:,i^'. ». ti ^ DIVISIONBENCH; Coram: HON'BLE MR.T.P.SHAIWIA& y»i HON'BLEMR.R.N. GhOTdralwr,iJA Appetlante iSSL ^^^&-:L.I'!ti:'.^^^. (InJail) Respondent Criminal AoiwalNo. 'tOSfi ofMM* " Chaituram S/o Mangiuram ©ond^eged ^about^ ^re, Owui^it^^C^^ R/b |ffllag&-Gumandi, Polto Statton l;)^onas^(^€$^,^^^^ (Chhatti^arh) * Veraus - » State of ChhBttf^arh IFhioygte^Sistrlefe .,.,. MagistrateBa^ar.' .„„.„.. "':^.S'::u^.i,.' '^,--:^ •^":"1^' (CRMINAL APPEA^yNDER SECTIQN 374(2) QF-fflEGQDjEOF CRllWNXLF^OCEC^RE.t^T;:?" Present:- . »Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, counsel forthe appellant Mr. J.A. Lohani,Panel LsHwyerforthe State.. , , -%...^,., * (WALJUDGM^T (PassedonG^July,2CM^ 2 PerT.P.Sharma,J.:-:-;'- ' ' «!— •* 1. Challenge iwtiiis appealis to the ^idgment of conMrtKm »opdar of c sentence dated 04.11.2004 passeet byth&Sess>tons<}u(te®,Sla^aFat ,;'-.l,y'^,...l^^.-.,*'..:-".^^^^-.-S¥.^- * .Jagdalpur, in Sessions frial HoA44f2004, whereby & wheFeunder learned Sessions Judge after holding the appetlant gBitt fpr<x>mmtesiqn of offenee of'culpable homtekte amountir^i to tnureter of Aasman (shice deceased) Gonvicted the appellant under Sectlpo 3(K^)ftlie I.P.C. iwt ••sentenced him to undergo imprtsonmentlw Ufe. ^ 2. Convictionislmpugned onthegroundthatwlthputtherebehiganyjetatrf evidence, ttietrial Court has conytoted & sentencectthe appellant as s*aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 3. As per caseof presecutfon, on fateftil day of 07.03.2004 atabout6:K) ; pspn; junfbrtunate deceased AMman along with other were ^Hgging th» tand fbr construction of wall near the hoyse of IMahagwams At tMat ttmt •^••::.::F !; :.' }• :iis:^^;.K:;^.K% Iteat. , "vnoo |ei4 aiiito pjooaj pue psuBndu.ii ' 1(»tu^3infaift p8sn.i«l 'saiyed SIB Jpi issunoo paiueai piesy SABIISAA '8<i •w •pau<^i8ai8i)i||Bse|ue||9cldB9tBp89(^uss y psiojAuoo jBiseg 'aBpnp i "8tio|^®S»1»<;HB^>-^!pBdaift 6i 6uyes4jo Atiunpoddo 6uipiAOtid jew •^ a-'uo|^nb^|8iU 3y»iauo!^!tdiUias|Bj,pUBaou8o6uu!; p^|e8|d -PUB iUittt isujBBe Buueadde seoueisuinojio SIB psurap ^q' . » aiai.iNt •3-c|"d0atBti&^ts uonoss japun (»pjcoaiSBM^uejjsdcfe/pBsnoae " <» e^^ i^ psu.i^eis 'sasssuiiM uaAss se Aueiu se .ipauiuiexs .» ^if U(^n39»6^^tHBuiiMB/paSnooB 94110 iijnB ay^ sAOjd .©ijapjo u| -9 »~" •|B(4 ^p} jaisuej^uo aseo ainp8A|8oai sBphr suoissss ? |BUO!I! V t|3jt) ^nd|epBep 'suoissas ^o ynoo aq^ 01 eseo aiB peBiu.iuioo ^Gp^eily^^yBii^iaie^ 'sseio ^i s^ leioiprlfjstyo 10 ynog;aifl ai0(9q^patysse^^aayffsBiBtp 'u6BBfi!j}S3AU} jp uoit3|duioo jsyv •o'd'-io ; ? 8W40- igisuoi^s japun papuooatajem sassauijM 3in p siuauusiEtS •s • '9l./d'x3 aplA uoi)BU}u.iex9 leoiuiayo jp} iu8»8i»M-89|OHJBp8aas Zl./cl'XB spiA paziss-a.19M pssBsosp ; siftp sa^o|& paujB^ pooig •s/d'xg 3p|A yods 941 uua^pezps aisM B t!®gp8u|B(8 pooiq |XIB lios uieid 'g/d'xa 8P|A lUBtledde siu p aoueisui atB^Bpaziaswftt'StaBSt^yxgeptASXBiOtuatjuaiBisainsoiosipspei.us «H"l''<P^sn9"<W'"tis8W"SBn pie||9dde 'uojjBBiissAUi p s&inoo Suuna •(;' ? »* •S.intBtt Ul IBplOIUIOq SBMlttBSa » %:-'*i '^m'- ti •• '1I:- ;ay<KR|..iB|$pugi|LiU!d^^^% <jn B < f-BjBjqcla8pu%p(,,s^opunoMpaiej8oei Q! -.-.«y,:..,...a.,a.a;...^....,-..:.t^ a.iEMW uiB.iq"pyB-i389H>" ".i^ wBu jo 9p|s >|oeq J8AO Ainjui (j iSi.^yj^^fiyy^j^plfl^pyBI.I.^-XgeplA^ P^Mpyos <®AAd)s'l» 4CT^ujn>| ^ •Weyt '.isiueo ifl|B8(.( ^BtUjicJ^'feAlRB^iugss^Apoqpeaa-t/d'xaapiA^^^ dBl |Bds %yd'x3 apJA pa.iBda.id SBAteaeuis^i.to Apocfpesp .ISAO isenbui 'sassati^w^ iuouiuins .isye 'aouaunooo i0 susas sio^»>y8| ^eoiyo ^uiiBa^ajtu^ 'e@/a"x3"ap pspiooai SBM 'yrt '&aui .10 siseq aiB UQ, •0^sxa»apt uonBUtiftii Bjeut^paSpoi uetusBv paisesoep sin p jeifliy (9 Q. q.flpBapsnoauepBi^siqt^i^uip^ajfflCB^yBd^^q^ uoi@a»iWodu»^i»,|B!.i.laAoAinjuj ps^ada^pssne&puB luiy .ISAO ye.ioMptiffi (^ISaSR p8CTe99p^^Bt|| pUliO.l&Sqtl.K? ®(GFU >(,H! SUlB3IUB||8dde81)} :.ilE<>" s§ 1 'm-'":': •''^, ' -•• :•• .Ati^iifiiit-.ii^ .niiffnniff iBJ"<:!ie? l""t"»,,S<1 9. Leamed counsel for theappellant vehementty argued thatin the llght of evkience of eye witness Jagrati (PVWI)and BaMev {f^(/^, hete not bdisputing the facl that appellant has not caused homicidatdeatti of deceased. Leamed counsel further submits that as-pw csae of proswution appellant has caused injuries over the head of deceseed frombluntpart ofaxe. He has notcausedsuGhsinjuiies-l^.shaip.aged part of the axe which shows that appellant has-notGauswi homteidal death of the deceased with int^nt to cause his desrth; iTherefoFertte a(d •^./.;-1'''';:1^ :'- :1^ ofthe appellant does not tra<W beyond the scope of 304-part lafittia I.P.C. " -^^^" 10. On the other hand, leamed State counsd o|^»osed the pet'rtlon and submits that although the appellant has caused Injuri^ by bkjnt partof axe but theappellanthas caused grievous injuries. The part of head and brain were badty damaged which shows the brutal assault nnade by tte appetlant. After appreciating the evtdence avaUabte on record, tto triat Court has nghtly convicled & sentenced the appellant as , aforementioned, 11.1n order to appreciate the arguments advanced an behalf of the ^rties, we have examinedthe evidence available on record. 12. In the present case, hon'ricidal death of Aasman as a resutt of fatal Injury found overthevltal part of body of the cteceased Aasman has ncA been disputed on behalf ofthe appellant, evenotherwise also establ^ied by the evidence of Dr. YashwantKumar Dhruw (PW-5) and autopsy report Ex.P/11 which reveals that injury over back stde of right ear, head and brain were badly damaged, lacerated wound of 5")d" Bf brain deep arKl. lacerated wound over right ptnna teared offwere fouBd, are sttfffetentta establish that death was homicidal in nature. 13.As r^ard comptictty of the accused in the crinw In queBStion; is concerned, conviction of the presenlappellant is substantially baeed on evidenre of Jagrati (PW/1) and Baldev (PVW3). As per thelrevidence, they were digglngjhe land for construction of wall. Appellant came near| Ihe place of incklent and assautted deceased Aasmsn by ansBceK ^Aasman died on the sprt, thereafter they fled fram the spot. Defenoe hascross-examined these witnreses at length but has rtot beeffabletoj ^^.^. :\, vNy elicit anything in thelr cross-examination to diseard their t^timony specfalty relating to evjdence that they were not presert nearthe ptaoe ©f Incktent and appellant has not caused injury by axe upontheh^d ofthe de(»asedAasman. These evidences are sufficiwt to eslablish thefaet ttiat ^ipellant has caused homteklaldeath ofthe deceasedAasman. > 14.As regards thequestion of inoth/e, in ease of dir^ct ©dcfensemotive losses its importamce, even olherwise, mt^veonly aids IB crinntnatK^eBTd can be inferred on the basig of nature of injury, kind ofweapoR us«t,part w of the body ^Efected and <^iersimilarCircumstanG®& ; 15. In the^resentcase, althoughthe appeltant hasmifreatisad injufies t^ uslng sharp part of the axe but the appellant has rauTOd^repegited injurles by blunt part of axe and thereby he has badly daniE®edthehead, brain and ear shows his brutal act and issifficient for dRBMing inference that the present appellant has caused homicidal death of el«;eased Aasman with intentto eatise his death. Hewas also hsnrtng emBitywith ; the deceased and motive tocommit theoffence. 16. After appreciating the evidence available on recprd, Uie teamed Additional Sessions Judge hse convteted and ^ntencedthe appetlant as aTorementloned. 17. On close scrutiny of the ev<den<»ackluced on behalf £rfthe p-osecution, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in convicting the appetlsrt. , 48. Consequentty, the appeal being ctevoid of inerite is Uarisle to be dismissed and is hereby disml^ed. .,« -— .Sd/- ,; T.P.Siianna Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge