lachanb i was sent for medical examination under x—P/6 and deceased was also sent for medical examination. The injury port of Lachanbai was prepar d vide Ex-P/7 and the injury report of the ,eceased was prepared vide Ex-P/8. Thereafter, the deceased was died on eferred to the Government hosp§taL Biiaspur where he 8.10.1988. ostmortem was conducted by Dr. PL‘. Gupta who after conducting the ostmortem prepared his rep rt under Ex—PI'i2A and epined ‘that the ause of death was due to si ock and hemorrhage resulting from the njuries to vitai organs iike‘ b'ain and skuiL ¢~ nvestig'‘ation'by the police, char e-sheet was filed in the Céuri of J.M.F.C.l Bilaspur, who in turn committe the case to the Court of‘Sessions, from én‘mm .‘ V -1)‘ the wife of the deceased went to ‘ i Airer' campietion of the re His body was sent for postmortem under Ex-P/12. The / XI—HC—78 1 1 WW; Wan—c;iW W ‘/ L, MLm ‘ ‘ O .éji'./¥3;Ma.~‘.gf12é§q200 waxmam ‘E ‘ WW§WW. é€a1%tr311%¥r ‘-' by the First Additionai Sessions Judge, ts for the offences under $ectio'n 30a read :onducted the trial. After completion of the and sentenced as aforementioned. :ence of the accused is based upon the ses. namely, Lachanbai and Fudeshanram the wife of the deceased and PW—Z 1e deceased. ng for the accused/appellant argues that isted witnesses, therefore, their testimony 'ictlon based upon the testimony of thes e 5et aside. in her evidencethat Kotar iand is situated ird hue and cry she came out from her ‘el is going on between her husband and ~ elongs to them. The accused has made id and her husban‘d has removed those .a ason for quarrel between them. On that quarrel, the accused gave two piickaxe blows to her husband on which her where the case was received Biiaspur who framed the charge with Section 323 of [.P.C. and ( trial‘ the accused was convicted The conviction end sen V e testimony of the two eyewitness (PW-2). PW-i Lachanbai is Fudeshanran‘z is the brather of ti Learned counsel appear since these witnesses are intere could not be reiied on and com two ocular witnesses should be : Lachanbai (PW-1) states near her house, when she he; house and saw that some quart the accused. The Kctar land b some plantation on the said la: piantations and this was the re; WW(W)' ‘ » @ WW,WW WET m (lJ1AA/0’3q2gé 8210 WW<W> - WW§WVW. _ , emm husbandreceived injuries. She specificaiiy mentioned that the accueed had giveh two blowrs to her husband. She aieo states that when she was going to intervene, the accused also assaulted her with the pickaxe on Whict she also received injury on her head. She further states that at that time i:udeshanram(PW—2) also fame to that spot and when the accused satv'"3deshanram (PW-2) he ran away from the spot. She says that there fter she took her husband to the police staiion o_n rickshaw and a repo was lodged. .ljer husband was admitted ln hospital Akaltara)‘: from days. l‘ iAnother witness Fudeshanram (PW—2),who is the younger brother of the: deceased, also states that when he reached the piace of occurrence. he saw that the accused is assaulting his brother Sudarshan with t e help of pickaxe. He has specificaliy mentioned that he has seen , the'oc urrence at a distance of 20—22 steps. He had also keen his sister- in—Iaw (Bhabhi) Lachanbal at the seen of occurrence. He further mentions ll that after seeing him the accus ed ran away from the place ff occurrence. Q maeam ' \ We v: évhere he was shifted to B laspur hospitai where he died aftet three l Though lengthy cross-examination of these witnesses has been done by the de ence oounset, but the defence counsel has not been abte to bring XI—HC—78 ‘ . .4H;Azyq.~.&7g/§g 200 mum<waw0 Hmwm F g— %mmm .\ any such circumstance on the basi$ of which presence of these witnesses n'ay be doubted or their testimony may be doubted on account of any other fact. The argument of tearneH counsel for the accused/appellant that since the two eyewitnessesmameiy Lachanbai (PW—1) and Fudeshanrarn u f (PW-2) are the close reiatives of the deceased i.e. wife and brother, their‘ testimony shouid not be beiiered, cannot be accepted mereiy on this g ound. About the testimony oi the reiative witnesses, it has been heid in i & v tt+e matter of Rizan and-others V3. The State of Chhattisgarh (Am 2%}03 SC. 976), 'v‘ide Paragraph 6 of the above judgment; €othat the relationship is not a factor to effect the credibility of a W‘tness. it is more often than not that a relation would not‘conceai actual stilprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation haS t be laid if plea of false implication is made. in such case, the Court has to adopt a caretut approach anzl analyse the evidence to hnd outwhether it is cogent and credible.” Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court l re‘ported in AIR'ta'fS SC Pg.1 )73, the Division Bench of the Kerala High l e! Court also held in the matter cl: Sahadevan Rajah and others Vs. $tate l of Keraia, reported in 1992 <;Ri.L.J. 204$) that the straightforward and J; a u$91/§i% zoo ~ mamm’ ~«<~~ ~ trustworthy evidence>of relation: for sustaining the éonViction. S the prosecution case. 1f you apply this principle mma‘fer‘wm‘ ’ asmum f ; of the deceased need not corroboration Jch evidence cannot be discarded on the ~o§e ground of interestedness in nto the facts of this case, it would appear hatthe evidence of these two t V. err presence on the scene o . occurrence . is reasonable ‘v and . natural, ‘ ‘ ereiy on the groundjthat they are the relatives of the deceased. their t’ siimony cannot‘be doubted. i1 i t . ‘ jearthe place of occurrence anc l resent in their house, it is quite woutd hear the hue and cry of the deceased and they wouid feel that the life of the deceased is in dange r, they would rush to the spot and they ouid be the ocular witnesses to the occurrence. ln such circumstances, t eir conduct would be straightforward and their presence as well as t stimony cannot be doubted and their evidence cannot be discarded. tn " t e opinion of this Court, the lee med $essions Judge has committed no irregularity while relying on the testimony of the two uiitnesses resulting conviction of the accused/appeil the house of the deceased is admittedly wife and the brother of the deceased are natural conduct that when those relatives s witnesses are straightforward and since a X7 I—HC—8 3a q " hf, "€ V . CJLAJNQ: (gcll/ \, 200 WWWa?!) mmwm r7” The ieamed Sessions Ju 3304Part—l of the LRC. The evic ence of; ‘Dr. RC. Gupta (PW-8) as welt gs the postmortem report woulud show that there was a fracture at the accipital region of the decease 'uptured and blood clots yvere we‘lc? that since the deceased h wwwefmmu’l agmm ‘ “ v : *4 after the incident during the course of treatment, the single injury caused c the head of the deceased wa £ uarre‘ between the uncle & ne nd the incident took place all ccused. therefore‘ the offence s fatat and the assault took place after the zphew on account of certain land dispute of a sudden on account of anger of the Would not fell under $ection 302 of l.P.C. nd the same wouid not travel l pinion of this Court, the afores ;aid view taken by the learned Additional essions Judge does not appear to be unreasonabie. Learned counsel or the appettant could not point out any such circumstance on the basis of t, hich, such view taken by the Court. dt l in the opinion of this c appeal. The appeal 'f being ole mw9n“*g’1 :lge convicted the appellant under Section d. Even some portton of the brain was present there. The Sessions Judge has as not died instantaneousiy, ‘diecl 3 days )eyond Section 304 Part-I of l.P.C; tn the Sessions Judge can be interfered by this :ourt, there appears to be no merit in this void substance, deserves to be dismissed t 3am, WE,W (31/4 0:..Qfil/g 200 WW(W) w mmwm ‘g’ ' and ”the same is dismissed. WW§WW " é?31%:ran%¥r _‘ t is said that the appeilant is on baii. He Shali surrender toihe custody 3f the trial Court to undergo the remaining 5.. ail sentence awarded to him. XI—HC-78 ‘ km ‘ ‘iii Sd/— I . 3:: Sunil Kumar Sinha ' - - Judge