an^r q? R;-<i»h W SfKS sniiqi ~3:ees'^Vv^, 0Tfl+f'i<o, isirti'yy ^Wvll **<|cb C^.A. ^o. '^O^/ZAoi •'fV^ 200 an^yr'tigsR (lj<<f'l«i<iT) TOnwdfOTsn^r APPELLANT: (In Jail) V$reus - RESPQNDENT: {Crirainal appeal under SecU^n 374 (2) ofS»eCoda of th®Griminal Proc^dure, 1973} Division Bench: Hon'ble Mr. L.C. Bhadoo and Hon'ble Mr. Sunil KumarSinha. 10-8.2007 Miss Sangerta Mishra, courfsel Mr. Vinay Harit, Deputy Deputy Govt. Advocata for the Oral judgment dictated on Sunil KumarSinha. d: - This appeal is dh-ected agaiitst the ludgment sentence dated 30-7-2001 passey (Fast Track Court), Jashpur Nagafr theappellant wasconvicted under undeigo imprisonment for life payment of fine to further undergo an41 <+iit<"i41"t iiwl 4.feIA <["it(it ^'sifimsii^i MoUram, S/o Jagma, Aged about 40 years, Occupadon: ^rkaitture, R/o Jorador Chotfdpara, Police Station: Paftalgaen, Distt.: Jashpur Nagar (C.©.) Sfarte of Chhattisgarh, Through Potiw Station: Pathalyion, Distt.: Jashpur Nagar (C.G.) y. tor the appellant. Generat with Mrs. Anju Ahuja, Stat^/ respondent. Ws. of conviction and order of by the 2 Addifional Sessions Judge |r in Sessions Trial HoS8f2QQ1, whereby iecUmi 302 ofthe I.P.G. and sentenced to pay a flne of Rs.5,009/-, in defautt of R.l. fbr five montte. \, XI-HC—78 's^t "iii-yi^, 0'al'y'K?, (sicii'Hy MINdl *NI* CT.A.^o. ~:)D^^-OQi "W( SII^T TR[q; ( ijcjt.l«)<{eT: sn^f ^i R-II'* j ^TSTT 3{T^T ^R '^giwfffei aii^T Z-- delpressed Case of the proseartion, in the appellant assaulted his wife by| injury. After the assault, e appel|ant and made extra judicial confessit deceased. Report of the incitten< (FW-3), son ofttie accused, in Poli<t< of investigatiori, the body was sent Pathalgaon under requisiUon Ex.P]- P. Sudhar (PW-8) who prepared) post-mortem report, there was a front porUon of head admeasurin^ swelling on front side of, chest ha^i reddish in colour and Uiere was otfl examlnation it was found that there] and membrane of brain was also inj the brain membrane. According tc| was head injuiy& injury on vital the said injuries. In police cu^ody), Ex.P-3 based on which clubwas s< was seized under Ex.P-5. Plain so| the place of occurrenceunder E) tnvestlgating Officer under Ex.P-8 Patwari under Ex.P-13. After usual investigatlon, chs Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur Nagar] Court of Sessions Judge, Ralgarh, 4]'i|ld41-i intRJf ii.ls^ ^f"i<$i< ^i'aTRpTsn^i )risf, te that on 8-10-2CXX) atabout 8 p.m. |a club in his own house who recaved an went to the house of Sonibai (PW-7) |>n before her regarding s^saulting BTC Ex.P-6 was lodged by Jt^endra Ki^ur |e Stab'on: Pathatgaon. During the course for post-mortemto Pnmaiy HeaWi Cenfre, 1-9. Po^-mortem was conducted by E^. his ref»rt Ex.P-14. Aasording to the lacerated wound on right side of 3 cms. x % cm. x % cm., there was |ing diffusion, skin ever the swelting was ^er swetling on back porfon. On Intemal ]was a depressed fracture offtontal bone jured. Abigbloodclotwasfbimdbeneatti the post mortem repwt, caise of death i.e. brain, and shock & comachte to the accused gave meraoiandum under iized under Ex.P-4. Blood stained towel and blood stained soil were seized from (.P-2. A site plan was prspared by the another stte plan was prepared by ftie orfian ahd |rge sheet was filed in ttie ©ourtof Chief whe in turn committed the <ase to the Ifrom where, the matter was received on -"\" XI-HC—'; snt^ ?ii [<-)i<ti j wiisii^rgfflra' Tvss ^mf^f, srftTpre, RirtK-iy CTTS'- ^. ^Jo- ~>P^j''2^0l @ aii^r WK ( ^fRTt^fe 311^1 -*llf^ii)-< tlIIRJf tf.fs^ ^fSR?R ^raiigiTsn^r transfer by the 2nd Additional Nagar, for frial, who conducted appellant, as aforemenUoned. Se|ssions JwSge ^ast Track Court), Jsshpur tfie tn'al and convfcted and sentenced the Leamed counsel for the"d examined Jogendra Kujur (PW-( hostite and has not supported the| of other witness namely, Sonibai extra judiciat confession, is unreti^ the manner in which the offence is travel beyond Section 304 Part-1 since 2000, fterefore, if he is hel the I.P.C., he may be puntehed fo( On the other hand, learnecl and supports the judgment of com trial Court. ippellant aigues that the prosacution has i)^ as an eyewftness, but he has turned |case ofthe prosecuBon, and tha evidence (PW-7) before whom the accused made |bte. In ft»ealternathre, she also argues that said to have been committed, it woutd not of the I.P.C. and the appellantis in Jail P to be gdlty under SecUon 304 Part-11 of ]the period already undeigone by him. State counsel opposes Vhese arguments fction and order of sentonce passed by the We have heard Miss Sa appellant and Mr. Vinay Harit,|< State. So far as the evidence of J< i|igeeta Mishra, learned eounsel for the ijamed Depufy Advocate General tor <he a^endra Kujur (PW-^) is coneemed, he has deposed in flrst paragraph of his ejvidence that he does net know as to how his mother died. He has been d^ctared hostlte by the prosecution. fifter cross-examination by the Govemn(ent Advocate, nothing matertal has been brought on record on which he cai^ be said to be useful for the presecgdon. As far as the evidence of Sonibai (PW-7) is concemed, she has dsposal In XI-HC—78 3rcT '^Wt'ft^, axTl'M'Ko, fartl'yy C~S-.(\.^c.. '^-oij'2^0^ 4 an^?r ^a^ (i^sif^<st<aT) 311^1 ??T R-iieh f W 3tI^T sktljeb ^arwgftaan^T -^ <*^'?i^'f /iw^iT ^f^^lr ^^R ^aifgiTsii^r a^aln hoiksie her evidence that aceused Motirtim about 9 p.m. Motiram had came thereafter, he made extra Judici^l deceased. On this statement, she| he shoutd have teft her. On this Thereafter, he went from her anything material and adveree Inj judicial confession made by th{ appears to be true, genuine, na( witness does not appear to be accused. There does not appear statement to the accused by this| aboutthe extra judicial confessloni is son of her brofter-in-law (Jath), at her house, said for a gla»of water and eonfession thsrt he had mwdered Uie |said as to why he muidered fte dwseased, i, he replied ttiat "I have murdered her". Defence has not been abte to bring the evldenee of ttiis witness. The exfra ^ accused/appellant before this witness tural and made in normal conduct This fbiased or in any mamer inimieal to the t> be any motive for attributing an untruthful witness. She has <teposed categorlcalfy jmade by ffte appellant to her. So far as the law on e it is well settled that ifthe evidencfe who appears to be unbiased, notj respect of whom nottllng Is may have a motive for attrfbutini words spoken are ctear, and and nothing is omitted by the subjecUng the evldence to rigoroi|s passed the test, it can be acceptefl poi^it of ®*ajudtoial confession is conoerned, to thls effect is ghren by a fruthfal witness even remotely inimical to accused »idin broujht out which may tsnd to indicate that he an untruthful statemwit to the accused, unn^istakably thed Uie Mcused is the offender w(tness which may militate agairet it, after test on the toudistone of credibility, If it and can be the basis for cwwlctian. Therefore, on the above post-mortem report and evlclenc^ evidence on rei»rdwhich Is supported by e of Dr. P. Sudhar ff!W-6), it is ^tabllshed XI-HC—78 f^) ^—^ 3^T •^Wv'i^, 3'Tfl<H'IS, Rl(7>l+<y <41*^dl shHlcb C.-C, f^v^Ci, ^0<[T_OQ| •W^ 200 3n^?r'ra^ (1jcif^5?) an^i ?^ .i<<-fl<* 'cfSiT 3fT(^T sti*ii<^ 'reroir ^if^r sii^r ^- that the accused had assautted <he and to this extent case ofthe pro^ecution Ns some So far as th~e second 4i beyond Section 304 Part-lt ofthe| appellant draws the attention of lodged by the son of Uie deceas^d. there was some quarrel betweerj money as the husband was attend the Court hearing of money to the husband, he threw| her head. Jogendra Kujur (PW-^ prosecution, but he has'deposed| said report bears his signature. (PW-8), it would appear that he of the deceased which was a lae frontal bone beneaththe sald injujy After relying upon the conf the evidence of Dr. P. Sudhar (PVV-8), between husband & wife for som< head of the wife which became above evidence it can be Inferred Ittiat cause the death of his wife and al husband & Wife the said injurywa^ said ttiat he was having no know(ledge wife may be fatat or tt Is likely! *l<lid<il-1111'A' 'if.feA <Fa|t&l< ^TSIRPT 311^11 deceased on account of which she dieel Is established. ^rgument regaiding offence not travelling II.P.C. is concemed, tearned counsd forthe Court towards the cohtents ofthe F.I.R. In the F.I.R., it has been mentioned that husband & wife on accoimt of demand of dei|ianding money from the wife for going to case. When fte wife did not provicle |her on ground and gave a Lrthi blow over ^) though has been declared hostlle by the |that the report was kxlged by him and the i we examine fte evidence of Dr. P. Sudhar also notteed one fatal tnjury on forehead terated wound and there was a fl'acture of hlas (ents of the F.I.R., post-mortem report and ), it appears that on aceount of quarrel in petty matter, the husbaixl gave a blow en fetal and fte death w^ caiBed. From the in fect, the accused had no intentfon to of a sudden,on a petty quarrel in between + caused,but at the saroe time, it cannot be that the injury eaieed by hira to his |to cause her death. Frwn the attoining XI-HC—78 \6)' 3^er ^i<ii<<i<], ^Tfl^ito, (s)<4i<iy ^.-S-t^t^Q. -^Q^ j2J30\ SV^T VS^S Cpf^SRET^ sn^i ?iT R;-fi°h TTEiT STT^T sh^ich ^giw 'gf??isni?[ —( <*iit<'i'jfl-) 'wrcff 'Ef^'fs^ <I"i»si< ^7 aifgir 3(l^si Soma circufnstances and on the evidence <^ Dr. P. Sudhar (PW-8) sueh hnowledge can be attributed to the appeltant. In Uie facts and clreumstan4es appeare to have been caused,,all of ^ & wife which ultimately proved to b^ considered opinion that the offenc^ Section 304 Part-11 ofthe I.P.C. of this case, since a shigle injury sudden, in a quarrd behveen husband fatal for the deeeased, we are of the in question would not travel beyond pa|rtly In the result, theappeal is Imposed upon the appeltant under S+c is acquitted ofthe said charge, instea( 304 Part-11 of the I.P.C. and sentenceld It is stated that the appellant shall be enUtled to set-off aaainstthe Sdf- L.C.Bhadoo Judge altawed. Conviction emd sentences tctlon 302 of the I.P.C. are set askie, he d thereof, he is convictad under Section to undergo R.l. tor seven yeass. b in jail since 10-10-2080 W today. He |above sentence imposed upon him. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge