XI-4IC—78 3T^T^ f<Tlich ^SH 3:H^T'^RT^ ^ 3^-^||A||^, ^Tfly^l.Co, fsj<?')|'y'j,< ^l^dl sb^llch Cy.ft.^. 51^/z-^ ..<....,.^ ^Q sn^r xra^ (i^f^^) '^TTW^n^H^T <=bl<LlId4lHI Hl*ldl ^f^st ipst^K ^ ^tf^tT 37I^T APPELLANT (sn custody) ^ Pokijiram, son of Shri Dirip Ram Chauhan, RESPONDENT ags<1 Dha| Chal Stat^ Magj sbout 32 ysars, rssidsnt of vliiags jrabhatha, P.S. Dabhra, Distt. Janjgjr- npa (CG). •Versus- < (Criminal Appeal undel Division Bench : Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadpo& Hon'ble Shri Suni! Kumar Sinha. 4 of Chhattisgarh, Through the District strats, Janjgir-Champa (CG). • Ssctlon 374(2) of the Cr.P.C.) 23-8-2007 Shri Gurudev I. Sharan, coun| Shri Akhil Mishra, Panel Lavi^ accused/appellant during pendency At the very outset, learned accused has been convicted on t^ Indian Penal Code for selfor the appellant. 'erfortheState. Heard on i.A.No.1 for suspe^slon of sentence and grant of baii to the He further argued that it has come| accused was suffering from men| understanding consequences of ti^ accused simpiy admitted the offerl sustajnable. On the other hand, iearned G( of the tria! Court. pfthisappeal. |;ounsel for the appetlant argued that the plea of guilty under Section 302 of the |of murder of his mother Smt. Sumati Bai. on record of the prosecutlon papers that ^al stress since !ast few days. Without |e case and ingredients of offence, the (ce; therefore, the judgment itseif is not insel for the State supported the judgment XI-HC—78 ~5^ ^|<4i^, ^Tfi'y'ie, fs<^>i^^< Kl^dl *N1<4» •^ 200 3TT^?T 'CR^ (^f^<8T) 3TI^T ^T !<'11<=h ^T^ 3?TT^T ^RW I^iT^R'^T^TT^T u Having heard iearned couhsel for the parties, we have perused the record. Case of the prosecution, in incident the father of the accused accused v/as saying that he wil! mi cbl^fd^^ 'HTO^f ^fe^ <^^l< '^<3tRm-3^T |3rief, is that on 27-4-2004 at about 8.00 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. in the morning at Epabhra, accused attacked his mother Smt. Sumatj Bai with a pick-axe and c|3mmitted her murder. One day before the nameiy, DJrip Ram Chauhan, saw that the rder every one and was crying. On the next day, he attacked his mother. Perusai of the charge to the accused, he stated that he about 8.00 a.m. in the morning an^ record that the accused pieaded g{ First and foremost requirement for| that the accused had committed ttt< offence without any evidence on re^ to commit the murder of his motj| convicted him in such a serious Cr.P.C. words 'maV and tdiscretiori( the Judge. He has to take a decis| and facts and circumstances of eacl record that since iast few days the murder of every one and that was rhyme and reason on the fateful Therefore, in order to satlsfy wheth( further evidence, it was possibie fo the accused had pieaded guiity shows that when the charge was read over lad attacked his mother with a pick-axe at ran away to Dabhra. There is nothing on ilty after understanding the consequences. conviction under Section 302 of the IPC is e murder with intention. !n such a serious ^ord regarding the intention ofthe accused ier, iearned tria! Court ought not to have >ffence. Moreover, in Section 299 of the have been used and discretion is given to |on after considering all the pros and cons case. in the present case, it has come on iccused was saying that he wili commit the |ieard by family members and wjthout any Ihe aftacked his mother wlth a pick-axe. ir based on the prosecution papers, without the Court to reach to the conclusion that aper understanding the ingredients of the fe.,' (~. XI-HC—78 3^5T ?£TTqT^T, ®Tfi'H4l<o,(s)<^iyli< ^INdl st»*ii<ft •Wt 200 w^ v^ Cq^p^y) 3?n^r^ f<Ti[<=h ^Tsn 3TR?T9F^W '^nw^rf^^rTi^T cbl^fd^'11RTT^ff ^fe^ <rsi^(< '^3ffim3R^T offence, there is nothing on recc^ and his capacity of understandil rd about the mental condition ofthe accused ig. Moreover, in this case it has come on record that theaccused was men(:aily disturbed since Sast few days. Therefore; the Court was required to decide|as to whether on the prosecution papers the ingredients of the offence are sa|tisfied and based on the prosecution papers which offence was made out. The aforesaid points have the said points the trial Court has Therefore, we are of the consid^ cannot be sustained. !n the result, the appeai imposed upon the accused/appejl{ to the trial Court to decide the sart evidence ofthe prosecution. Thel have considered the judgment of t| Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh1! rendered in the matter of State 1 accused/appeliant wlll be at Jibei| Court. Consequentiy, I.A.No.1 for not been considered and without considering sccepted the pleaand convlcted the accused. sred opinion that the judgment of tria! Court is accepted. The conviction and sentence ^nt are set aside. The case is remitted back |ie in accordance with iaw after recording the ^rial Court before accepting the plea ought to his Court rendered in the matter of Khilawan |and also the judgment of Gauhati High Court \si Mizoram ys. Shri Ramengmawia2. The |y to move bai! appijcation before the triai suspension of sentence and grant of bait to the accused/appellant during pend^ncy of this appea! stands disposed of. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge 1 2003 (3) MPHT 1 (CG) 22006(1)Crimes744 Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge