^•^^^••••^••^-•••T—'. ^^•^^1^"^"^'.' .•.:'-/^ ^!t '^^.^':':"^-'^ '''^•"'•'^" .^^... .^^ ^ ;..^ ^; '.^. •A':- s. r"w."M^"t'^'sy'S :ssasKss'.t i^s'S9"WSS '<i3®S;^:^P! :,s^<s'.is;'3-''fe:a ••-.^. -sKS .as.ii-K ^^.^.^ep; ysw C%.:w:i!S:''K'f:. SSiIitli «•],§•;aS.o^^ :^!-i;'!^.. •*S:ij^,;..,,i;@; •'ef-.i 'St^SI'll^ ^ltSSI'. .•SS'SS.ii^s-,.' ^il'IBBfeft'' ~>'*d •.n^'-'.S," ••^^'\ Si •''•-** ^^B:'il:S"'l^f^ ."'•.i-y1.'^^'?:) "^'^^ •:;.-• -.%•<;•-§:?',:-».;.&. .g;'J^^^7|:,|-,' . ::s' a '.ET'.St.'i-.'g' ^ ••:l.s-^ILfc£, .'f%i't';|"S':ts o t-4- '.^ tl^'t's.t {1'';^' •9-- ffl:/^- ^' ItJtli' '''al'3;''5..is.^3 •S ...re. ^' .•^.-^•.''B';"^.-. ^ ' '. ^ ft' .> ' .t~i -. ''nt. 'rf' '• 'i^:&^-a^ ^] . --^ . ~;^ • f+ i''S.: '.'; •••t"!-.:' • &•', fl-V. cr' i^-:£^* tLr3 - •9'^ Is1; B.l s l^"1 t-t ^"; -d <* .-fr J:s §-?:8. •s^.^^S.-i.:^':^^ •~Bt—S &i^:. R:,TXt^'1"" XI-HC-22 ^^ -ill^wq, ^•yli<»,rawKiy .0^.:..,....^. flliIPII tiilich sn^i-^i 'Rafean^l •aiiiw^if?^ sn^i^^gm'nfta HON'BLEMR.L.C.BHADOOAND HON'BLE MR. DH1RENDRA MISHR^I 13-1- Shri Abhay Tiwari, Advocate for[ Shri U.N.S. Deo, Additional Put Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent( Orai judgment dictated on 0;as.| PER L.C.BHADOO. J. iy thjs appea! under Sec^ accused/appellant has questioned the| and. order of sentence-^ dated ' 16-4^ Sessions Judge, Surguja after hold| commissiQn of myrder of his wifel^Ia^ the i.l?;C. and sentenced him to under{ 6f Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment o^ forSmonths. . Thecase ofthe prqsecution, in accused asked for the meal from hisw the accused started assaulting his wifc up a burning wood and assaulted with which she •died. The rriatter Was rep< about 9.20 p.m.. After receiving this n No.18/94. ,Th&..S.H.O. proceeded to notice Ex/P/1 to the Panchas, prepan lyi-iynf thriris^easeci. He teok inte-p< [•WTCfi^'fs^r'tf^TC^ ^aipOTSii^r theappellant. lic Prosecutor with Shri Akhil Mishra, P/3. He a!so took into possession the |on 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. the tegaiity of the judgment 6f conviction |96 whereby tearned first Additional |ng the accused/appellant guilty for ta convicted him undersection 302 of |o imprisonmentfor life, and pay a fine fine to further undergo imprisonment tsrief, isthat in the night of 13-2-94 the (fe Maya. As the meal was not ready, 1 Mayawith the hand and fists, picked thesame on her neck, as g-Tesuit of <rted by Baiam Kodakuon 16-2-94 at ^port, the crime was'registered at Sr. (he scene of occurrence, after giving (d Panchanama (Ex.-P/2) of the dead tooosion tho piocc ofwood uryjcyj^';.-' •ysesy T[T^ bloodstained soii and plain soi! from h XI-HC-22 •s^~^w\v\<i, ^tere, hwiyy wwn *NI'» sn^!^i l^'iWSil^I stitii^ -yled san^i ?^ii^R tilia -7 dause the place of occurrence. He prepar^) sent for postmortem examlnation tc| where Dr. Pritam Ram (PW-4) copcfucted the deceased and opined that' haemorrhage on account of rupture was homicidal. After completipn of the invest the accused in the.Court of Judicial turn committed the case to the S< tearned First Additional Sessions trial.- ' . .. ; • The prpsecution in order to e< examined four witnesses. The stEtteitient Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.-in which stated that tie is innQcent and ha; Learned AdditJQnal Sessjons Judge| Public Prosecutor and counsel for th^ accused as mentiohed in para-1 ofthf Wehave heard learned couns^l evidence available on reeord. The homicidal death ofthedec As far as involvemenfof theat is concerned, the father of the accu^ed rests on the extra judicial confessi<j Chhote^omar. PW-3 hasstated thsjt ^ / ~ '. . • • ' • • him ari3 stated that he has assaultedl '^prf^T^ "RRytf ^ i^^s <!^it-^R i? 3TpgIi svKs site plan EX7-P/5. The dead faiody was the Community Health Centre, Rajpur postmortem on the dead body of of death was syncope due to ifliverand spleen. The natureof dsath tigation, charge. sheet was fiied against l|4agistrate, first Class, Ambikapurwho jn ^ssions Judge, Ambikapur from where Jlidge receivect the case on transfer for ptablish the charge against the accused offtie accused was recorded under |ie derired the prosecution evsdence and 1 been falsely implicated in thecrime. after hearing arguments of Additionai i^ accused, convictedand sentenced the ps judgment is^l forthe parties, perused j'udgment and teased is not in dispute. |;cysed in committing murder ofhiswife has turned hostile. The conviction |n made by the accused before PW-3 at about 12 p.i^i. the accused cameto hiswjfewith a burning wood, hand and fists, ana sne is not speaKing.tnetetore.youcomeandsee her.[Qg^^, tie went and saw that Ma^a was already dead. In the crQSs-examination, he has XI-HC-22 •s"^ ^Fn?rg, "g^Tiis, woiuy MWWf ai*!P3b qil sn^ vSsv •< sii^i •ronwHfsg' 3 stated that the accused has not stated burning wood. But the fact remains] confession voluntarily and same was went to the scene Of occurrenGe Sn< confession was prompt also. Further support form the postmortem cpnduct^ we do npt find any iilegatity and inf|i regarding involvementoftheaccused Learned counsel for the accused/appellant asked for the meal \ Ca^*^^£-AtV^ beeame &fffa^ed'and inafitofangpr, hiswife.-he assaulted with hand and fij vital organ, somehow hjs hand'1andec| of Maya were ruptured, therefore, does not travel beyond Section 304-11 decision of •the Hon'ble Apex Court in Punjab repiorted in 1994 SCC (Cr) 64, On the other hand.Shri U.N.Sl judgment ofthe triat Cduft. In order to appreciate the arguifient the accused/appellant we have pe^ postmortem report., He has ppined rupture of spTeen and liyer ftn accoi nothing on record which shows that th|e intention to cause her death.. As tiie ^. &^T£/tY^, ^ he bec^rr>6 SRf.^gedand all of a suddi quarrel; he attackea his wife, and fis *i<ii7i';fl-) iipTOi '?.'f%^ tftn?R ^ 3ri:gq aii^i that he has assaulted his wife with the that.the accused made extra judicial true because' this witness immediately saw Maya dead. Tbe extra judicial l|he said extra juyicialconfession lends [d by PW-4 Dr. Pritam Ram. Therefore, rmjty in the findlng of the trial Court |n committing crime in question. iGcused/appeliant -argued that the |and when meal was not provided, he liwithout any intention to cause death of i^ts. The injury was not caused on any on a place by whichSpleen and iiver opence agaihst the accused/appellant t^fthe I.P.C. He placed reliance on the tjie matter of Karam Singh V. Sta.te of Deo and Shri Mishra supported the advanced by tearned counsel for |'used> evidence of the doctor and ;hat the deceased died on account-of ,(nt of excessive bteeding. Thgre is i|e accused assaulted his wife with the liod was not provided to the accused, ^n, withoutpre-meditation, in a sudden fejanded on the part of bodv where spleen and liver were there. On accourt of that assault spleenL^K<?'fl^er "-^'p. li ^-WC-'7^ snt^^n fe;ri% 3ii^i gSiW^rfltT Barve T5?'STRRTt, ®'d1'y'l<»,hi'll'My tilMWi «)*<ich SII^ITOHW^lftd •A rupturecl. TherefQre, we are of t( accused/appetlant does not fravel are fortified in our opinion by the j|. accused/appellant. In that case, t^i received as many as 10 injuries 4 tiver were also ruptured. The circumstances, intention cannot bt death. However.from the circi^ accused to have knowledge by death of the deceased. Facts of .knowledgecan be attributed to the| toGausefleath ofhis wife Maya. In the result, ffie appeal sentence awarded under Sect accused/appellant are set aside, convicted for commission of offenc sentencedtoundergo:R.l.for10y< itis-jevidentthattheaccused/appell; thereby he is in cusfodyfor about already undergone the sentence forthwith, if not required in any othe Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge ,-^-jl q)i<ii<vi^ T?w^f ^ 'f^st ^; sipgir sn^i ie Qpiniort that the offence against the li»eyondSeGtion 304-11 of the f.P.C. arid we jl.tdgment cited byleamedcounsel for the je accused assaulted Nahar Singh and he |nd 5-7 ribs werefractyred. Spleen and Hon'ble Apex Court held: that'in the atSribyted to the accused for causing (mstances, it must be'attributed to the d^aling such blows he was likely to cause Ijie present case are-also similar and the accused that byfists blows he was likely Ipartly suceeeds. The conviction and :|on 302 of the I.P.C. against the i|istead thereof, the accused/appellant is te urider. Sectiori 304-11 of the i.P.C.and ^ars. From the judgmentof the trial Court ^nt remained in the custody since 21-2-94 |11 years, 11 months, Therefore, he has The accused/appellant be reieased rcase. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge [^ft^^Ha^ r~ 1