£^ ^. wi* uq €? ^ a4.i ^ 3 \J^ -^-r W5K ^ y., ,=?!'N -jl Q § < q ^ 7' m ^. ±1 o T t\q ^^ jv^ : mr- & u?> s', a =9 ^4 !i3? ^.¥^- ^^. ''•^•^ ^.-. '..^. f,.^ ^' XI-HC-78 3T1^T ^)T R?TT^ c^TT3TT^T$b*4|cb ^I+ICII a»*tTch S^T'^NK'I^, ^Tfl^JI<o, [stdKiy C^\^"Vb.:((S7/y70: ^200 3TT^?T ^5<cb (yit^^) S^cTTW ^fin 3TI^T Djyision Bench: - Hon'bJe Mr. L.C. ghadoo and Hon'bje Mr, Dhjrendro MishrA 13.9.2006 AAiss Nirupama Bajpai, AAr. U.N.S. Deo, Additiot ^ovt. Advocate for the Stote/1 Oral Jud9ment dictated Per L.C. Bhadoo. J: - This Gppeal is directed sentencs dctsd 8th Mcrch, 19^ Judge/ RajnandgQon m S.TNo.| Judoe after hoidin9 the accus under Sectlon 302 of the I.PJ OurpQti Bai/ sentenced him to of Rs.500/-, in default of paym| The orosecution casel accused/appe!!ant Amritid alo? for coliecting wood. Accused/a} father namely Mahanguram (P1 fa!I, therefo.yle, on the same da^ merg intimQtion (Ex.P-1) in the his son Amrltla! olong with hi^ wood, his son Amritiai informec a screcim toh mother' and feli ^dvocate for the appeliant. id) Public Prosecutor with Mr. b.K. ©walre,Dy. "espondent. ?n Dai^ Ghi^f<n41'i HI^^TI ^ te^t <RI^K ^3Tf^T3TTc^T JJ. 29ainst the Judgment of conviction & order of ?9 passed by learned 2nd Additionai Se^sions L59/98, whereby learned Additlonal Se^ions sd/appellant 9uiity for commission of offence JC. for committing murder of his wife nam^ly Indergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine i^nt of fine to further under9o R.I. for 1 year. in brief, is that on 30th May, 1998 g with h.i^ wife Durpati B^i went to the forest ^peilant returned to his house and informed his |ft/-l) that Durpati Bai has died on account of at 3.00 p.m. in the evenin5 MGhangurQHi, gave [Police Station AAohia to the effect that today ^vife Durp^ti Bd went to forest for co31ectin9 him that whiie cutting the trea his wife rdsed own on the ground. On hearing scream of his P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^ocT ^II^I^l^, ^Tfi^i^Ko, f^^l^y HP^TTaP^T^l ^200 3TT^T ^51 ch (yii^c^T) ^TT^T^Tf^TT^ d^T3TT^T$h^l<=b ^cTTW ;FrfN ^TI^T ^ife, he her and Thlsr biood chl^f<vl41'l HTR^ff ^* tel^t ^T^IT ^3rf^T3TI^T her mouth and wire, ne ^enr near ner ana saw ^ithout ^peaking she died. R^< Investigotis^ Officer ieft for t^ PonchanGma (Ex.P-2) of the dead 3) to the Panchas. During invesl custody gwe memorandum (Ex.P- rope, weapon of offence and in puj taken into possession under Ex.P-i- jnto posses^ion under Ex.P-5. Bioc of bangie^ were taken into po^e^ were taken into pos^ession under for postmorteni exGmlnGtion to th4 21A, where the doctors conduct€c| and prepared the postmortem death i3 asphyxia due to strangui^ doctors whiie conducting the i. Bieeding from nostri! biuish in colour. Face biackish. li. Muitipie abrasion preser^t iii. Myitipie abrasion ^cm x lcm, b!ack in coioi iv. Muitiple abra^ion in left colour. WQS coming out or ^ceiving ^1^ informotion (Ex.P-1), the e piace of occurrence and prepared the i^ody of deceased after giving notice (Ex.P- igation, accused/appeiJGnt while in police !•) regarding the piace where he kept the ^uance of that three piece^ of rope were -^. Ciothes of accused and axe were taksn ^d stdned ^oil, piainsoil and broksn pieces ^ion under ExP-10, Ciothe^ of deceased |Ex.P-17. Deod body of deceased WQS sent Primary Health Centre, AAohla under ExP- the postm0iwst€mcn the body of deceased Ex.P-21. They opined that cause of fetion cnd dgQth i^ homiddal in nature, The noticed following injuriess- mouth, tongue wa^ bltten by teeth & ^weiied, eyelid of both eye ecchymossd rdport postr^ortem ahd prese^st on iaft knee Joint in the size of 3" x 3". beiow right knee Joint In th@ size of r. ^ide of back in the sise of 5"x3*", blGck in P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^TT^T ^T f^TtoF cTSTT 3TT^T ^HT^ y 3 3-^[ ^l^ld^, ^Tfl^l?, Ts«rtl^y ffTR^I Sb^lch ^200 STT^TtRW (yI^<^T) ^<TT^K^rf?cT3TT^T v. A biack mark in the righ|t 2"x3". vi. A biack mcirk present i?| di5section of thi^s mark vii- A black mark was pres^r and on dissection it is compietely in drcle the viii.Muitipie Gbrasion in bot| Fowl smeiiing. ix, A biack mark yy^ presen|t Tne doctors i^ere of the 01 and blunt object. Marks on the ne<| injuries were ante mortem in nc| chemicai examination to Forensjc report (Ex.P-19) was received. As| haJf-pont & t-shirt of the acc| re9istered on 2.6.1998 for commis^ After compietion of USUG) m\ th^ accu^d/.opp^Llant in the Court Ambagwh Choi^ki, who in turn comr Rajnandgaon, froni where iearned 2| received the case on transfer for t| The prosecution in order accu^ed/appeliant examined 21 wil accussd/appeliant WGS recorded ngh|t cheek ju^t side of r'ight ©yein the size of <+)i^Id41-i ^i^dT^'te^iRi^K ^3Tf^T3TI^T middle of vault in the size of 5"x3". On iotted effused blood WQ^ present. it in front of neck in the size of 4fx jt/ hard and blood effused. Tnis mark is Jn leck at the level of both shoutdcrs. elbow joints posterior in size of 2" x 2si. on the fece in th®size of 3" x l". inion thct Injury No,3 wascaused by hard |;k may be due to any rope iike artlcle. Aii hure. Recovered articies were sent for |Science Laboraiary, R<2ipur, from where [per report, biood was found on the rope, jised. Tliereafter, FJ.R. (Ex,P-25) was jon of offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. ^estjgctlon, charge sheet wcs fiied agdnst ^f Iwrmd JudJciQl Mogl^trnte Fjrst C!a^, ^itted the cose to iearned Sessions Judge, |d Additionaj Sessions Jud9©,RGJnandgGon t-id. to estabiish the charge agdnst the ^esses. On the other hond, statcment of ilider Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he P.T.O. XI-HC-78 CT^T^Tf^t^ cTSTT3TT^Tsh^i<=h 3^T ^l^ld^, ^Tn^ll(o, IstcrlKriy +1I*1(<1I ^HTch ^ 200 311^1 ^i5i<») (<ic<^c«<fir) 5^TW^T3T^T denied the materia) appeoring in stated thot he is innocent and haj hos further stated that he was c( wife was coliecting tho^e branchgjs ground and died on her own, Learned 2nd Addjtionaj Sessl respective counsei, convicted and mentioned in p^res 1 of this Judgme?|it We have heard AAiss Bajpd Pybijc Pro^ecutor with Mrl. ©walrej As for as the death of concerned, iearned counsel for th^ Qccused was busy in cutting the b| feil doyyn, the accused imr?iediGt< vjjjagers and the prosecytion has n<| deceased was homicidal in nature. In order to appreciate the the ^ccused/appellant, w©have p| Even thou9h the accused/appeiianl .313 of Cr.P.C. has stoted that whi tree ond his wife was busy irs coii^ sudden and died on her own, but a^ PW-1 Mehanguram, father of occu^ 8d died on account of faii whiie ^ &r. J.R. M.QndQVi (PW-20), who WQS\ t-he pro^ecution evidence agdnst him and been falseiy impiicated in the cnme, He itting the branches of tree, whereos, his |s and aii of sudden she fel! down on the ^n5 Judge/ after hearin9 the orgum^nts of ^entenced the accused/Qppellant herein as <=t)l^?^l4i-l HTR^ff ^* fe^t <f^<<l< ^^ri^TW^T Adv, for the oppeiiant and AAr. Deo, Add!. |Dy, 6A. for the State, purpati Bai bein9 homicida! in nature is accused/appeilant argued thQt when the 'anches of tree, deceased GJI of a sudden ^iy rushed to the viilage to inform the ^t been abie to e^tabiish thot the d^ath of ^rgument advanced by learned counsei for fcru^ed the evidence ovdlabie on record. in his statement recorded under Section |e he wa^ busy in cuttin9 the branches of ;|ctln9 those branches, she feil down all of per merg intimQtion (Ex,P-l) given by the ^d, the accused jnfornied him that Durpcti ^c WQS busy in cuttlng the tree. VVherecis, lone of the members of the medicai board P.T.O. r k XI-HC-78 ^ 5 T^T ^I^M^, ^Tn^jl(o, fa^W^< ^l+l^l S»»+11<sh ^ 200 3TT^T ^5|ch (^qI^qq^T) 3n^T^rR?:ricF n^T3TT^T$b^i<?b 5^<rT^K ^cT W^T and condueted postmortem on th^ injuries found on the body of dec^ No.6 of his evidence he has stat^d by biunt and hard object. The injur^ decea^ed, could be caused by rope mortem in nature. In Para-8 he haj stran9ujation, as a result of asph^ cross-excimination this witness h| 30.5.1998 at sbout 12.00 noon and conducted on 31.5,1998 because o?i Abrasion injuries found on the bod^ biunt object, but how these injuriei to given his opmion, As far as the st doctor has stated in the in-drcle ths ncck, ^ome couid be examination on this point. There] discarded, as there was no cross-e^ ^uggestion on behalf of the accus^ neck of deceased was as a result AAoreover, as per postmortem size of 4|-" x i' was found and on di effused and there was a mark of ievel of both the shouiders, Apart foynd on the knee^ of both the teg^ ond there WGS one injury mark on examinati^n-in repot|'t <=t)i^t<n41-i H\H^\ ^te^^^K ^^rf^R'3TT^?T body of deceased, has confirmed the |aseo\ as mentioned eGrlier, in Paragraph it WGS possibie to cause these injuries |ies, which were found on the neck of the [ike articies and dl the injurle^ were ante fe further stated that cause of death was Ixio and was homicidd in noture. In the (ss stated that body w<ss brought on ^as kept in mortuary and postmortem wos 30.5.1998 the doctor was not Gvdiabk. of deceased could be caused by hard and could be caused, he was not in a position ^an9ulGtion and asphyxia is concerned, the ^n-m-chief that thi5 niark wos compieteiy coy^ed by rope and there is no cro^- Ifore, the doctor's evidence cannot be kamination on this point and there wa^ no \d that how the injury found cround the 4f faii, which resuited into ^trangulation. •t|lt injury of in-circle round the neck jn the bsection the same was found hord & biood ^ompiete in-circle round the neck at the ^rom that so many muitipie abrasion^ were ;l eibow Joints, on the left ^ide of the back the cheek on the right $ide. A II these P.T.O. XI-HC-78, 3:^T ^l^jd^, ^TTl^41<$, t^c11^^< ^ 6 *llHdl Sh*lich ^ 200 311^1 45|ch (*ic<i^6«3l€T) 3TT^fT^)T^TNF TOT3:n^T$byich ^cTTW 9fN'3T^?T chi^f<ri^vi ^i^<"iT^'tel:^t<Ri^i< ^3Tf^T3TT^T injuries suggest that same were not due to foli on the ground. Jh{ death of deceased was homicida! in| doctors, is correct and we do not As swh, it is-.estabiished that homicidal in nature. As far as invoivement of under Ssction 302 of ZPC is cass rest^ on the circum^tantiai e| on the basis of olrcumstantjal Courf in the matter of DhQtiGryoy (1994) 2 SCC 220:, the prosecutio| pnndple^ "In Q case based on which the conciusion of 9ullt i^ the resuit of stru9gle by the deceased and ^refore/ finding of the tria! court thcit the nature based on the medical opinion of the ind ony ground to interfere with the ^ame. the death of dsceased DurpQti 8d was ^ccused/appeIIant in commission of crime con4erned, there is no direct evidence, whoie 1/idence and in order to convict cn accused evi^lence, as has been heid by Hon'bie Apex ^hfiitt'crjee Vs< State of W.B. reported in ?h ha$ to establi^h the case os per followina circumstahtial e^tabiished but aiso that Gil thel of a concjysive noture and consislter the accused. Tt^o^e circumstahce expidned by any other hypothe^is th@ chdn of the evidence mu^t reosonabje ground for the beih ac^used.It needs no reminder not merely indignation of the co|jrlt the more seriou^ the crsme, th| scrutinize the evldcnce lest ©vidence,the circumstancss from to b@ drawn have not oniy to be fuiiy lcircumstances 50 estabJished shouid be jtent only with the hypothesis of guiit of ^hould not be cctpQble of being ^is except the 9uilt of the accused and be so complete as not to leGve any If conslstent wjth the innocence of the !egai!y established circumstances and can form the ba^is of convictlon and fe areatsr should be the care taken to takes the place of proof." tHat susF|icion In the present case, the crime Q9dnst the accused/Qppe! |)rosecytion has tried to estabiish the i^tnt on the foilowjng circumstances: P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3T1^T^T^icb cTSTT 3T^?T sb^Jch 3^T ^NIol^, ^TTl^41(o, (^dl^^< <-n*1^1 Sh<41<ch ^ 200 311^1 ^5i cb (yii^^r) ^RTTW ^TfN'^TI^T i. The accused and the dececjsed, together when they were 901^9 the morning of the date of in^ident. ii. A faise expianQtion 9iven b\ account of faii on the groundj. As far QS flrst circumstancl Romdayal, have categoricaiiy stcte^ forest after coiiectin9 the wood, (since deceased) met them on the them os to where th.cy csre 9olng, t| coiiect the wood. Thereofter, th< not be^n dispyted rather it is adrrii No.19, in hls statement under Sect) that he aion^ wlth his wife &urpa|-i wciy. Even the accu^ed in reply to thGt he was cutting the branches hi5 wife wos busy in coilectina tho^ feli down and died. Therefore, it] Durpoti Bd, occused WQS with the per^on was thers and that person As far QS ^econd clrcumstcarice &urpGti 3ai, accu^ed and deceasec father Mehanguram (PW'l) based (Ex.P-1) and as per the expianati under Sectior! 313 C^.P.C_ his wif chi^i^^nTi ^TR^fy ^* te^ <r3i<-<-i< ^^ri^T^TT^T I, when she WQS aiive, wer©iast seen to the forest for collecting th@ wood in the accused that the deceased died on safri is concerned, PW-8 Yashoda Bai &PW-10 that when they were returning from the [•he accused along with hi5 wife Durpati Bai ^QV, when PW-10 RomdayQJ enquired from iey replied that they Gre 9oin9 to forest to ^y returned to their house. Thls fact ha^ itted, a^ the accused in repiy to Question |on 313 Cr.P.C., has stated thot it Is correct i|-i Bai met Yashoda Bai A Ramdayai on the puestion No.56 has cQtcgoricaiIy ^dmitted ^f tree, which was !yin9 on the ground, and }e branches of tree and a!l of a sudden she |is admitted positlon that tlil the deoth of deceased. He has not said thot any third Ittacked the deceassd. is concerned,, tlii the death of deceQ^ed were toaether and accused informed his |on which his father gave merg intimation <^n glven by the accused in hi5 statement di^d on fl^ount of^f^li on r'hp^grQynd, P.T.O. v XI-HC-78 ^^^TraToT^, ^Tfl^4l<s, f®t<-ll^^< +11+1^1 Sh*lich ^[ 200 W^T^T(<^J<=h cT8TT3TT^Tsb^ich ^' 3TF^?T ^?<cb (yt^^T) g^cTT^K ^cT W^T whereas/it is established, as per e^irlier discussion, that the deceosed died on account of asphyxia due to strang^iQtion, as per medical report. Therefore, the explcinGtion of the accused/< conduct of the accused indicates crime. Th@ Qccused wa^ the best sustoined muitiple abrasions QJI ov around the neck with the help of strangulGtion, h^ss besn recovei ^ppellant was found to be folse Qnd this Itowards his involvement in commi^sion of Iperson to expldn as to how the deceased ^r the body and the mark of strQn9uIcstion rope, Even the rope/ which wcs used for 'ed under Ex.P-6 at the in^ance of accused/appeiJQnt ds per memoron|jum E.xP-4, The doctors, after examination of the rope, opined that in-circle rope in question. As such, th| accused/Gppeliant, GS he has aivert deoth of dece^ed. Accordin9iy involyement of accused/Qppeliant ii admittsd fsct that tlil the deatH deceased and the deceased died o? and accordjngly, it is hereby dJ^mi^ Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Tudge cbi^?oi41'i wraY ^* te^ <r3i<-<-i< ^3Tf^T3TT^T injury round the neck could be cau^ed by s circumstance al^o goes against the false ©xpianationregarding the cause of the chdn of circunistances r€9<srding crime in que^tion i^ compiete because it is of decea^ed, the accu^ed WQ^S with the account of homicidal injuries on her n©ck i.e. strangulation for which thea^cused has 9iven fo!se explanationQnd for the reasons given in ths foregoitig paragraphs It is estabiished that the in question and there is no possibiiity of accused was the author of crime coming any third person in betweer^. In the result/we do not fin^l any iliagGiity or irregulanty in the finding of the trial court, the appeQi is de^oid of merit, same Is iiable to be dismJssed :bed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge £?~