PHC—78 (^^ '£><> ^i^i'^r^ra' ^^^1^1 •i^i-^ 7^r ^ii^i<n<<i, ^ti1<H^i<o, i®i<ni^y ^^^^^•^ ^Q3--^200± ^IT '^^s' (^f^si^r) I^TWCf^ 3?Tt¥T APPELLANT: (inJail) RESPONDENT: Division Bench: Hon. Shri Dhirehdra Mishra & Hon. Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ 7-7-2009:- Shri S.D. Singh,counsel f<| ShriU.N.S.Deo.Govt.Adl The appellant has prefer) 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. against| ^i€ii<n^1fli'HPT^f ^ ^S ^^K ifr3tRR3^?T Yuvraj Singh, S/o Ram Kishun, aged about 35 years, occu^tion Agriculture, R/o Village Morma, P.S. Patna, District Koria, (CG) Versus- The State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Patna, District Koria, CG »rthe appellant. /ocate for the State/respondent. •ed this criminal appeal under Section the judgment dated 27th March, 2001 passed in S.T. No.24/2001 w^ereby learned 1st Adctitjonal Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur has convictejd the appellant under Section 302 ofthe IPC and sentenced him with Ii|Te imprisonment for causing homicidal death ofVideshiya Bai. The case of the prosecuti|on, jn brief, is that deceas^d Videshiya Bai and prosecution witness D|pni Bai (PW-5) were harvesting in the field of Mainprasad (PW-2). A| battleaxe came to the field and 'ound 2 p.m. the appellant armed with assaulted the deceased on her neck ^^^^ ^iss3ff-HC—78 ^t^? ^T f^l'^F T?SIT 3T[^T^^Ni' '3^r T^ll<41d<ll, ^ti1<H4i<o, f^<ni<-i^< HWWt »»*11<!t» Wi, 200 ^?r IT^T (^eiil<si<^) ran to the nearby field and <^^?d^1'1 'W^ff ^* fe^t iFai^K ^^stRW3TT^T saying that she is practicing witcllcraft with his brother. The neck of the deceased was partjally severed ^nd she fellon the ground. Dipni Bai ^iarrated the incident to her father Mainprasad, who In turn inforrtned Bal Sjngh (PW-1), son of the deceased. When Bal Singh rea4hed the place of incident, he saw the appellant leaving the place armed|with battleaxe. Bal Singh gave merg jntims|tion Ex.-P/1 and also lodged the report Ex.-P/2 naming the present ap^etlant as perpetrator of the offence. After registering the crime, the p^lice party proceeded for the scene of occurrence. The inquest (Ex.-P/q) over the dead body of the deeeased was prepared in the presence of|witnesses on 20-10-2000. The dead body was sent for postmortem ^xamination to the Community Health Centre, Baikunthpur under Ex.-Fy/11-Awhere Dr. R. Sharma (PW-8) conducted the postmortem and g^ive his report of Ex.-P/11 dated 21-10- 2000. The weapon of offence baftleaxe was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.-P/6 from thea(3peljant. The wearing apparels of the appellant were also seized from |him vide Ex.-P/7. The piain soil and blood stained sojl weresejzed|from the spot under Ex.-P/S. The battleaxeseized from the appellafit was also sent for examination to the Assistant Surgeon, Government ttlospital, Baikunthpur and report of the doctor in this regard is Ex.-P/l^. The wearing apparels and other articles seized during investigati [sn were sent for examination to the •^s^ ,ff -^ .XI-HC—78 '7°^ ^i^i<n'4, ytii-M^Ko; (si<ni^< *11*1CTI a»*ll<»» "^ 200 ^ITT ^T^^ (^3^^) ^n^i'^i'^N" ^sii 3?n^i iRNi' ^^TW ^ft^ ^??t¥I -3- ^FTZiferihT 'RTR^ff ^ fe^t ipai^K ^ ^tRww^T Community Health Centre, Baikunfhpur and the report of the doctor is Ex.-P/13 and Ex.-P/14 respectivelyl After completing the investyatjon, the charge sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Ma|gistrate, Baikunthpur, who in turn committed the case to the Court o|f Sessions Judge and the same was received on transfer for trial by the Learned Additional Sessiorjs Judge framed the charge under Section 302 of the IPC for commJttl appellantabjured hisguilt. The prosecution in order t|3 establish the charge agalnst the appellant examined 9 witnesses. accusedwas recorded under Sect and submitted that he is innocent a trial Court convicted and senten paragraph-1 ofthe judgment. learned Additional Sessions Judge. ng the murder of Videshiya BaS. The Thereafter, the statement of the on 313 of the Cr.P.C.. The appellant denied the circumstances appearin^ against him in the prosecution case id has been falsely implteated. After hearing learned couns|el for the respective parties, (earned ;ed the appellant as mentioned in Learned counsel for the a|(»peilant submitted that convtetion is based on the evidence of eyewitne| 3S Dipni Bai (PW-5), who claims to be eyewitness to the incident. Howev|er, her testimony stands falsifi^j from the fact that the deceased sustain^d injuries on her ieft side oftheneck, as js evjdent from postmortem rej>ort Ex.-P/11 whereas, in the normal •\. course when the deceased is assa|ulted from the front, the injuries ought -=f- F ^ %^^ "V-^3^IC—78 'S^T ^I^Krl^, ^ttlwKo, fsK'IK-f^i HI*«TFCT»*1|Cb "^ 200 STi^T '^SK (-^f^sr^T) 'SIT^T ^r'^w ^^T ^TT^T^HN' ^^R^^I^^T •^ side. Couh to have been present in the right case the incident occurred grave provocatjon. The trial appellant under Section 302 of the| beyond Section 304 Part 1 or Part Jl| On the other hand, learned impugned judgment. We have heard learned count the records ofthe Sessions Trial aslwell Homicidal death of Videshfya otherwise, from the evidence of ey^ of assault and the evidence of | conducted postmortem over the pe| as described below and further excessive bleeding and shock, as| death was homicjdal in nature, wej deceased Videshiya was homicidal| ?. He further submitted that in any sponts|neously as a result of sudden and was not justified to convtet the 1 IPC and the offence does not travel lofthelPC. lcounsel for the State supported the • Incised wound of the size of| bony depth. He also notic|ed structures i.e. arteries, jugul< • Incised wound of the size of injury. '^prf^4h? 'WT^Tf ^ f^xst <rsi^i< ^3^R377^?T n^el for the parties. We have perused as the impugned judgment. Bai is not in dispute. Even switness Dipni Bai, who is a witness Dr. R. Sharma (PW-8), who has ^son of the deceased & found injuries cjpjned that the cause of death was |a result of injuries over the neck & are of the opinion that the death of in nature. 4^" x 2" on the right side upper neck ed fracture of underjying bone. All veins and nerves were cut. '" x 1" over right side belowthe above I.HC—78 '3~5^ T^l<41<:1^, ^I^Ko, fs|<ni-M*j,< *11*1CTI »>*lich '^ 200 ^Tr^T TT^T (^ii^^r) 3?1^T^»T^N' ^m^ii^TW^ ^ • Incisedwound of thesize of|3" x 1" near suprasternat notch to right side, below the above injurie|s. Incised wound of the size shoulder. Learned trial Court, relying has hefd that the prosecution ha information report of Ex.-P/1 and information given by Dipni Bai| perpetrator of the offence. PW| ^F?fef4^T 'WT^ff ^* 'fe1^ if^l^K ^37f?FT3TT^T of 2%" x 1" bony depth on the right ^jpon the evidence of PW-5 Dipni Bai, which is also corroborated by the ^vidence of Mainprasad and Bal Singh, ^ proved its case beyond reasonable doubt agajnstthe appellant. PW-1 Bal Singh has lodgjed merg intimation as well as first P/2 on the same date on the basis pf He has named the appellant as •5 Dipni Bai has been examined as eyewitness. She has deposed b^fore the Court that she and Videshiya were engaged in harvesting ope ation in the field of Mainprasad, her father. Around 2 p.m. the appellaht came there with battleaxe and after addressing the deceased "Bhaujj'l battleaxe on her neck, as a result t| further stated that she immediatel^j was present in the nearby field ar| , all of a sudden, assaulted her with ler neck was almost severed. She has rushed to her father Mainprasad, who id was grazing buffaloes and narrated about the incident. Her father r|eturned to the fleld, at that time the accused was going towards hjs ho^ne. In the cross-examjnati6n,,she has further stated that shesaw the inc|ident from the distanqe of5 ft.. At the Xt-HG—78 To^ ^WW^, »tli^41<o, [®l<rll'M^< *11*1CTI »»*1|C|» V^ 200 ^ff^T ^^ (^35r^1) 3??^r'^r'^t^ ^TT^n^T^Rt^ ^: time of incident, the appellant wa^ cross-examjnation, the defence v| makes her evidence untrustwortll further corroborated from the evidel also stated that Dipni came to t| ^nf^ft^f "HFRTf ^f feESt ipsi^K "^ ^tf^T 3n^r wearing Lungi and Baniyan. !n her as not able to elicit anything, which iy and unreliable. Her evidence is ice of her father Mainprasad, who has ie place where he was grazing his buffaloes. She was shouting and| weeping. On being asked, she toid that the appellant has assaulted Vi(leshiya. He has further stated that he went to the fleld and saw Videstliya (ying dead with injuries over her neck. He also saw the appellant g|oing towards his home with battleaxe. He has further stated that he jnforijned Bal Singh, son of Videshiya. Bal Singh has also corroborated the ev The version of the above wi promptly lodged first information r named as perpetrator of offence. prosecution has established the basis of evidence of above 3 dence of Mainprasad. ^nesses is duly corroborated from the bport wherein the appellant has been Thus, in our considered opinion, the bharge against the appellant on the witnesses. Their version is duly corroborated from the postmortem| report of Ex.-P/11, as corresponding injuries over the neck of the dece^ised have been notlced by the doctor medical evidence, has no substan the promptly lodged first information performing autopsy, as also from| report. The argument of Shri Singh,|tearned counsel for the appellant, that the version of fhe above eyewitne^s does not find corroboration from the ;e and eyewitness account cannot be 4^.. •:^^^.XI-HC—78 '3'^'^TFTI^FT, ^til'H^Ko, f®l<'ll^l^< ^.to^..^.tt/......... Nii^dl ^^|cb r —T/ -^ 200 ^T^T T!^ (°^?t3^^) 3?T^T ^T'f^ra' ^TF 3?T^T^^?^ Barve ^^iw^^^n^i ^ —{— discarded on presumptionthat accused from the front, the corr^; the right side ofthe neck, as it is| appellant assaulted the deceasecj that the offence was committe|d provocation is also without any b^ that any provocation was caused For the aforesaid reason, ^ has rightly convicted the appellart is no illegality and infirmity in the !n the result, the appea! be| dismjssed and it is accordingly di^ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^OTf^fN 'HTR^ff ^ 'feTst <P»i^l< ^a^RT<371^?T since the assault was made by the sponding injuries should have been on not the case of the prosecution that the on her right neck. The other argument as a result of sudden and grave asis, as there is absolutely no evidence ?y the deceased to the appeilant. /e are ofthe opinion that the trial Court t underSection 302 ofthe IPC. There >rder impugned warranting interference. ing devoid of substance deserves to be .missed. Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge