XI-H€—78 Wm WW,W,W (LA. No. 537/0/ 0:? 1 v1 200 3mm (W) mmm ammm mmm mWiwm %sfmai1é¥r e ai No. 53712001 AFFELLANT F. W ) , : ’ Annu- &D-U'ZUU l 51111 Dharmesh Sitiivastava, Advocate, for the appellant. 511m Sudhir Bajpat, Panel Lawyer, for the respondenti State. Arguments hsard. Urai jucignmnt dic ?er L;C.R'hm’inn_ J. : This appeal is directed against the. judgment of conviction and ord‘er of sentence L riminai A guram, S/o Ramai Survavanshui, ag€d ‘ O yssa‘s, Ric village- Pambb, RS. — Fnm' um It. bnaspur (C.G.) a “In.” Versus Konybie Sh Hnn’hip gh “:ated on Dais. eJRAL JUEEMENT iated 25-4-2001 passad bv the 7th Addl. S€ssi011s Judga Bilaspur in ST N0. 298/2UUU, WhErEbv L116 learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding accusedi appellant gumy ior commission o‘f offenco undor Section 302 of tho Indian Ponai Code, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Llase of tho prosec Ulnp wince doceawd) Wt that house at about 11 house of Shivday‘al, am Wlm Kudan‘ {pickaxo}, a was Witnessoc‘i bV Santc u\ \ uuon, 1'11 brief, is that at about 10.60 a.m. :nt towards the house‘of Rajkumar, he. left 3U a.m., when he reached in front of ihe ‘useu b‘aguram attacked him on his head s a resu1t of which, Diiip fell. The incident :sn Kumar, Sumendra Bai, Rajkumar anti :"")E1-He—78 / mm,m CJ-A .No‘ 537/0/ ................................ . ........................ mmv man——m“m t)x wt 200 WWW mmw‘wm ( awimm to inform the father, therefore, Kedar ii and informed him. Receiving the n the site, Thereafter Amoh‘ went to rted the matter, based on which First was registered for commission of LRC. Site plan EX. P-Q was prepared ice of the witnesses. Whiie in police Iandum EX P—4 regarding the piace if offence i.e. pickaxe, based on the used, the pickaxe was seized under Lsed were seized under EX. P—é. The t mortem examination under EX. P-S— epared'injury report EX P—S. Ciothes blood were seized under EX. P-li. i on the body of Diiip‘ Post mortem ment Hospitai, Biiaspur by Dr. 7 mvm (W) I WWW w “mm Kedar. SantO$h asked Ksdar Went to 1116 housa of A1110 infonnarion, Amoh' came o Police. Station, Koni and mpo Information Report EX. P—l offenco 11116161" Section 307 of by the Pat'wari 1n the instal: custody, accused gave memc ‘ Where he kept the Weapon < infonnau'on given by me. aC( EX. P-S. ClotheS of the dece; body of Di‘u‘p was sent for pos A. Dr. BR. Wanda (RW. 6) pr of the accused stained with inquest EX H12 was prepare was conductee‘t 1'11 foe Govem Chandei (RW. '1 1) who prepayed post mortem report EX. P—lT and nuitiple head injuries and death was After compietion of inv§ the Court of Judiciai Magistra committeci The case to the Sc ieaxned Add}. Sessions Judge 1 The presecution in ordei accused examined 11 Witut opined that. deaTh was due to . homicidal in nature. NS. Stigation, charge sheet was flied in te First Class, Biiaspur who in turn ‘ssions Judge, Biiaspur from where eceived the case on transfer. ‘ to estabh'sh the charge against the sses. Statement of accused was WW, § W '65,W U). (AnHMO- 557/0) WT m . m; 200 Wm (13W) W WWW ’mm féé1m - %si&msn%m 3 of CLPC. m which he denied the him in the prosecution evidence and eiv implicated in the. crime on account is deposed against him on account oi .d dispute between them. ssions Judge after hearing the learned pai‘tiee, convicted and sentenced the racorded under Section 3i maten'ai appearing against stat€d that he has bean i315 of allimositv. Sumand‘bai I1: animositv as there was a lax I y Leanmd Addmonal SE counSE‘i for th€ raspactive accusged as aforamenuoned. "We have heard. §nn L appel‘lant 211161 Shfi Sudmr E Shri Dharnmsh Shriv: death of Diiip. Moreover, Statod that ”the accused e pickaxe aS a resuh OI W11 ocu‘lar evidence finds con‘oboration by medical evidence of PW. 1 1 Dr. NS. Chandel who has stated that he conducted post morteni on the bodv of Dihp on 17-5—2000 as Medicai Officer. There were fractures and injuries on the head of the deceased. Maxmarv hone, left parietal hone, tight parietal bone and forehead bone were fractured and death was r The} ‘eiore, homicidal 1n nature. established that the death 0:7 Deevar was homicidal in nature. 3f the accused in the crime in question As far as invoiveinent is concerned, Shii Shrivasiava submits that the trial Court has convicted the accused base on evidence of PW. 4 Sumendbai and )haimesh Shrivaetava on behalf of the. aipai on hehah" of the State. istava has not disputed the homicidal PW. 4 Sumendhai has categoricauy ttacked the deceased on head With .ch he sustained injuries. The above due to head injury and same was in View of the above, it is XI-HC—78 WWW amm d «ix mwmm g No 537/0; mm in 200 WW (W) mwf‘awiaw‘ WWW mm#wm awfcmm WWW "1’ H Her ewdence i3 scrutinized, then it is estabiished that she had not Wih1635€d the crimE in qu€sfion because she has categorically staiEd that he did not cqnm out of the house, tharsfora, them was no occasxon 101* 11€r to wimess the crime‘ H6 also argued that name of Sumemibai i$ not mer‘ noned 111 me 1 K He aiso argued thaf mero is 110 ESL. repon that any biood stain was fouhd on tho pickaxo 61$ such, convictilbn of the appel‘lant is nox sustainabie. Un the other hand, Shri Bajpai suppmted the. judgment of the tried Court, As fal as inst arg ment is concsrned, W6 have scrutim‘zod ms evidence of PW. 4 memibai who has stated that on the Iatefui day at about l LO a.m., she came out 1'11 Street i1} order to broom the street, she sa that the accused attacked the deceased wun pickaxe. She witn ed the. incident from a distance of 10 paces. After sustaining injuries from pickaxe, Dih'p feil. She raised cries and after see 1g the blood of Dilip, she frightened. The accused is her eider h iler—in-iaw and the deceased was his brother—in~1aw’s son. In para 19 of cross-examination, she has stated that it is incorrec to say that she has not witnessed the crime. 1n para 9 in replv to the question of the counsel for the deience that on account I" hot temperature, she did not come out, she said ‘yes’. This que ’tion on which learned counsel for the appellant stressed is amb guous in nature. It has not been clarifled that Whether she did no come to the site. The site plan EX P-2 was prepared by the Pa ari at the instance of the witnesses in ‘u v e s e t r aw% mmm which it is shown that Sn 1:116 signatum and 1’11 Si mendhai was aiso present, Which hears te pian it has been shown that she Witnessai film crime from Point (4) and it iS shown to be at a distance of 49 ft. she has by the {iefsnctg therefore, defence conned that on av she saici yes, it cannot be In the iater part of same < Stated that she had witnes As far as the argL app-silent that her name is e‘loes not esta‘biish that t crime in question. The 17.1. The deceased who was n‘ occurrence, in fact he was ihfonnation he came on th a witness to the. incident, not mentioned by him in t' of this witness. RW. 4 E accused and the deceased her to impiicate the accust reason. Of course, in the c is incon‘ect that there is a. iand hut 'she has stated th the next question, she re}: not been cross-examined on this aspect merely repiy to a question put by the 2count of the heat, she did not come out, said that she did not Witness the crime. moss—examination, she has categoricaiiy sed the incident. Lment of the 1ea1ned counsei for the not mentioned in the FLR, therefore, it 1e Witness had, in fact, witnessed the R. was iodged by RW. 1 Amoii, father of )t' present on the spot at the time of informed by Kedar, based on the said 3 scene and iodged FIR As he Was not therefore, if the name of Sumendbai is he F‘lR, it does not affect the evidence himendbai is the near relative of the both, therefore, there is no occasion for :d in‘such a heinous crime without any toss—examination she has stated that it 1V dispute between them regarding the at Faguram’s iand is with them and on iied that they do not want to give the W WWW Wm (W) WW wm émimm 1as no snara ill 1116 lana. ’Si1e has of Faguram is at a distance of 10 paces from the place of occurrence, therefore, this witness was consistent in her Version during cross—examination that she Win16ss€d 1116 cn'me in quas’tion. There is no reason to diS‘baiieve the evidencta of thi$ Witness. report has not bean producet‘t in order to establish that anv bloc d was found on the pickaxe. Had it bgen produwd, report has not been produceci, the against the accused but if the prosecution evidence cannot be disbelieved. For the foregoihg reason oeheVed the evidence of this Witness and has reached to the. conchtsion that baset‘i on the evie‘ienoe of PW. 4 Sumendhai, it is esta‘bl deceased with pickaxe._ Peru evidence of PW. ll Dr. N. S. C given 1a1ic1 to Faguram as Faguram funher stated that the hou$e s, We are of the considered opinion that 1:116 tn‘ai Court has rightly merciless beating to t attacks were made by the accw skull bone was fractured into 1: parietal bone, frontal bone fractured and on account of skull bone, Dilip succumbed tc has rightly been convicted for do not find any illegality or inf1 shed that the accused attacked the sal of most monem report and handel reveals that the accused had he deceased with pickaxe, severai ised on head, as a result of which, ieces, maxillary bone, right and left and hone near the left ear were excessive haemorrhage, fracture of t the injuries, therefore, the accused commission of murder of Dilip. We. mnity in the conviction and sentence lt is true. that the F.S.L it would have been additionalcircumstance t vg .' *& yM am‘%% WW WW éawm imposeéi upon 1116 accused. Thi ‘B appeai is iia'bici to be dismissm‘i 311d it iS heréby a‘ismissed. Sd/- ‘ L.C. BHADOO Judge V\.J Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ' ‘ "