XI-HC—78 3:wT '-Ml^)^<q, SSiTfl^KS, i^<y)l<-ty< © ^lNdl iPII^? W^ 200 ^i^T ?FT'R'IJ^ ^^ii ^n^i ^pN)' J- BIT^T ^^? (^jI^<8T) I^HW^^^lt^ HIfiH COURT Ofr CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BBslCH: HON'BLE MR. HON'BLE MR. ^HIRB4DRA MISHR/l. JJ CRIMINA APPB.LANT Rcy|<umar son of Fattelal, a9ed about 29 yea|'s, resident of Vjltage Salkhcm, P.5. Shiterinaroyan, Distt. JanJ9ir-Ch<OTpa (C.©.) RESPONOBsrr vs ^:-. Th< Shi Present: Mr. ^.S- Ahluwalia, Advocate QA (FTC), Jarv9ir jn S.T. No.2 ^T^fepJN ?W3^f ^fJ^^l ''[fa^.H '^^RRT^H^T .C. BHAOOO A APPEAL N0.1303/2002 State of Chhftttisgarh Through P.S. erinaryan, the appellant. Mr. Sudhir* B<y'pai, &y. 0overni|ient Advocate for* tfie respondent/State. L JU&©MENT |;13th July, 2007) Per L.C.Bhadoo. J; This appeal js directed ^igQJnst the judgment of conviction wd order of sentence dated 26th July, 200^2 passed by the 2nd Additionat Sessicais Jud9e, ^)/20(X) whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the accu^ed/appellant guilt/ for commission of offence under Section 302 of the |:.P.C. for commitj-ing murder of his mother 1 Sukhwara Bai, sentenced him 1|o undergo RJ. for life. However, ho fine amount has been imposed considering ^he pover-ty of the accused/cypellant. Case of the prosecutiojn, in brief, is that ©eetaBai, wife of accused Rcukumar, was not well since last li months and even after providing the XI-HC—78 CT^T^T^WF ^^T^l^T^RN' 3:^T?qT^^', W)"H'1;1@, ft^^y. NW^II flbNl^ "^ a^i^T ^s^ (^Iys<^) '^Tiw^iN^^ treatment she was not recovcjrir^. Accused Rcykumar was doubtiry thot his mother Sukhwara Bai (since d^ceased) is ^Qcticing witchcraft' on his wife. In the morning of fateful day -^e accused was working alor^ with his wife in / their QgrJcultural field (^sTRt ^TTST ^T), after some time his mother Sukwora Bd and father Fattelal (PW-1) came jn the agricuh-ural field. Rqjkumar asked went towords that side and Sukwara Bai and therefore, hej the persons who were working stomach, back & fingers of ^I^Id^i^ ^TR^f ^f,fe^ ^^R ^^to3?!^r his father to 90 and repoir tl^e boundcry mound (^), therefore, his father jthereafter accused started quarrelling wjth Sukwara Bd and attwked her ^tth sickte. Foftelat sow the accused crttacking raised the cries nsave-save" In the meantime, jn the adjoinjng fieJdl^hamely Puniram CPW-2), Jawahar Lal Sahu ff>W-4) A s^n-in-lcw of Jeetram Kashyop came there and sow that Sukhwcra Bai was lyjng on the ground, there were injun'es on her jght hand and blood was oozing out of the injuries. Fattelal took Sukhwa|*a Baj for treatment to his house. Tlie mdrt-ter was reported under Ex.P-1 in t^e Police Station Shivrinarcyan. After completion of inv|istigation, charge sheet was filed in Itie Court I ~ • of Judidal Magistrate 1st Cla$^ Jonjgir, who in turn committed the case to iearned Sessions Judge, BilaspJur from triiere the Additional Sessions Judge recejved the case on transfer fw trial. The prosecution in order to estdblish the charge c^ainst the accuse|:l/oppelJant examined 16 witnesses. Statement of Qccused/appellant was recoifded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the material appearifig against him in the prosecution evidence and XI-HC—78 ^ii^T^'^ra' ^^?^n^T^:iN' ^J' TS^ -q|A||0<q, ^W 1(0, Rl^W^ (^ ^INdl *^l<=b Wf^ 200 -L 3^911?^? (y^^) i^TTW^f^^I^I death of Sukwara Bai nor th practidng witch craft on his| therefore, on the fateful dayl and without any pre-nieditati( account of that. TT^ere was nol <^B<4t<v1<<il ^?TOff ^J^II<1 if^t^K ^^fOT^H^l stated th<rt he is innocent or|d has been falsely implicated in the crime on account of enmity. Learned Additional Se^sions Judge after hecring the arguments of learned counsel for the resj^ective parties, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant, as aforemeilitioned. We have heard Mr. A^luwdia, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Sudhir Bqjpoyee, Dy. ^ovt. Ad\|ocate for the respondent/State. At the outset Mr. Ahlu^alia, learned counsel for the accused/appellant has neither chdlenged the fjnding of the trjal court regarding homiddd involvement of the accused/appetlmt in the cnrne in question. He simply a|tgued that as the wife of the accused was not well since last l^ months, tl^e accused wcxs doubting that his mother is wife on account of which his wife is jll and some altercation took place between the two 'n or prepcration all of sudden in a heat of passion accused attacked his t^other, who sustained the injuries and died on intention of the accused to cause death of his mother and therefore, -rtiie o'fjfence against -rfie accused/appellant does not travel beyond Section 304-11 c|f the IPC. On the other* hand, learped Addjtional Publjc Prosecutor for the State supported the judgment of thejtrial court. So far QS the fnvolvemer|t of the Qccused/appellant in crime in question is concerned, Fattetal (PW-1), •fjort-her of accused, has categorically stated that XI-HC—78 ^I^I ??T'ft[;TRT ^l^?OT^T iF^N' 3:s^-.^n^T^zT, y»T{)'yli<s, isi0i"y^< Nltldll *N(4» •^ 200 3?I^?T ^2R (^T^^P) iT^TW^fi^ ^i^l his daughter-in-lGw WQS ill si^ce last If months caid even after providing treatment she W€KS not recov^tng. Accused was doubting thot Sukhwcira Bai i.e. his mother, is practidng accused and hi5 wife were in |witch craft on his wife. On tihe fateful day ^R^ ^rfer field, after some time he along attacked her. She was cryii of the accu»d/oppellantin ^a^id^l^ w^ "^,ft^t <fa^i< ^•^tRm^ri^i with Sukwara Bai also reacl|ied there. When they reached agrjcultural field, the accused asked hi|n to repair the boundary mound, He saw that accused started qUarr^lling with Sukhwaro Bai and thereafter he ig to save her. He saw that Sukhwara Bai received injuries on her chejst, stomach, back cnd fingers of her rjght hand. In para 4 again he ^as stated that accused was doubting that Sukhwara Bai is a witchcrc^ft. Puniram 0:>W-2) has also corroborated •the above evidence. PW-4 Jjiwahar Lal Sorfiu, PW-5 Mcaiohar, who were working in the adjoining fie|d have also corroborated the prosecution axse in material particulars. Therefore, the findinjg of the trial court regarding involvement Ixttacking his mother is based on the legal evidence ond to that extent we do not find ony illegality or irregufarity in the finding of the trial coi|irt. As far as the questi<|n of nature of offence committed by the accused/appellouit is concen|ied, from the evidence of Fattelal (PW-1) father of the accused & hijsband of deceased/it is established that wife of the accused was ill, 4he was not recoverinq even after providing XI-HC—78 ^i^i'sFr'^N? ^SH <3??^T'^WF Rbshom/- ~3:c3S -qi<qi<^^, ^xfi'yjl<S, fsf0iyy< Tn HS*i€^ 9b4|cib -^ 200 3?I^?T '<?5?^ (^f^<{8T) '^TTW^rft^ ^fI^T treatment, therefore, the ^iccused w<as disturbed and he was doubting that his mother is practici^ witchcraft. On the fateful doy when he himself. his father, motherj field all of a sudden some al & the accused and withoutl sudden the accused attack4d his mother wjth sickte. There is nothing on tiie record to show that the above evidence we are against the accused does no Conviction of the appellant imposed upon him under that 5 of that char^e. Instead there< <^S<lf<v1<fll 'W^f ^l^^ <Fsi^K '^'^tRPi^l^T and wife were present in the agricultural tercation took place between Sukhwara Bai any pre-meditation or preparation all of a the accused attacked the deceased with an intention to cause her deafh. Therefore, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the acc^sed/appellcxnt has substcxnce and based on of the considered opinion that the offence ftravel beyond Section 304-11 of the IPC. In the result, the app^al filed by accused/appellant parl'ly succeeds. \snder Section 302 of the IPC and sentence |ection are hereby set aside ond he is Qcquitted ^f, he is convicted under Section 304 -II of the IPC wd sentenced to undeifgo R.I. for 8 years. It is stated that the occused/appellant is in dcterft'ion since 18.4.2000 till toda/, therefore, he shall be entitled for set-off of the above detention period against the sentence imposed upon him. Sd/- L.C, Bhadoo Judge Sd/- Dhirendra IVIishra Judge