,rf'e''\ vt^ .>? ^> I 82._ I. ^ HluH COURT OF CHi-iATTiSGAftH AT Bii-ASPUR DB: Hon'bte Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Mnn'hla ^h" P M r^hianrlraEirar .Ll Crlminal Appeal No. 116/2004 APPtLLAN f!r..!si!'! AiaKh Ram Sanu. S/o. Sh"/ Ram Sahu, aged Vs. about 38 years, K/o. Vi!!agp Lachkera, Thana Rajim, Disii. Raipur (C.G.) Respondent State of Chhattisaam, Tnrough P.S. Rajlm, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Cnmlnal A.DDeai under Section 374(2) of the CT^C;! Piesent: Shri UKS Chandel, counsel for the appeiiant. Shri UNS Deo, Go'A. Advocate for the State. QRAL JUDuMENT (11.08.2010) The foiiowing Judgment of the Court was deiivered by Dhirendra Mishra, ^. 1. The appeliant has preterred thls crimina! appea! under Section 374(2) of the Code QT Cnminai Procedure against the juagment of convict'on and order of sentence dated 24 November, 2003 passed in Sessions Trial N".23?,'2Q03- wherebv tearnsd 3 Additiona! SesslQns Judae. Rainur has convicted the appefant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for committina murder ot Jaadish and Yoaeshwar and sentenced him to undergo lirs imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- on each count and in the event of defauit of payment of fine, to I'urther undergo additiQnal R.l. for 4 months for each defauit. 2. Case of the prosecut'on, in briet, is that on 04.06.2003, at about 17:30 hours, Jagcilsh and h's son Yogeshwar went in their bullock cart, carrylng manure ror spreading in the fieid. The tield of the deceased persons is adlacent to the r'eld of the aDpeilant and cart track aoes throuah the "eid of the appeiiant. However, the appeliant had tenced his nela and fitied It wlth water. Therefore, the deceased persons went to their fieid ihrougn another wav. Both Jaad'sh and YQaeshwar went to the hutment of the aDDeiiant and c"mDla!ned for obstructina their wav to the fle'd, whereupon quarrei ensued and at ihat tlme, appeliant assauited them with axe and spade, as a resu!t, Jagciisn aied on tne spot anci Yoaeshwar sustained grievous injuries. 3. A named report was iodged by Deenabandhu, on the basis of which, mera IntimatiQn and crime was reatetered aaainst the appeiiant under Sections 302 and 307 of iPC. However, Yogeshwar died whiie underQQinc! treatment in hospita! on 8.4.2003. 4. Dr. P. Qureslya (PVv-17), who examined Yogeshwar vide Ex.P-26 tQund the fQiiowina iniuries over his person: (1) incised wound of s'ze 5cm x 3cm symmetric in shape over the right side of his neck. (2) Incised wound beiow injury No.1 of size ocm x 3cm. '3) incised wound iust above the chin of size 2 cm. '4) One iacerated wound under lower lip of size 3cm x 1cm. Both the eyes are swoilen on account of subconjuntivat hemorrhage. (5) Left and right mandibie got fractured from middie (6) Incised wound of size 2cm x % cm on the iefi cheek. Aii the injuries have been described as grievous in nature. The doctor reterred him for X-ray and further treatment to Med'cal GQllege HQsp'tal Ralpur. 5. This witness has also conducted pQstmQrtem over the person of deceased-Jaadish and proved his postmortem vide Ex.P-31 'n whicrs, he found ths following injunes. injuries: (1) incised vsrttoal wound or slze 3 cm x3 cm piercing inside after bisecting bone of fore-head upto the depth of 4 cm x5 cm. (2s incised wound of size 5cm x 2cm riaht side of the head. This 'niury aiso extended deep inside after cuttina bones. (3) incised wound on the parietal bone of size 6 cm x 2 cm piercina inside cuttina bone. (4) incised wound besldes this in'urv of size 5 cm x 2 cm, bone under the iniunes were aiso cut. (5) Two !ncised wound o" the back slde ot the neck one overiapping S- -- 'iuf 7. 8. another QT' size of 7 cm x 3 cm. He further opined that nature and cause of death was homicidai, as a resuit of excessive bleeding due to shock. Dr. Rajkumar Singh (PW-10), Professor, Medical Coiiege, Raipur conducted postmortem on the person of deceased Yogeshwar and aave his report vide Ex.P-13. He has aiso described the injuries, which were found by Dr. P. Quresiya (PW-17). He has opjned that Yogsshwar died, as a resuit ot complications arisina out ot the injunes and due to cardio-respiratory faiiure. From the evsdence of Dr. P. Quresiya (PvV-17) and Dr. Rajkumar -Singh (PVV-10), homicidal death Qt Jagdish and Yogeshwar is estabiished. The trial Court has convlcted the appeliant reiying upon the evidence of eye-witnesses Ganga Ram (P"V-3) and Jitendra (Fw-4). On ciose scrutiny of the evidence of the above witnesses, it is Qbserved that they have categQrically deposed that the appeilant ^m^ j^:^:i;:;l^..s^ S4 assaulted jagaish ana Yogeshwar, who had gone to thelr fieid &y buiiocK cart. He assaujted tnem with spade and axe. Gangaram narraied the incident to Pvv-1 uesnbandhu, brother oi Jaaciish, who immediateiy 'odged the report at about 8.00 p.m. A!< "f them went IQ the spot and found Jagciish dead and Yogeshwar gnevousiy injured. Yoaeshwar was taKen QR tractor to Hospita! ^nd from there, he was further referred to Medicai Coiiea.e, Raipur for treatment. Their evidence is further corrobQrated from the evidence of Deenbandhu jpW-1), who iodged the report on the same day ai 8.00m p.m. against the appeiiant. Their version is aiso corroborated from the medica' evidence ot the aoctors, who conaucted postmQrtem over the person of Jagdish and examined Yogeshwar, wno was in injured cQnaiiion, ana found correspQRdina injuries on their persons. We are unaoie to accept the araument of iearned counse! for the appeiiant ihat deceased persong were aggressors as they picked up quarre! firstiy with the wife of the appeilant in connection with fencing and removed the tencing erected by the appeiiant in his fleid. From the evidence avaiiabie on record, we find that the deceased only asked the wife of the appeiiant as to why they had obstructed cart track used by them to go to their tield and on that juncture, the appeiiant came and opened assault. Thus, iooking to the manner in which, the deceased oersons were assauited, the weapon of offence used tor assauit, the part of the body where assauit was made and the number of injuries present over their persons, intention of the appeiiant to cause death of the deceased can safely be inferrea. :sf ];^s%a^a:j) 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the tnai C-Qurt, on the basls of the evidence 01 the eye wtnesses, has rightiy heid the appeiignt guiitv under Sectlon 302 of the IPC and semenced him IQ undergo iife imprisonment for cQmmittlng murder of Jagdisn and Yoaeshwar. 11. in the resuit. the appea! being dsvoid of an" substance, deservss to be and is, accordingiv, dismissed. ^J S"d/- R-N. Chandrakar Judge rfSS^Ss ^ 3