s^r -tii<iic'><<, siTfl'M'Ks, Ri^iyy ^W^\ *NI* "^ sn^r ?H K-v* ~S^\ 3T1R?T ai<iieti W^t IfSSS (^cii'j.ali^) TRiiwgfs^ sn^f 4 Sa|dhu alias Baada, S/o Puchab, C^ste Dhurwa, Age 40 years, Ocjcupation Charvaiia, 'Resident of Gi^ia Chiadgur Pujaripara, Thaaa D^rbha, District Bastar (C.G.) Stdte Stdtion CMMINAL APPEAL HON'BLE SHliI L.C BHADOO. J. &, L.C. Bhado^^J:- Shri C.R. Sahu, Shri Akhfl Mishra, If While arguuig on fljie for fhe appeUaut subitutsj testimony of wife of fhe| appeal itself may be hear^. Mr. Mishra has no objectit In view of the abo\t finallv. «i>wti't<B-)iircfi 'cili^t <Fai«;i< ^TsiRn SII^T Versus of Chhattisgarh through Police Darbha, Distnct Bastar i/s 374 (21 OF THE CODE OF AL PROCEDURE (1|0.10.2007] Cota-asel for the appeUaat. 'aael Lawyer for the State. bail application, leamed couasel that this inatter rests oa fhe sole accused/appeUaut, ftierefore, ttie finaUy and disposed of, to which, ^n. [e subiaission, fhe appeal is heard 3)I^?[ ?? R-ii'h TTSTT 3TT^?T s^+llcti ^SSf ^lt-ill^, l$T{i<H'16, f^TRTgT NW<^1 sh*41ah .C3....A..^....S':O..GJ..V.±. ••m, an^OT 'wv (^S'y't^) •^graTTifei sii^i +i<<fd''il-l tIItRlf ^fSVt <fat^l< ^affiRsn^r 4ud fdr Accused/ appellaut questioniag the legaUty conviction and order oj passed by fhe Sessions No.75/2007, whereby, fh4 accused/appeUant giulty| puiushable undep SectioB) 1} undergo iuiprisonfaient ia default of payment of| inonths. Case of the prosecil 5:00 p.in., accused- Sadh(.i deceased) to his house foi^ Siagh was practicing fheia, on which, the acc| became angiy aad in a Singh wifh an axe oa chest. Bal Siagh succi TIie crim.e was witaessed accused/appeUant. She Soina, Soina informed to Viuodbati in tum. iufomle .'-/Al Laxinan, Rajan went Siagh ia fhe courtyard of| injuries on fhe body, has preferred fhis appeal correctness of the judgiaeat of sentence dated 18th July 2007 udge, Bastar at Jagdalpur iu S.T. learaed Sessions after holduie fhe for comrnissinn of fhe oifeuce 302 of the IPC, sentenced him to life aad to pay a fiiie ofRs.500/-, fine to further undergo R.I. for 5 witcbcraft, hlis 'IUBP fomled blobd Ition is that on 15.4.2007 at about alias Banda took Bal Siagh (siace practiciiig witchcraft and when. Bal |icraft, soine dispute arose between |ased/appeUant - Sadhu @ Banda |heat of passion, be attacked Bal left teiaporal region, head aad >ed to those iiijuries on the spot. ]by PW-4 - Maagal Bai, wite of tlie luiformed about the incident to Vinodbati- wife of Phool Siagh aad it to Phool Siugh. Tbereafter, )±ie spot aiid saw the body of Bal |the accused/appeUant. Tbere were was oozing out of flie injuries, ^'.^" ^" .•/' IC—78 ^ •t:s»_t sn^i w h-u* 'cTSff-STT^T^RI^ g=5ST ^||.t||<?l<<, ^Tflyid, Rl(!''l+fy NiM^I *41* ^.:...^...3..v^../<39^ sn^r -ER^ (ijcit-i'si<«T) TOiIWHfl^SII^I ta. accused was not present about fhe incideiit to 9; Sitice it was rught aad fht fhe place ofoccurrence, f4' in the next morrung by Ph]i the village. The Police S| Patel, Assistant ^ub Inspe( 'tn occurtence report (Ex-P/1) arid laer^ left for the place of P/3). After giving iiotic(|s prepared Panchnama (Ex. The body was seiit for po| P/15 to Commuiuty Healt^i Mandavi conducted fhe opiaed fhat fhe cause of report (Ex.-P/S). Durmj accused/appeUant gave pursuance of tbat, he g<| offence) iinderEx.P/9. After coiupletion of ffled iu fhe Court of CIlit who in tum cominitted tc| Jagdalpur for trial. TIie prosecution in fhe acciised/appeBant exa| <*i<tffi41-) 'WRif'^.'fe'1^ <F^(^i< ^?3iRTO 311^1 Uie house. Phool Singh iaformed arpanch Chanu, Kotwar Durjsm. Police Station was far away froia matterwas reported to the Police 'pol Siugh, Sarpaach and Kotwar of ^ation Incharge namely Shyamlal ;tor, recorded fhe first iafofmation |ittimation (Ex,-P/2). Thereafter, he aad prepared site plan (Ex.- (Ex.-P/lS) to the Paiichas, he JP/ l4)on fhe body of the deceased. Istmorteru examiaation under Ex.- Centre, Darbha, where Dr. P.L. Ipostmorteni on 16/4/2007 and fleath was hoinicidal. He gave his the coiirse of investigation, |memoraadum (Ex-P/8) aad in j)t recovered the axe (weapon of tfie iavesugation, charge sheet was |f Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalptir, tbe case to tbe Sessions Judge, brder to establish charge agamst ttniued 7 witaesses. The stateiaent :C—78 ^eq- "ilt^l^, t$Tflu;l6, isirti^y '^. TTO^ff *t<l* A..A ^ 06/o->"V^ 200 sn^'^'^'iRr t wnsn^T^qR? ani^tiOT? ( ^giWtfe sil^l H of fhe accused/ appeltaiit \i( the Code of Criminal Prd luaterial appearia.g agaiusl aiid stated fhat he is inno< false case, Leamed Sessioas col Jild respective - pai;ties, (j accused/appeUattt as We have heard appeUao.t aud Shri Akhil ^) 'At the outset, Stu| homicidal deafh of Bal Sin] wife of fhe accused, who wi| categorically stated that deceased wifh the axe, as| injuries on £hehead, he fell) PW-3- Dr.M.L. Maad^ he conducted postmorteiu Singh aud fouiid foUowias (i) Four abrasioris (ii) • Fracture on righ] A lacerated aforebientioned. syii (iii) A lacerated woiujid region, (iv) Fracture ofinaxipabone, 4iWffl<il-< 'WRff '^_'fet£tTte^R ^F siRn sii^r as recorded under Section 313 of ;edure, iu which, he denied the Tlim m. the prosecution evidence :nt aiid has been iuiplicated in a Ige after hearhig counsel for fhe victed aad sentenced fhe C.R. Sahu, Couiisel for the fitehra, Paiiel Lawyer for tlie State. p Sahu has not disputed fhe feh. Moreover, PW-4 - Maagal Bai, |iiessed fhe crune ia questiou, has |her husband had attacked the a result of which, he sustained down and died spontaneously. ^vi has stated fhat on 16/4/2007, |on tlie body of the deceased-Bal apjunes : ^n the chest, side first rib, on fhe left side of fhe temporal ,asKa-8c—78 %y. ^ grcT^lTqT^r, ^rftWTC, fsKrtltiy inWTT sb^l<*i .^...^.....a®.<-..^ sn^i?;! K'{W [ ?i«nsn^r sbHisB •OT^T TR9; (Tpf^q^T) ^ 200 ^snwof?^ sn^r 6 thl'tffl^-t llldf ^ 'fS1^ <MI«(K ^•sffiTOsn^i of^cia (v) Incised woundj head ih size (vi) SkuU bone wa^ He opined fhat caus^ shock, death was homi|": Therefore; from. the it is estabUshed ^hat fhe d( <] Mr. 'Sahu tias notl accused ta ci-iine in quesl case there is only one eye wife of fhe accused). SU (accused) and fhe deceas^d; On the fatefi.il day, whei[ soine dispute arose betw-f Siagh picked up fhe axe namely Sadhu (accused), and attacked fhe deceasedl the iiijuiies and died further subiaite fliat ia vidw is a case of exceedrug ffif subinits fhat- even fhous axe, but stfll fhe deceas therefore, fhere was everyl have snatched fhe axe aiild with it and uiider fhis on the left occipital region of the x l cm x 1 cm, fractured. of death was haeinorrhage aud ;idal in iiature. ^bove ocular aud niedical evidence, pafh was h.0micidal iu nature. disputed fhe uivolveiaent of the ion. He suuply argued fhat m. tfais Iwituess nam.ely Maagal Bai (PW-4- ie has stated that her husband both were practicing witchcraft. they were practiciug wltehcraft, ;en them. and fhe deceased - Bal and tried to attack her husband ))n which, Sadhu snatehed the axe as a result ofwhich, he sustaiued ijpontaneously. Leamed counsel of fhe above, it appears fhat this right of private defence. He also t)i accused/appeUaat snatched fhe [ed and accused were grsS^pig, chance that the deceased nught attacked ftie accused/appeUaut ]apprehension, the accused after —78 3II^I.?B [<•<(* W SW^S *t|i«h •S^sf -^w^, ®Tfl«'i<s,fi<rtwy,< ^...........^.A..^...^.^^ an^'OT iRq; (Tpf^ggtr) ?®iiwHtersiiiw 6 snatchiag the axe froin t|he proved fatel aad fhe dece£|sed On fhe other h^nd, judginent of fhe trial Cour|l In order to appreci^l l^spective counsel, we ha( Bai, fhe sele w^tness pre^ent 1 accufeed stated th^t at dbout 6:1 house, at fhat tune, she residence. Both the witchcraft, duriag which, deceased - Bal Siagh p husband (accused), fherefi aad attacked Bal Siugh- result of which, he dii examination, she has had not snatched fhe as attacked him. witb it. From. the evidence Tecoid fhat iu the first picked up ftie axe to -ake and under the attadk accused snatched fhe axe As per fiirfher evidence olj stated that ifher husband '*l'i|icl4-( ^wai iffs^ <FI«;K ^sifgtTSfi^r deceased, attacked him, which died spontaneously. Mr. Mishra supported fhe (te fhe arguinents advauced by ftie |/e perused fhe evidence of Maagal at ttie tuae of uicident, who :0p p.m., Bal Siagh cam.e to fheir ^longwith her husbaad was at the aad deceased were practicing fhey started quarreUing and the )|icked up tfae axe to attack her (>re, her husbaud snatched the axe ^eceased on his head wifh it, as a ^d on fhe spot. In fhe cross- stajted fhat if her husbaad (accused) [e from Bal Singh, he raight have of ttus witaess, it has coine on i[(staace, fhe deceased - Bal Singh ic[k flie accused, ftiey were gra] apprehension of attackagg, the land attacked the deceased with it. this witness, slie has categorically Ihad not snatched fhe axe froin Bal <~ ^eq'-^fpn^r, ^Ttiy'i^, Rxti'My •RTWIT "*41* .fi.L..a^.^..^^ ^ sn^vw R-iw ~^\ 3TE^?T ShHW Shyna •sn^?r f^K (1<<f4a<<w) WWR -gftd sii^i 7 Singh, fhere was...eveiy p( have attacked fhe accusedl For fhe foregoiiig r^asons, we are of tfae considered opicuon that fhere was deceased may attack him he snatched fhe .axe and a1 is,' has exceeded ffci^ right of\ accused/appeUaiit does njst travel beyond Section 304 Part- IIoffhelPC. In the result, fhe ap^ The conviction ani 302 of the IPC are set asid under Section 304 Part-II o the accused/appeUarit is vears. The appeUant shaU. detentiou period during the Sd/T L.C. Bhadoo ^ Judge 'fcl*ll<'l'lil-< 'WRlf '^.fe'I3t ^ra«;l< ^aiRnsn^i issibility fhat the deceased might vpith fhe axe. fear to fhe accused fhat fhe ivifh fhe axe and ia that process, tacked fhe deceased, therefoi^, he private defence. The case of fhe •al partly succeeds. sentence nnposed upoa ffae accused/appeUaut for coTr|mission of offence uiider Sectioii ;, iustead fhereof, he is convicted 'theIPC. ^ Lookiug to fhe nuirjber of injiu-es sustained by fhe deceased, we are of the con^idered opinion tbat ttie sentence ofR.I. for 10 years would 4leet fhe ends ofjustice; flierefore, entenced to luidergo R.I. fcr 10 be entifled for set off for the tnal, iavestigation and appeal. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge