-:::/ •.VK B^^yjt THE HIOi G00RT <3F MABHYA fiaABiESH. JABALP%;_(W) Grlainal Appeal No. J_^_^_ 94 AfgELLMT J Bhuwaa 't.al PaUi Saa of Bahyrslngh, AgeS 35 yearSt^resiGlen-t ®fBeori P.S* Basbahrayra&»Mahasaaana,Bistt..Baxpur(MP) VERSOS. BESPOHDaT s THE STATE OF M.P.^ 't. j .—(l-!L<-L CBIMINAL-APPEALU/S 374(2) ©F •KE COBE OF CBIMINAL^ gBOCEBUBE _,_,__,,__ •B ^^t "aga SStSs' ~»ifr !W» XI-HC-22 'S^ -^WlV\lt, ^WW, [cidl'My '&.&.:.^.sD.if.m 3]t^T'^iI RTJa^sn^i SHW^ifta <^N^4ll 'qTq'^ff^ Ts^ <fa ^K ^? srfigii sn^r 2. DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE &HON'BL Appellant CR1MINALAPPE Bhu ISHRI L.C.BHADOO f. SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, JJ ^L N0.750/1994 Swan Lal Patel Vs. StSit|e of MadhyaPradesh Smt.tndiraTripathi,leam-edco(inselfortheappellant. .. Shri U.N.S.Deo, leamed Additional Public Prosscutor with Shri Akhi! Mishra, P.L. for the respondent/$tate. QRAL JU L.C. Bhadoo. J (30.01 3 G M E N T 2006) By thisappeat under Section has questioned the legatity oftheju sentence dated 27.04.94 passed by Mahasamund in S.T, No. 376/92 wt Judge after holding the accused/appej of his wife Kunti Bai convicted him senteneed to.undergo imprisonmentf^ ?74 (2) of the Cr.P.C. .the appetlant jt|dgment of conviction and order of |learned Additional Sessions Judge, (ereby learne.d Additional Sessions Jlant guilty for commission of murder lunder Section. 302 of the IPC and CasS'ofthe-prosecution^in briefisth^t in the intervening night of 7t & 8th |when Tularam was sleeping in his his younger brother's wife came to of August 1992.at about' 11.00 p.m. house along wfth his family member^ -'*». [T?t^"t^sT^ XI-HC-22' ~yss~:w^(, st-cii'y'is, T^iray 311^1 qiT R-ti* sn^i .5i-.^icb-;^tf^f 3. &:.^.;.3.S?Z?1/. M»- s^v 's^sw. ~s^s. —-2_. his house and informed that some qus Bhuwan, on hearing this he went to wjfe of Bhuwan was tying on the coi head. He sent his brotherJeevan Lal not cwne, therefore he called elderiy and P.vy.3 Phool Singh and one Ch^ Kunti Bai was already dead. On the n^ (P-1) was lodged by Tularam in poli House Officer ieftforthe scene ofoccl the dead body (P-2): He aiso prepaijed sight plan (P-4) of the place of occurrence. Thereafter the dead Ijiody was sent for post mQrtem 6 examination to Primary Health Centre| (P.W.5) condueted the p.ost mortem oi|i the body of Kunti Bai and prepared post mortem report (P-5). While in merhorandum (P-9) and basect on th^t he got recovered carpenter's axe under P-10. Bloodstained clothes possession under P-11. After complet was filed in the Court of Jydiciat Wlagis ^)i<4i<n4i-t ^-n^^l' ^ 'fe^t •t.f^-^K ^srtigirgn^r |rrel was taking place in the houseof Ihe house of Bhuwan and saw that 1 and blood was oozing out ofher Ito'.eall the doctor but the doctor did people ofthe village. P.W.2 Daresh imru came there and they saw that |xt morning at about 9.30 a.m. report ^e station Bagbehara. The Station jrrenceand prepared panchnama of Bagbehara wflere Dr. P.P.Agrawal police custody the accused gave of the accused Were taken into on ofthe investigation charge sheet itrate First Glass, Mahasamund who in turn committed the case to the C^urt of Sessions Judge Raipur from where Additional Sessions- Judge, hifahasamund received the case on transferfortriai. Prosecution in orderto establish thec has examinedas many as fifteen accused was also recorded under Se large against the accused/appellant witnesses. The statement of the Wion 313 oftheCr.P.C. in-which he -'<». ['^ ^Rsi^ ®- •/". ^^, /"L.1-H;^--. .^"['^iPiRTq, ^TtwTe, iidi'yy '^a\l ._&:.19..'..5.5TA^ sn^r^a h-v^ siS^t ?t-'^ -Hl^cf sn^I'^RITWgftd cbL'4^41'-! HIHflT ^ i^^ <Fif^.H ^ S^tf Sf^V • . 4. 6. 8. denied the prosecution evidence appea is innocent and has been falsely impljca ing against him and stated that he ed in the crime in question. Learned Additional Sessiqns Judge lAdditional Public Prosecution and cdurisel |convicted andsentenced the appellant |this judgment. |after hearing the arguments df for the accused/appellant |asmentioned in paragraph one of We have heard Smt. Indira TriRathi, IShri U.N.S.Deo and Shri Akhil Mishra N Homicidal nature of death of Kunti Bai is| ea|ned counset for the appellant and •theState. not in dispute. |As faras involvement pfaccused/appetl^nt Iwife Kunti Bai is cbncerhed, leamed coi|i Ithe conviction rests on the evidence o| |Singh before whom the accused/appe| gudicial confession. She argued that th|i P.W.3 Phool Singh is ftill ofomissions| |does not inspire oonfidence, therefore |argued that as the villagers were of |craft, therefore villagers might have in committing the murder ofhis ipnsel for the appellant argued that P.W.2 Daresh and P.W.3 Phool llant is said to Kave made extra th|e evidence of P.W.2 Daresh and land contradictions and the same cbnvietfo.n is bad m taw. She further vie^w that deceased was witch cotrlmitted her murder. Pn the other hand Shri U.N.S.Deo an|d Shri Akhil Mishra for the State |supported the judgment ofthe triat Courl. '«<i- .[4^^TQ^ 3LI-HC-22 ^-5} ^rai^pT. ^gtoo®,iii^i-M^ X-HC-22 -y5T ^)ra?pr, s^ftwre, ['x'ii'yy .crciQ^S^/..^ SIFST^ R;-)idi SV^f sti14icti -Mf?a 10. aii^t ^CTwaf^T. -H It is true that there is no eye witness ih on circumstantial evidence i.e. extri accused/appellant before P.W.2 Dar^sh the accused was foundsitting near.ltie stained clothes of the accused wire Investigatihg Qfficer. Even thecarperlter at the instance of the accused. this case and the whole case rests judicial confesston made by the sh and P.W.3 Phool Singh andthat body of Kunti Bai and the blood taken into possessioh by the ter's axe wastaken into possessiori. In orderto appreciate the arguments have perused the evidence of P.Wf. evidence that on the fateful night e| Jeevan Lal came and informed him and Bhuwan Lal had murdered his wi) Bhuwan Lal along with one Dhanna Ji|. in the room and son and daughter-in-1 Accused Bhuwan Lal was also sittinb from Bhuwan Lal he informed him thafl he said that 'you have done injustic^ hands". Bhuwan Lal said that even' of his'wife but he was unable to unde< that time panch, satpanchand othei enquiry in fron^ofall the persons th^ has eomrnitted murder of his wi(e. Th< '^&- Bhuwan Lal. P.W.3 Phool Singh has bouse of the accused en enquiry h< murder of his wife.; Both thesewitnesbes 'fillld^'l') t|Wdl"'? feist <[ai«<l< •^ arfigif sn^r (>f leamed counsel forthe parties we F.2 Daresh who has stated in his |der brother of Bhuwan Lal namely |hat some incident has taken place i(e, therefore he wentto the house of Dead body was lying nearthedoor -l^wofBhuwan Lal were sitting there. near the dead body. On enquiry he has myrdered his wife.on which and why do ybu take law in your th|ough he had committed the murcler tstand as to why he has done so. At vitlagers came there and on their accused made eonfession that he ^re was injury on the head ofwife of lilso stated that when he went to the i^ informed that he has committed ss^es are independent witnesses. In [Tft^ ^Ra^ -?r'_ ^^ •^WM^, »A'M'is, iiidi'yy __.err.A."I.S^.j.^ sn^T^ii ft;ii?i'3iit?r »i^ •y?5a 11 order to ptace reliance on the extr^ ascertain that extra judicial voluntary, true and prompt. There is| judicial confession was made coercion. These are the independenf the sceneof occurrence on the namely Jeevan lal andthere is no accused in a false case. Their evide< P.W.1 Tularam even though he haj that he has stated that on the fateful house, one girl came to his house place in the house of Kunti Bai and | of Bhuwan Lal was lying. Bhuwar) weeping. Even the* blood stained cl^ possession by the Investigating carpenter's axewas taken into this evidence stands Corroborated Dr. V.P.Agrawal hasstat^d in his right parietat region and the parietE^ Moreover Ih^pfe'was a house witnesses sitting by the side of bod^ as to how death of his wife took ptac^ conftssion reduest r^ason In view of the 'above evidence we| finding oflh^trial Court convicting Kunti Bai is.based on legal eyjdence| °bl''<I<'f41-f ^Wdf'^fe^t <Fa|t$K i? ari^riT sn^f judicial eonfession the Court has to made by the accused was nothing on record to show that extra urider any threat, promise or witnesses of the village who came to of elder brother of the accused for these witnesses to implicate (ice is corroborated by the evidence of i^turned hostile but the fact remains nightwhen he was taking rest in his |ind informed that quarrel was taking Iwhen he went there he saw that wife Lal was also present and he was l^thesof the accused were taken into IQfRcer under P-11 and even the by the Investigating OfReer and l|>y the medical evidence-also. P.W.5 ^vidence that there was injury on the and occipital bones were fractured. and accused was seen by the of his wife and he has not explained poss^ssion muifcler are of the considered opjnion that he accused forcausing the death of and there is no illegality and infinnity i [Ti©'y<3<> © XI-HC-22 T, 's^ms, f«<!'ii'H>i? sn^r'qiT Fi-fM ss^i ^^ ^f?fl 12. ^cra..^?:/^ snt?T ^aiWHf^r jn the impugned judgmeat, therefore ^e do npt fihd any ground tp ihterfefe with the judgment of the trial Court. Leamed counsel for the accused/^ppellant placing reliance on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Others Vs. State of M.P. reported ct)l<lf<'i<i)i TTH?if^ ^^ ^t<$R -^3lf:OT3fI^[ Sourt in the matter of Hetram and in 2002(41 MPHT 75 araued that prosecution has not been able to es|tablish the motive and the acGUsed attacked the deceased with the ba4k side of carpenter's axe. Had hs intended to cause deatti of Kunti Baif the sharp side of the axe. As per evidence regarding intention of the ^ from the fact i.e. 6n which part ofth^ body the injury was inflicted, facts leading to the offence, the weapo necessary factors to be considered| h used in the offence which are If we examine this aspect of the matter, theaccused attacked deceas^d with the backside ofthe axe and that,too,on the vital part ofthe bod^ as a result ofwhich occipjtal and parietal bones were fractured. Therefjare looking to the nature of injuries; place of injury and weapon of offenc^, it is estgblished that the accused attacked thedeceased with intention facts the judgment cited by.the coun the accused. Accordinglythe offenc^ the murderof Kunti Bai is establish4d and on this countal»the same does notsuffer from any illegality or-irlfirmity. .!s»- e musthave attacked Kunti Baifrom ihesettled law if there is no clear ccused, thesame can be gathered to cause death of Kunti Bai and on sel for the appeltant is of no help to against the accused for committing [Tr^^f^ 'yr_j--?r"_'?''^ ^=r ~^wsw,.'wstms, hwvy sn^r'qiT' R-ti'* 3^1 ^^ri^ ^f?^ ^s... .Cf!T:ftT..^.S^.^ 311^1 WITWHfSCT -~l In the result we do not find any subst|ince in this appeal and the appeal is liabletobedismissed. Itisaccordingl^dismissed. . -.--/-^-^ Sd/. L.C. Bhaduo Judge c61zlfel4t:4 flT^^JT ^ fe^ <^{-^,l< i? arfitiiian^r Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge w -«».