XI—HC-78 EW,W GA a 16 WW. ../?9 m 200 WW(W) WWW WWW WW§WW mmmm - - aswm DIVI5ION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. LC. BHADOO & O'LE MR . DHIRENDRA M HNB IS 27.11.2006 Shri MRS. Bha‘ria, Advoc e for fhe appeHan‘r. 5hri U.N.S. Deo, Addi'rional Pubiic Prosecufor for fhe Sim-e. Heard. Oral judgmenf dicfafed on ails: Per LC. Bhndoo J. This appea! is direc‘red agai sf fhe judgment of convicfion and order- of ~sen1'ence da‘red 9.12.1998 pxsed y Additional Sessions Judge, Baikun'rhpur‘, District Koren in 5.T.No.148/98, whereby Addifional Sessions Judge'dffer homing The accused/appeilan‘r a! n9 wifh’ co-accused Ramjhufan guiH'y for commission of offence under 5e ans 302 read wifh Secfion 34 &459 of fhe IPCsenfenced each of The accus d persons To undergo imprisonment for life and To pay a fine of Rs.500/-, defaulf of paymenf of fine 1'0 furfher undergo RI. for one year and R.I. or 7 years and fo pay a fine of Rs.600/-, in defauif of paymen‘i of fine fo fur? er undergo RI. for one year respecfively. in brief, is The? on 22.2.1998 when Dakhai Soi along wi‘rh his wife Sonkun r (since deceased) was of his residence, accused persons i.e. Shivdhari, R mjhufan & Mansingh wen‘r To ‘l'he house of I Dakhai Sai in a drunken oondifion and enfered the house offer breaking fhe door. Accused Ramjhufan was c rying a knife in his hand, whereas accused Shivdhari was carrying a spade i his hand. Sonkunwar, wife of Dakhai Sai. P.T.O. W n , XI-HC—78 HW,WW,W Wm OCxzgolo O/~éO20/’?jo Q . o a? 200 WW(W) iv Wwm WWW WWW WW§WW %H%w311%3T Ramjhumn enquired abom her hush her husband has hidden, on This : husband, on which accused Ramjhu sfar‘red running, fhe presenf accus was sleeping in The verandah. A<:cused/appellanT herein as well accused and Dakhol Sai and asked her ThaT where :he replied ThaT she hos noT hidden her Tan kicked Sonkunwar. When Sonkunwar her on The ground, when she agai d affccked her wifh the knife on affacked her wi'rh fhe spade on he and a‘r'racked The accused persons. Sonkunwar succumbed To fhe inju Police Sfai‘ion Pa‘rna. The Sfai'i r s registered The crime under Seciii invesfigmion, ief‘r for The place of i To fhe Panchas prepared the inques fook im‘o possession The broken be spade under EXP-7i Biood sfained: under Ex.P-8. Dhofi & shirf of act lappellanT caughT hold of her and Threw Tried To run away, accused RamjhuTan her Temporal region. Accused Shivdhw-i r head, on which Dokhal Sci broughT axe Thereaf'l'er, accused persons fled away. Dokhal Sal lodged The reporT aT The - House Officer, Police STaTion PaTna‘ ms 302 & 452 of The IPC, Took up The lccurrence and afTer giving noTice (EXP-5) T (EXP-6) on The body of Sonkunwar. He ngles of deceased Sonkunwar w also The ioil and plain soil was Taken inTo possession :used /oppellanT was Taken inTo possession under Ex.P-9. Dead body of Sonkunwar was sen'l' for pos‘l'mor‘rem examina'rion 1'0 The CommuniTy HealTh CenTre, Pc ;Tna under EXP-16, where Dr. Ashish Karan’ (PW-17) conducTed The posTmorTe'm and prepared The reporT (Ex.P-21) in which he opined ThaT The cause of deoTh was homicidai in naTure. AfTer compieTion of usual inv resTigaTion, charge sheeT was filed ogainsT :ieaTh was comma due To head injuries and The accused persons in The CoTrT of Judicial MogisTraTe FirsT Class, “gcse‘g‘ P.T.O. XI—HC—78 WW,W,W WW ' .C?%:../.€.2./2j... H1 200 3 Wm (W) Wm‘rm WWW WWEWW mwm éKWW Baikun'rhpur, who in furn commi'r'red the case ‘ro learned Sessions Judge, Sarguja from where Addi‘rional Sessions Judge, Baikun‘rhpur' raceived The case on fransfer' for Trial. The prosecm'ion in order m esiablish The charge againsf ihe accused Sfa‘iemenfs of accused persons were recorded under Secfion 313 of f Cr.P.C. in which They denied The material appearing agains‘i them in The pros cufion evidence. Learned Sessions Judge offer hearing learned counsel for The respecfiye parfies and offer per al of The record; canvic‘red and senfenced fhe accused/appellani‘ herein a accused Ramjhu‘ran in fhe manner as men‘rioned above in Para 1 of fhi judgment However, co-accused Monsingh has been acqui‘Hed of fhe above c arges. On enquiry, accused Ramjh fan has informed fhof papers were senf to Shri Sinha, Advocal'e of Jabalpur and appeal was filed on his behalf and now 5hri A‘K. Prosad, Advocafe is looki g offer The maTTer. 5hri A.K. Prasad, AdvocaT , who is presenT in CourT, submiTTed ThaT Their office had never filed any a peal on behalf of'accused RamjhuTan, They had filed The appeal on behalf of p esenT accused/appellanT Shivdhari only. We have heard 5hri M.P.S. haTia, AdvocaTe for accused-Shivdhari and 5hri U.N.5. Deo, AddiTional Public rosecuTor for The STaTe. Learned counsel for The ac used/appellant herein did noT dispuTe The homicidal deaTh of Sonkunwar. Ap T from ThaT, from The evidence of Dakhal 5ai (PW-6), husband of deceased ThaT The accused assaulTed The deceased from The medical evidence of Dr. Ashish persons examined 17 wi‘rnesses. h P.T.O. n aran (PW—17), who conducfed ‘rhe fm'rem, thaf fhe deceased died on ccourrr of head injuries and deafh homicidai in na+ure, i1' is esfabiished haf ‘ihe dea‘ih of Sonkunwar was ha idai in nafure. As far as invoivemen‘i' o The cused/appeiianf in crime in quesfian is oncerned, there is only one eyewif s fa fhe crime i.e. Dakhai Sci, husband f deceased, who hs ca‘regoricaily fe That accused Ramjhu‘ran assauifed he eceased wi‘rh a knife, whe s, accused Shidhari assaui‘red fhe ceased on her head wi'rh 1he spad He has furfher sfa‘red tha'i' on seeing he accused persons assauifing his fe, he ould nof con‘rroi himself and icked up fh xe lying 'l'here and acked accused persons. The above vience of Dakhal Sai (PW-6) stan corroborated by the medical evidence s alo the evidence of Rambaran ( 8), son of deceased, who has stated hat when he returned from the f st, he saw that accused 5hivdhari & amjhutan were raising slogans ai i" at his residence, on hearing this, he ame to the house and saw t e ad body of his mother was lying there nd accused persons were going say ‘Jai-Jai". Therefore, in view of e ove vidence as also the medical e ence of Dr. Ashish Karon (PW-17), th ab e v d e nvolvement of accused/appellant in acking the deceased on her head with i t spae is estalished and on acc t of'which even the skull bone of the eceased was frctured. Therefore, do not find y illegality or infirmit n p o acs d he d b o n d a e an y the imugned judgment of the trial urt to this extent. Learned counsel for the cu /appellant argued that in the evidence t has come on the record that the mused/appellant picked up the spade, which was lying in the house of d ceased, and attacked her only once, P.T.O. wez . . ‘7“...3? K sor a t m c f c c n s c a s ad vr d r a v de e t i c p e a l ed d a s P - t a e R “J— a c hat th e a i g th XI-Hc—78 mw,m,f§amg{ ‘ .Qw/r" ”3/3?” WW a1 200 4 WW<W> WWWEI‘WW mmwm %3I%m3n%$ XI—HC—78 gamma, Wm,W WW<W) WW§WW mm%am a:mm fherefore, The case of The accused‘lappellanf does no? fravel beyond Secfion 304 Parf II of IPC. On fhe ofher hand: learned Addifional Public Prosecutor for fhe STaTe supporfed fhe judgment of ‘rhe frial court ’ Having heard Iearned cau sel for par'ries, we have perused fhe evidence of Dakhal Sai (PW-6) as a! o The medical evidence and we do no'r find any subsfance in The argumenf advanced by learned counsel for The accused/appellanT, for The reasons ThaT from The evidence iT is evidenT ThaT The presenT accused/appellanT alo g wiTh accused RamjhuTan wenT To The house of deceased, They asked The eceased abouT her husband and when she. did noT disclose, in The firsT insTa ce, accused RamjhuTan aTTacked her‘wiTh.‘ The knife and ThereafTer accuse /appellanT herein aTTacked her wiTh The spade onher head, as a resulT of which her skull bane was fracTured, ThaT resuITed in her deaTh on The poT. Therefore, The inTenTion of The accused/appellanT herein was cl To cause deaTh of Sonkunwar, as he aTTacked her wiTh The spade, a eadly weapon, on The viTaI parT of body because of which skull bone was racTured. Therefore, we do noT find any iIlegaliTy or infirmiTy in The judgm nT of Trial courT convicTing and senTencing The accused/appellanT herein under SecTions 302/34 & 459 of The IPC. In The resulT, The appeal o The appellcmT being devoid of meriT liable 7row“ 9® P.T.O. e To be dismissed and iT is according dismissed. i * ’ 5. Sd/. Sdl' g1 DHTRENDRA MISHRA i L.C. BHATDOO Judge W- Roshan/- 1?;Iyge/