CF0000062800 {Ma-rin IN THE HlGi GOURT OF JUDICATLRE AT JAQALHE‘ £M.P¢). cmmr. awam‘ no. \\%¥\ OF 1999. J N—APPL CANT §ENT§NCE Life Imprisonment and fine ‘i 0f 33.5000/—, In default of payment of fine'BJ‘ for ' Additwnal two years. mlcum Under s'éctien 392 IPC. giwu. UNDER agcrmm 374 a; 1g song OF calm}. PRGCEDUBE‘. ‘ ’ ‘ ' k: , z 1 @Lmm .. GULAB 95x; of pyan Satnam, M 3c§\\ 3 \ aed‘ about 66 years , I: Resident of Katulw ‘1 ‘ ' msuict Burg, km. ‘ 9w § vag,gug 1 mm .. STATE OF Mm. 3am§mWW (,4 M w/ N. .. .... .é'si‘..::m»fx t i ,R vb mWWw murder of Inder agai, tsen‘rence i i 5for life and To pay la fine of Rs. i furfher undergo rigéorous‘ impriSr The case oféfhe prosem 27.1.1998 cw abom p.00 ppm. sa 10) Her-\bai were thking fee in Tm‘e .Lnder' Bm (smcte deceased) collecT The woods When Inder Bax did noT reTurn fpr 10-15 mmuTes ‘ l % K a . Dwqslon Bench e Hon ble Mr L C 8hadoo & Hon ble Mr. Dhnrendm Mishra, J'J 28.12.2007 Mr. Awadh Té‘ipafhi, Advc l Mr. MRS. Bhafin, Panel L i Oral judgmerh- di‘cm’red o .g Peri LC. Bhadoa J. i This appeal :is direcfed order of senTence lda‘l'ed 10*“ N‘ Sessmns Judge burg m Se KAddmonal Sessions; Judge affe: comrmsswn of offqnce under E ; 1 k? K ‘ x ‘ v ( u x ) l x l I l l x 5 l l l x l x l l cafe for The appellant 1wyer for The sla‘l‘e. 1 Dais'. againsfsl'he judgmenl‘ df convlc‘l'ion and larch 1999 passed by Tlhe 4*“ Addi'l'ional sslons Tr'lal No 154/Q8 whereby The holding The accused/adpellam‘ gull‘l‘y for ecTion 302 of The I.P.¢, for commlTTlng d him To undergo rigorpus imprisonmenT , 5,000/-, in defaulT of palymenT of fine To mmenT for Two years. V ITion, in brief, is ThaT iEn The'evening of a gun Bai (PW—5), her sisTler Bugli Bai/(PW— ~ fronT of The house of lSaro‘jbai, aT ThaT moTher of $agun Bai &lBugli Bai wenT To P.T.O. ‘m e i W y a. m a$9Q 00 : mmffwm @WW.W .mrp. ' éawm.’ Sagun B i wen‘l’ fha‘r side 1'0 see her‘, she heard The sound and when she saw To rds Thm‘ side, she saw ‘rhaf ac'cused was assauHihg her mother wiTh‘The axe, on which she raisec The cries ‘save—save‘, upon which PW—lO Bugli' Ba Hembai came running Accused ran away from The place of occurre ct Towards west side Thereafter PW—3 Kani'i Bai came ou‘l' of is fhe hou e and saw That accused was running away carrying axe m his hand. T ereafi'er, Thexsaw Thai Inder Bai was iying on The ground. The police was informed. The STaTio House Officer, Police STaTion Mohan Nagar r ceived The informaTion rough conTrol room aT abouT 5.15 p.m. ThaT Inder Bai has been murder d by Gulab SaTnami wiTh a sharp edged weapon lx‘r Village KaTulborde R ceivmg This informaTion Snri Ravmdra Upadhyaya STaTion House Offic r Police STaTion Mohan Nagar lefT for l The scene of occurrence, saw In er Bai lying on The ground and also The injuries on her Temporal region. Based on ThaT he reduced inTo wriTing Merg I TimaTion (EXP-8) and T ereafTer he prepared DehaTi Nalishi (Ex.P—1 ). Merg InTimaTion & D haTi Nalishi were senT To The Police STaTion Mohan Nagar for regis raTion of case upon which The FirsT Inform ion ReporT (EXP—22) regisTered by Shri Ashok Sharma, l Sub-in pecTor. Shri Ravinclra padhaya, S.H.O., prepared The inquesT reporT iExP-o) on The body of I der Bai. ShirT and lungi of The accused Were Taken inTo possession und r EXP-5. Axe, weapon of offence was 1’ ll i x seized under 'Ex.P-6. Body of deceased was senT for posTmorTem ;xx P.T.O. h s Emma .o .o..o‘. W 200 mm6mw0 WW§WW w " $Wm ’ ‘,$,—;: exammomon Tn ‘rhe Dls‘mcf Hos ‘ 1) condum‘ed The posTrnorTem on The body of deceased prepared posTmorTem reporT ExP 1 and o med ThaT The cause of deaTh is shock and haemorrhage as a resuiT of nTe—morfem mJurIes SiTe plan (ExP 9) wés prepared by The InvesTigaTm Gfficer. Recovered ar‘hcles were senT for chemical examinaTion To Th Forensic science Labora‘rory, Raipur celved frgm where report Ex P—23 was r' ag‘ains‘f ‘rhe accused/appellan‘r In Ciass, Durg, who in Tum comm burg from where learhed Addi ' case on Transfer for :1'riai. Th charge agains‘r ‘l'he accused Sfm'emen‘r of accused/appellant CrPC m which he demed ”(he prosecuhon ewdence and sfcrred impiicm‘ed m fhe crime: Affer hearing learned c0! of ‘l’he record, ' senfenced fhe accusedr’appeiian‘l', ‘\ as aforemenfioned. We have heerd Mr. \ Affer aomple‘hon of usu l mves‘hga‘l‘mn charge sheet was f‘led The Cour‘r of Judmml Mogis‘rm‘re Flrs‘r d The case To learned Sessions Judge, has received The ional Sessions [Judge prosecuTion in order To esTablish The pellanT examined Twelve wiTnesses. was recorded under SecTion 313x of The maTerial appearing againsT him in The fha‘r he is innocem‘ and has been faisely msel for respecfive parfies and perusal learhed Additiona! Sessions Judge eonvicfed' and for fhe Awadh Tripu‘i'hi, counsel Bha‘i'ia, Panel Lawyer for The Sfa‘re. ,accused/appellani‘ and Mr 'M.P.S. ;efg .4_.osgs ¥ P.T.O. lTal Durg where Dr V R ’Me'shram (PW- i / p 1 i;._Ws fwu 7 e x XI-HC—78 3a W, m, ‘1Wmgt Wm ‘ mmuaw> . o ovo/.‘. .‘o "W 200 \ ; EW‘WWW r’vv Homicidal dea'rh of Inde r Bai has noi‘ been dispui‘ed by learned counsel for The appellant. Mor eyewi‘l'nesses Sagun Bai (PW-5:, evidence of Dr'. V.R. Meshra‘i examination on ‘i'he body of deci nde-r‘ Bai was homicidal in nafun . As far as ‘rhe involvemeni cbgcemed, le‘arnedv counsel l W-5) & Bugli Bai (PW-10), daL as eyewrrnesses f0 1'he melden “their police diary s‘iai'emeni' evndence cannot be said to be lelembai has also noT been examiined. He placed reliance on The Judgmenf Her of 5Ta1'e of M.P. Vs. Kisbori ® Ted in 2005 Cr.L.R. [M.Pi] 386. ied Panel Lawyer for The $TaTe supporTs irhe judgmem of ‘l'he frial court In order 1‘0 appreciai‘e 'i'l or The appellan‘l', we have perL Bai (PW-5) & Bugli Bai (PW-10) he faieful day ai' aboui' 5-6Vp. iwenT all alone To bring wood. When her moTher did noT reTurn, she wenT WWEWW‘ ’ $WW f MP. Hig‘h Cour‘i' in The ma ishora and fhree ofbers repor On ‘l'he oTher' hand, leari eover, in View of The ocular evidence of Bugli Boi (PW-10) as also The medical EW-l), who conduc‘ied i'he posi'mor‘l'em :ased, if is esfablished iha’f The deaTh of \v of accused/appellanT in crime in quesTion or The appellanT argued ThaT Sagun Bai ghTers of deceased, have been examined T buT There are conTradic’Tions beTween and courT evidence, Therefore, Their reliable. Moreover, independen‘l’ wiTness ie argumen‘T advanced by learned counsel sed The eVidence of eyeWiTnesses $agun Shakun Bai (PW 5) has sTaTed ThaT on m. she was aT her residence, her moTher P.T.O. i P wards Thaf side where her moTher‘ had gone she saw Thm her mofhe was lying on The ground and The accused was assaulTipg her moTher Accused fhrea‘rened her alw ‘Hm‘r he W!!! assaul‘f her wwh The axe g.. er eous1n broTher gameshar wc i went PW-lO Buglig Bait ofher 1' a1" :abou‘} 4.30 p.m. {’n The evenin sffifig a? fhe residehce of Dudh if Ies from of her ‘I'he sw‘l‘er courfyard Sagun and fha‘l' saw Gu 1‘ id, .m fronT of her accused i assaulTed on i I x 1 ! ‘ Afcused was havmg axe In his hm The mgh‘r cheek of her mo‘fher Towards her fherefor‘e she ran aacused lef1' fhe place carrying ax We have perufsed-The pol e idence of Sagun Baii. In police c e wlre fec‘l Taking fhaf Tea ‘lhis in wH-rless frlmf of has fhe s‘l-a' ht has hof sfafed fhal‘ lfac‘l’ and ha w n‘l 1'0 collec‘r ‘l'he w910d she wen Havmg perused fhe whole w ich she has cafegprlcally slaw , Vkx I herefore she became frighTened and ran Towards The beTel shop where s sifh‘ng. she informed; him abou‘l' The l . daughTer of The deceafsed has sTaTed g she along wi‘rhlHembailand Saroj were 1a1'h, They were Talkingj on hearing The ab has aTTacked Their m'o'l'her she came aaT her moTher was lyingl on The ground. i l by ThaT axe and Thefreaf‘l'er rushed away from ThaT place. ‘l‘hereafrer, The e in his hand. g ce diary sTaTemenT aslalso The cour iary sTaTemenT There islomission To The ed ThaT she herself Bugli Bai & SaroJ )use whereas In The courT ewdence she s simply sTaTed ThaT when her moTher TTowards ThaT side. l police diary sTaTemenT ihf Sagun Bai in :d ThaT she saw The acused aTTacking a r T p 5 ‘I—Hic—78 3am, mg, W Wm 200 wW<W> i 1 wmr‘iéw f > H WW§WW wym ~ : WWW ’ "é" ' 'é:31%q§n%¥T 7 her mo‘rher', we are of fhe cons dared opinion Thu? There is no maferiai ccnfrhdicfion in fhe subs'mn‘iiai pari' of The police diary sfcri'emen‘r and Tie courf ewdence Therefore The above omission highlighfed by learned ccunsel for ihe appellan'r does n01“ affecf fhe evadence of Sagun BaL Moreover The presence of Sagm Bai a'r‘fhe residence in The evening cannof be doub‘ied as The eVidence of Sagan Bm Is corroborm'ed by The i ‘ evadence of PW 10 Bugii Ba: PW-11 Savri'rl as also +he doc‘l‘or (PWui) who body of deceased and found injurg‘es on C O ‘H’IEduc‘l‘ed The posTrnorTem on T righT side of Temporal region of The deceased. PW-3 KanTi Bai has also ed in her evidence Thal' on The faTeful I day aT abouT 4.30—5.00 p.111. sh was siTTing aT The residence of one Kishen She heard The cries of her sisTer—in law Sagun Bai "save save i when she came ouT of The house fTer hearing The cries she saw ThaT The i: accused was running away car ying blood sTained axe in his hand Therefore, she wenT inside The ouse. When she again came ouT of The ho se of Kishen To go To‘police Tion on The way RaJu meT her and she asked him To go WiTh her To The p lice sTaTion In The cross—exammahon f Sagun Bai (PW—5) & Bugli Bai (PW-10) Th defence has noT’ been a le To bring on record any maTerial conTradicTion which makes The e idence of These wiTnesses unreliable or unTrusTworThy. i ,,\ é , ' ' l . ‘ P.T.0. t» J X m ‘ w h T a As far as fhe gjudgmenf ci"ed by learned counsel f;br The appellanT H; concerned, The faéfs of Tha‘r aase are disfinguishabieifr'om The facts 0f presem case. In That case, in fac‘r, all mafer‘ial indepehden‘r wifnesses kad +umed hos‘l’He orgid/only fwo wi‘rnesses, who were in éiose relafion of fhe deceased, had deposed againsf The accused persons. lln The evidence t e maferial confradicfidns in 1'he police chary sftrl'emem' and courf ewde ce PW-3 Sher Smgh did no‘l‘ name any ‘ cf fgur ac‘l‘ud assmlan‘rs m T e police diary grafemen‘r There was cm‘moslTy beTween The accused ersons and Those wlTnesses Therefore The Trlal courT did inoT find T e ewdence of Those wn‘nesses worTh case The defence has noT been able To brmg on record anyThmg whim IndicaTe ThaT There was animosITy beTween The accused and The de eased and ThaT The ewdence of Sagan Ea! & Bugh Ba! suffers from any I firmITy Learned counsel for The a pellanT also argued ThaT In The InquesT reporT 1T has noT been men‘hone ThaT The crime was commITTed‘ by The t (‘l futhose fwo witnesses fhere reliance Whereas m The prese T l IT is noT necessary ThaT in he inque'sT reporT The name of accused be menTioned however in The merg lnTIma‘hon Ex P 8 whTCh was reco ded WiThm a gap of less Than 21 hours ased on The conTroliroom messa e The name of accusediwas menTIoned s such prompTly The name of a sed was made known To The police and i i l P.T.O. l i i T l \r ‘ M i ‘XI—Hc—78 r w c u ..... mww;‘ WW XP-8. Trefore“ This arume‘ bf ls ha no merit argued by iearne counsel for The l d ‘ we are of The considered opinion fha‘r The judgmenT bf Tr‘i corT concTing missin of murr of Inder Bai. bei devoid of meriT is liable To be ng missed. 1v Ni t. EWTH§ $HW E he gnr se was en‘rere in The 'n counsel for Th apellam' o o‘fher poin‘f has bee or The forego reason F ing s r; s n iiiegaiiTy or nfrmiT n ia q vi Tha i o iiy i an eTencing Th acced for c n The restilT, Te appeal diid ad iT is accdgly di Sdl— LC.BADOO‘ .H P.T.O. x ' . u...u...‘n.3a’3.. W " 200 ‘mm’(W) Em $ {/ ‘ am d I réd e p N r ao s mo de d sn e us ¢ gi h smsse n orin s