XI-HC—78 3T55T -q|<q|0<<, ^Tfi'M^KS, tc)01^^< N|t<dl *NI<sb C-^-^' ^o' ^ov/o^- W-"""-""-""""""-""""'"^-^ 200 31^91 ^[3RR (4?(^<<T) sn^T'^T'f^ri^ ^T<H ^^ $b^li<=h f? .X APPELLANT RESPONDENT (Appeai underS Division Bench : Hon'bie Mr. L.C. Bhadoo & Hon'bie SVIr. Dhirendra SVIishra^ 2S-6-2007 Shri R.K. Jaiswai, counse! Shri Sudhir Bajpai, Deput^ Hearci on i.A.Nos.1 & 2 fo weli asonmerit. As per the office reportth years 2 months in filing the appe; it has been mentioned appeiiant took the origina! copy died after some time and the reason. in this appiication it has the accused died and after the < whether any appeai has been f «=M<it<n<iii1WI^f ^fe^ <R>I^K ^'3iRpT3Fn^T •^irajai Gond, S/o Lakhraj Gond, Aged 35 ^ears, R/o village Majhartoia, Poiice Station Sonhat, District Korea (M.P) (now C.G.). -Versus- 3tate of Madhya Pradesh (now ^hhattisgarh), Through Pojice Station aonhat, District Korea (M.P) (now C.G). ^ction 374 (2) ofthe Cr.P.C.) JJ for the appeljant. Govt. Advocate for the State. ' condonation of deiay in filing the appeai as fere is a de!ay of 299S days i.e. more than 8 al. in the appljcation that the father of the of the judgment for filing of appeal, but he ^ppeal couid not be lited due to the said Inot been mentioned that when the father of Seath of his father why he did not ascertain led pr not against the impugned Judgment, XI-I1C—78 3-^T *il*l<>Fll *41<3k •^1^10^, ^Tfl'y4!^, (sfc'>iy^< '-? <_^.pv. :to^ ^&vf&V 200 3ni(?T T[5T8F (4c([^<y5y) ^n^r ^r (<^ch ^T8TT 37T^?T'$FTpF _^_ -f? ^'wi^R <yf^a 3TT^T therefore, there is no sufficient (^ause for condonation of delay of more than 8 years and 2 months In fiisng this|appeai. Apart from that, the pros^' accused aiong with his wife Ma|i 0(1 was at his house. He committed Thereafter the accused himseift 17-4-1998 at about 8.30 a.m. ii| 16-4-1998 his wife consumed l| when he returned at about 11| condition. He sprinkied water did not wake up, therefors, he| Chetan & Somaru. Recelving ti| scene of occurrence. After inquest (Ex.P/2) on the body oj pian under Ex.P/3. One bottl( occurrence under Ex.P/4. examlnation to the Primary Dr. J. Ekka (PW-7) conducted Doctor opined that the mode o| death was homicidai in nature. examination to the Primary Dr. J. Ekka examined and •The site. plan (Ex.P/10) was postmortem report & merg intim| regjstereci. 9ivi|ig Bod^ <=M4it<n<i1i '^PT^f ^fe^ <Rnt$l< "^ ^ifa*i <KI$<I lcution case, in brief, is that on 16-4-1998 the Kunwar (since deceased) and two children the murder of his wife by pressing her neck. |!odged the merg intlmatlon under Ex.P/8 cn Poiics Station Sonhat to the effect that on Iquor, he left the house at about;8.00 a.m., 1.30 a.m. his wife was lying In uncbnscious |i her face and tried to wake her up, but she |informed the vlliagers nameiy Ram Kumar, |js report, the Investigating Offlcer !eft for the notice (Ex.P/1) to the panchas, prepared deceased Man Kunwar. He prepared slte of liquor was seized from the place of of IVian Kunwar was sent for postmortem Centre, Sonhat under Ex.P/5 v/here postmortem and prepared report (Ex.P/S). f death was asphyxia due to throftling. The fhe accused Hirala! was also sent for medical Centre, Sonhat under Ex.P/7 where that there was abrasion on the shouider. prspared by the Pafrwari. Based on the i, Fsrst Information Report (Ex.P/11) was Hbaith tte H^alth notided intlmlatlon XI-HC—78 3:5sr^n?n^r, ^»Tfi^<i^,icf^x-i^ <z^-(\- /^o. ^Q-N (o^ ^Wv[l 5b*<|ch ••"•""""——•""—•""—•—•"••""—^ 200 3n^?r XR^ (<ici^<t?y) ^iTT^T^FT (qiRi ^T <31T^?T'sFRW ^^<iiW «f^a3fl^T After completion of inve^l of Chief Judicia! Magistrate Bai| the Court of Sessions Judge,| Sessions Judge, Balkunthpur, Cji / . ^ ' :; In order to establish th4 prosecution examined 11 witne^ under Section 313 of the Code 4 Shri Jaiswai, iearned coi case there is no eyewitness. Q liquor, therefore, the accused h^ On the other hand, Shri State, supported the judgmento| Having heard 'earned evidence availabie on record. accused came and informed hi liquor and she had consumed he went to the house of the ac iying dead and her eyes were c< & Chetan and he dlsclossd to th consumption of liCjuor. Thereaft' vv-as iodged. Shiv Prasad (PW- about 5.00 p.m. and informed and he asked him to come to hi .th.at as the has aiready hi^ Hnsi<sffi Klfav*!' r?-s\/ ?Y5^minr^ cbl^lid^l-l ^W<?ff^fe^ <F»it$i< ^3tRlH3TI^T tigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court cunthpur, who in turn committed the case to Ambikapur, from where iearned Additlonal istrict Korea,recelved the case on transfer. charge against the accused/appellant, the ses. Statement ofthe accused was recorded ^f Criminal Procedure. |nsel for the appelSant, submjtted that in this teceased died on account of consumptlon of ^ been convicted without any evldence-. |ajpai, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate fpr the the tria! Court. .cc|unsel for the'parties, v^e.have perused the Ram Kumar (PW-1) has stated that the j|n that in the morning his wife was brewing ttie same aiso, therefore, she is !ying. When ;j;used aiong with him, he saw that she v/as |ming out. Thereafter accused called Somaru i^m aiso that.his wlfe was iying o.n account of l^r he left. !n the next day morning the report -P) has also stated that the accused came at Ipiat his wlfe writhing after consuming iiquor l^ house and see her.condition, then he said co(ne, therefore, he Is not in a posltion to go to '.ha <a^4w'i 5c;(S^ •ss^-'sin ^•sayyt^a tr<s Hic h^? sc1^ f^ ^•'sl XI-HC—78 \:' 3:5:£T^T?n^-, ?S>T{1'y41(o,(s|<^l^^< ^ C^^'h3^ 3>o\ |^:^ *41Ndl sb*<|ch ••—•""—"—""••"•—"""•"•—•""—•^ 200 3?i^?r TQpra? (4c([^<ysT) 3?n^r ^FT'Rpri^? 'OTT 37T^T 5b^lich him and then he a!ong with Sul^ The house was locked. He a| accused opened the lock. He ^ iying. Slmilar is the evidence of| admitted that he along with his \A| h^S Dr. J. Ekka (PW-7), who| the death of Man Kunwar was was homlddal in nature. He and saw that there was sweilin^ nozzies, mouth was open, tong4 on the face, there was facia! cor1< sweiling on the neck & chest, wind pipe was congested & lung^ Ex.P/6. Therefore, as per evidenc asphyxia and not excessive admitted that he was present Kumar (PW-1), Shiv Prasad gave expianation that hls wife consuming iiquor; therefore, thi witnesses. Even the report lodg^ before the Poiice. The presence death wasthrottling. In view of the above (\ Kunwar was homidda! and the cM<<I<n<ili Tntl^f 1?f,fe(3t <RI^I< ^ ^iRpRT ^FH^T hial & Bechu went to the house of accused. 3ked the accused to open the lock, then >aw that the dead body of Man Kunwar was Bikham Ram (PW-3). Even the accused has 'ife and two chiidren was at his house. [conducted the postmortem, has stated that <j3ue to asphyxia on account of throttiing and i^s stated that he conduded the postmortem cn the eyes, biood was oozing out from the |e was between the tooth, there was sv^eiiing Igestion and sweliing around neck, there was there was iacerated wound be!ow the knee, were congested, The postmortem report Js je of Dr. J. Ekka (PW-7), cause of death was j;onsumption of liquor. The accused has i|n the house. As per the evidence of Ram (F|W-2) & Blhkam Ram (PW-3), the accused v/as iying in unconscious condition after ^ accused gave faise explanatjon to these td was a!so faise. He gave same expianation ofthe accused is estabiished. The cause of lircumstantial evidence, the death of Man accused was the oniy person in the house. XI-HC—78 •S^ "qi-qi^-q, ^Tfl-M^Ko, fcfOI'M^ C^'^< (^»Q. 2>0\ ^I^Cfll 9b^l<3^ ^T ^ 200 3H^yr ^^gR (4C<^<^) ^TT^T^ f<^[ch '(T8n'STI^T 5RTIT3F 'L^- '^nw^f^T 3?n^[ He has not expiained the involvement of the accused in t| reasonabie doubt. From th^ conclusion can be drawn that tl] qaestion. circuijnstances under which she died, therefore, he crime in question is estabiished beyond above circumstances, only irresistibje 6e accused was the author of the crime in For the foregoing reason^ appea! is liable tp be dismissed <\ weil as on merit and accordingly Consequently, i.A.No.3 fc stands disposed^L Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge r^ CM<i(<n<iii *iw<?ii ^f^^l <Pn^i< ^>3TRPT3FTT^r , we are of the considered opinion that the n the ground of delay in flling this appeai as t is hereby dismissed. ir suspension of sentence & grant of bail Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge