C—78 31)^1 ^il (<•)(* 'ffSTT STT^T s>nHlcb •SvSi ^|<<|<vi<<, yiTfly'16, RirtlMy __...62.:..d ^Wv\\ *Hleb ••-—•-—• •Wt. 200 ai^?r TBR; cipf^g^u) ?^ITOT ^ftd SH^T APPELLANT: (la Jail Custody) RESPONDENT; {Criminal appeal under S Divisioa Bench: Hon'ble Mr. L.C. Bhadoo and| Hoa'Me Mr. Sunil Kumar Siriha, JJ. 17-4-2008 Mr. Vishwaaath Goswa Mr. Raviadra Agrawal, Oral judginent dictated L.C. Bhadoo, J: - This appeal is difected agains|t sentence dated 9th July, 20C|2 Judge, Bilaspur iu Sessions T|nal leamed Additional Sessions J|uds guflty for commission of o^ence sentenced him to undergo im^risor cbi<fT(n41i iflH'^tf '^.'f^i^ ^i't'^R ^affim sil^l - Versus - Kartik Ram ; S/o Gatabliir Baiga, ' aged about 32 years, R/o ViB^e Baigapara-Kanaa P.S. Kota, Distt. Bflaspur, Chhatdsgarh. State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Kota, Distt. Bilaspur, f1Chhattisgarh. ction 374 (2) ofthe Code ofCriminal Procediire} adu i4u, counsel for the appeUaut. I^auel Lawyer for the State/respondent. bn Dais. the judgraent of conviction aad order of passed by the l"t Additional Sessioas No.245/2001, whereby & whereunder tge after Iioldiug the accused/appellant irnder Section 302 of the I.P.C., )nment for Ufe. y -Y^ "'* TCXI-tS:—78 '17" grcT ^|<||<V>A|, (siT(1'y'i<s, Ri<?iiyy sn^y 'V^K (lyS-j^^ ) SV^S W f<(-<i+ ^^[ -STT^T ?h^iqi '^iiWHfTO sn^i to Case of the prosecution, ia was soine altercatfon betwei Dasru and the accused. The given dowiy to his daughter accused as to whv he has nol On this the accused said thatl house and brought the ax^, husband to the residence, buj Bai with fhe axe on her headl which Kumotm Bai feU dow]|i paia. The accused Qed fhe s| fhe spot. yrief. ijrief, is that on the date of iacident fhere |n deceased Kuiaotui Bai, her husbaud feccused asked Dasru fhat whv he has riot her inarriage, iu reply Dasru asked the given dowiy to his sister in fhe inarriage. |he witl kill Dasru with axe, he went to his |, by that time, Kiuaotia Bai sent her t fhe accused canic aad attacked Kuiuotia |and ofher parts of the body as a result of on the grouad and started writhing in ;ene of occurrence. Kumotin Bai died on urlder Mukund Siugh (PW-1), son-iG|- ia Police Station Kota. The $1 after registeruig fhe crime Ex. P-2 left for fhe scene of the body of Kumotin Bai. which was sent bv the doctorj 5 was picpared by the Patwa^i niortein examination to where Dr. S.K. Shrivastava (^ tfaat cause of death was shoc(s tuorteia report Ex. P-6. Un<^( houiicidal ui nature. The axel 'N chi*if^i<i1i +ii*i<nf '£fl^si' <P>(-l^.l< '^siRiqaii^r 1-law ofthe deceased, lodged report Ex.P-1 itatioa House Of&cer, PoUce Station Kota, Ex.P-1 aad receiviag Merf, iatimation o<tcurrence aad prepared inquest Ex. P-3 on pan of Kuinotin Bai stained with blood, was seized under Ex.P-4. Site plan Ex.P- 'atwati. Body of Kuinotin Bai was sent for post- Coma|iuiuty Healfti Centre, Kota, under Ex.P-6A W-6) conducted post-niorteui and opined due to haeniorrhage. He prepared post- ;r Ex.P-7 he opiaed that fhe death was weapon of offence, was sent to the doctor under Ex.P-SA for his opiniop. and the doctor gave opiaion Ex.P-8 fhat XI-HC—78 -•'\y "»SBi>'' TCTT'^TRPT, giTtiM'Ko, fi<?iW^< NIM^I *Hleh (^,A,gSO an^?r ff^K (1pf^?5?) "•^ 200^. 3TI^( VI ft.licb ^V^ 3TF^T sh*1lch 4 d ?^nwHf^T3n^i fhe iajuries fouad on the bod^ in. question. The axe was plain soU were seized fi-oin fhd plaa Ex. P-11 was prepared b^ were sent to the Forensic fi-om where icport Ex. P-14 wa; of Kuinotm Bai can be caused bv fhe'axe SeilBed uader Ex.P-9. Bloodstained soU aad place ofoccurrence under Ex.P-10. Site fhe Investigating OfBcer. Seized articles Sci^nce Laboratoiy, BUaspur uader Ex.P-13 fe received. After coiupletion of iavestigatii Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bils fhe Sessions Judge, Bilasp Sessions Judge received the ct The prosecutioa ia order t<j examined teu witnesses. Stat) Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. m| against llim in the prosecutio^i he has been falsely unplicat^d witness namely, Kunwar Siagl|i Leamed Additional Sessions respecti.ve counsel, aforementioned. We have heard Mr. Vishwaaal the appellaat axid Mr. Ravii^dra behalfofthe State/iesponden^ disput^d Mr. Goswami has not Moreover;Dr. S.K. Shrivasta\ 'bl<<fa41-liiH<nl' ifivS <Pnt(i< ^aiRn sii^i in, chsa-ge sheet was filed ia fhe Court of ispur, who in. tum conmiitted fhe case to .ir, froin where leamed lat Additional ise on transfer for trial. estabhsh chai^e against fhe accused sment of the accused was recorded uiider which he derded the aUegations levelled evidence aad stated fhat he is ianocent, in fhe cruue. He has examiaed one (DW-1) ia his evidence. Judge after hearmg tbe arguinents of conviclfcd and sentenced the accused as li Goswaau, leamed counsel on behalf of Agrawal, leamed Panel Lawyer on the hoinicidal deafh of Kuuiotm Bai. la (PW-6) Iias stated ia his evidence that |BBE:^..3ESi ;w8ai^ *Si sv^a ?ii R'li* ^STT 3H^T ?t)+il<^ T5^ ^ITan^Rr, S?T(IM'I<S, (s)<?ii'y^< MINc^l (hMI'*_,......^..A.:..SS^ T3R "^ 2002^ an^r Trag; (Tpig^a) '^giWHfta aii^i on 30ril March; 2001 he coud^ Bai, there was iacised iajuiy| bone, 4th cemcal vertebra wa{ back which was extendiag up| iacised wound on left parieta^ Injuries were ante-inortein 14 Cause of death was shocy hoinicidal ia uature. His re^ corroborated by the ocular Bahadiu- (PW-3) & Chuagu fhat they witacssed the criine| deceased wifh axe. Therefort evidence, it is estabUshed thaj iii nature. As far as coinplicity of th( concenied, leamed counsel Singh (PW-1) Ss Bhadu @ fherefore, explicit reliaace Law on fhe point is now weU rejected inerely on fhe grouni deceased, but his evidence circuinspection in order to as bv such witaess. <<il'j<f<-l''il-l 1W<-fflf.f3tZ> tfa«(l< ^sifipTsii^i icted post-niortein on fhe body of Kumotin |oa neck ia fhe size of 4° x Va" deep up to fi-actured, tucised wound on right sidfe of to right lung, right lung was also cut aad region in the size of 4* x 2" x bone deep. nature caused by hard & sharp object. due to haeiaorrhage aad deatfa was lort is Ex.P-6. Above xnedical evidence is ev^dence of Mukund Singh (PW-1), Bhadu @ (TtW-9). They have stated in. fheir evidence |in question aad the accused attacked fhe ;, in view of fhe above niedical 8s ocular ftie death ofK-uumotin Baiwas Jhioinicidal accused ia flie criine in question is [for the appeUaat argued fhat Mukund Bal|iadur (PW-3) are related to fhe deceased, be placed on their evidence. canb.Gt setded. Evidence of a witness cannot be that he is relati.ve of the accuscd or the has to be scrutinized with care and ;ertam. the veracity of the evidence given .XI-tIC—78 s^r '^ww-i{, QTfly'ifi, Rfdi^^<, C^ .ft.. RSO an^?r 'WR (1pf^?u) 31^71^'fyiN; ^s^T •3TT^T gFTri^T TCTwnter sn^i 1. MukundSingh(PW-l)hasstaftEd in fhe uioming he went to th.e) ia order to warailus body ia the accused attacked Kuniotuli region. Kyinotin Bai feU 01 Chungu were also present firoutoffiic. in his evidence that oa the fateful dav house of the elder brother of the accuaed )x>nt of fire aud he saw that at that tiine, Bai with axe on her head & on auxiUarv t. the groiind, at that tune, Bahadur & fhey were also warming their body iu ailid 2. Bhadu @ Baliadur (FW-3) hs fateful day he was waraaiug Singh, at that tim.e he saw th^ there was somc quarrel betw^ brought an axe aad attackei^ which she sustauied iajury 04 3. Similar is the evidence of evidence of fliese two witiiess Bahadur (PW-3). In their crcjss to elicit anv circuaistance witaesses. Chuagu is indepej evidence of Mukund Siugh (P} 4. Dasru (PW-2) is husband evideuce fhat on the fateful Kuuiotin Bai was sitting at tb|( is ia front of his house. Thel he has given to his daughter,) ^i^^T^wof "^ "fe^ T^^I^ ^? stRm aii^t js also stated iu his evidence that on the ^iis body in fix>nt of fhe house of Kitnwar tt Dasru and the accused wero taUang and :n fhem. The accused went to his house, Kuinotin Bai witli the axe as a result of neck, back portion & haud. C|h.iingu (PW-9) who has corroborated the ^a viz., Mukund Siagh (PW-1) & Bhadu @ i-examiaation defence Taas not been abte which dlscredits the evidence of these tdent witaess aad he has corroborated fhe N-1] & Bhadu @ Bahadur (PW-3). >f fhe deceased who has stated iu his lay he was at his resideace aad his wife e door ofhis house. House ofthe accused accused asked Wm that how inuch dcwry tfaen he replied fhat he cannot giye dowry, /^0 75? •<11<ll<?i<4, giTflu'KS, Isf^iy^ ,,...&,a,sxf/... •qTORT g^ra?.......................—.....^...................^^p^ •3ni?r wv Cpf^i^ff) 3^T ?T R-1 'cTSSfT -3TR3?r sft^T^] '?CTIWdfTO MI^I but how inuch dowry the accused became angry. Then brought the axe. By fhat house, therefore, he hide ius Kuinotm Bai as a result from behiud when he was Therefore, ff-ova. the above evid Singh (PW-l), Dasm (PW-2), 9), coniplicity of the accus^ established and to that exten] iu fhe judgment of fhe tnal Cc\ acdtised has givea to h "15 sister on wluch the jafter, the accused went to his house aud :, her wife asked him to hide iaside the (de the house, but the accused attacked she fell down and he saw ttie accused away fi'oni fhe place of occurrence. |ence of ffaese four witaesses viz., Miikuiid Iphadu @ Bahadur (PW-3) 85 Chungu (PW- ?d in the criine in question has been we do not find any iUegalily or infirmily iurt tml.e ofwhB.ch rulimTi appe]|lant 5. Leamed counsel for the the accused as to what dowr^ iafuriated fbe accused aad ht attacked Kumotia Bai on sudil 6. But above act of fhe accusj Section 300 of the I.P.C., be|c I.P.C. speaks that culpable wtulst deprived of the pow{ provocation, causes the deatl^ causes the deafh of any oth^ first iastaB.ee, simply sayiag he has given in tbe inamage| provoke aaybody to that exte^it Moreover, if at all it is consi4< chHfM*ft'1 HlM<nlf Tf.^1^ TfiiR^R ^sTRrt aii^i also aigued ftiat ia fact, Dasru asked he gave to his sister iu her marriage that s brougbt fhe axe, theiefore, the accused ten and grave provocation. ;d is not covered under Exception 1 to :ausc Exception 1 to Section 300 of ftie hoinicidc is not niurder if fhe offender, ;r of self-control by giave a&d sudden ofthe person who gave the provocation or ;r person by inlstakc or accident In the biy Dasru to fhe accused that what dowry of his sister is not the stibject which caa fbat he can cause the death ofa person. ;red to be provocation that was not given ;';«»a.. ,.'t^ 'G- _ ^. :—78 3F5ST ^|<)|<<i<), SiTTly'IS, fsldl'M^ 7 HINrtl sbHleb .(^.:A:..SRQ/.. 'V^ 200^_ sni?r iraq? (4,<iifl«i<ff) sn^f vi R(-<i+ ^TSfT 3TI^?T ?hHi<ft Soma ^aiw ^ifsff 3ii^i by Kuinotin Bai, fhe accused or rhyme, therefore, fhe ac^ of the accused is not covered iirtder Exception 1 to Section 300 o iniirmity pr iUegalily iu the jvu\ 7. In fhe result, the appeal bein| aad it is hereby disniissed. qiT^<4"ll ^lH^ff Tf.l^Zl' <P*1^1< ^rsifgHan^r attacked Kumotm Bai wifhout any rcdson the I.P.C. No other poiut was raised by couusel for the appeUaut. Iiji the circumstaaccs, we do not find aay gment of the trial Court. l devoid of merit is liable to be disinissed Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge