@9 B:;5Si -:'SH flB S1N '•JKl tm IW ; ^M yS •n i:!S •I" 'f --^^,/ j 10 ayriQ -Sa— (rt.lQtffctt'ljtb^ ^l t^^^k-olkTkT^^%T?-t<-^:'V^ite'^Z^v^, aa.WttSOVW-IVIOIGjnr ySHtS a»°?pw.wo, 3UO,.J T^TT^ Cls-A^-A^U^, 0"rt»7 Lc^-»^^T^ ssQ ^^!i \)- v-- .? ll<- v 1«\o\C, Q \<i ^t>^ \1 i\% ^- ^ ^ ^>cs I»^z_ Siwi .7 ^^l\ - ~,^~^^vw^ 'BO SWQ k^ 6A r \ I oV t«ssn3?pt(fjO)iA jBsdde pinoiis <n(* .onci-itiae.td {BSSJ Swe o»SBUO'II w stf@ ai ysgijqiB sq ES -aads.t aq o»qs(».iiou saop sii •(eqi saieis .isnosud 3tp jc ••}p.j«p.st&is ^ou Awu aq Si'if.ip V9A98 Bit{»iA iead'dB tOBsaep MB<)pi)oa<l yeSa^ 3i(»ji •srtsdtlB Mucnaipejd h&3"is^ sss(un s^Bp B9A3S joj ssvq sy ijttM p^so.id tOtt HIA ^noa awip^V sq? .i3B-appaB;'.d" .saTiSiA w ssms ss Ji ytiff .isucsud sii) ot paRsdsa si .11 E'.'k) ^^-<hA--7'L<-->lo !l _B IU\.L!U> i<lF». . 7l Vl?. l6V».^ ' ^^^^ C-^ '^- • *' • y ^-^"~ !!:'~' ia —'E-e ^SJ"- ^--^Tp^- 4r<T- 1/ <• n •• >• 'a noijiaas wya r^ / ^^r'S'X \ T;\U4— -.-. Wl t»\T \«&- l- 'to U-A v& u®' \ , .'. ^ ^s5~pW83 S:a,' iri •^-^r o "o -^aU^ »¥' - - • -. -^j S-'~"T^ sgaspiss'g, .Wy^.V^^..^ ^ ^''^^x^':-t^T^<''> l^ u^^-t^?'»a»sssifsv^ t^ j^^S'SEBBN - t^ ^ | S;S-%~L—^ ..$-.l^..lt.te'..V's lc'\<=. ^*^^- . ^s. ^ •-\. KL_M •'•'^^^'J ^ * •- "•T-•'»"•• ^••- '\^^,'; -S6 I 502. '\S'''^ s»£i/SBi-'y; 6} SOOOOOdO XS-HC-22 3I^I''EBI fe^sntn »"wgfts HON'BLESHRILAL BHADOO. J. AND iB'tBti1'!- '^.^;;;l^^:-l?^!;t "^^'^" -"^. -s^ ^i^id'i), ^Tfltiji<5, r«<?ii*ii< 02^,4-'4a-^c>^/9^-' "^n. 200 3ni?i wiiw ^iftti HON'BLB SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA^J 9-12-2005 Mr. Syrv'akarit accused/ appeBaat Mr. U.N.S.Deo, Addi] Raviadra Agrawal, respondent/ State. Heard. ^T<Llf<rl4tT1 'HTR^Tf"^is^ '?f^^R ^Sipgqan^i Mishra, counsel for the jaonal PubUc Prosecutor aad Mr. P^ziel Lawyer for the ORAL JiUDGMENT beefa 1. This appeal has couviction and order of sentenc Additional Sessions Judge, No.286/1993, whereby the le after holdiag the accuse< Indiaii Penal Code, seutenced fife. .——---~^: >. / bee^i directed agamst the judgment of ^ dated 10-12-1994 passed by Vth Bilaspur in Sessions Trial ;4i~ned Additional Sessions Judge, accused/ap^eUaat Uiaendi Singh guUty for coiunussioa of the offence punjishable under Section 302 of fhe aim to undei^o imprisoruneiit for ->^ ['q^tf^ XI-HC-22 ^ ^iHRra, "^wr?, •fwroy s' aqi^r^n R;n??3n^?i wgfi'a C-^'-A'- <^- sc'^^j— 3)1^1 •FRIIWBftg 2. The prosecutioa ca; the father of the deceased was ^.ot keeping well, fherefore, in fhe nightof 9-3-1993, at about7.30| cot. At that tiiue, Vishnu and ^ deceased Kaushal Rrasad.fhe sc the body of Shivshajakar. The cam.e fhere and asked, who are to sit here and whv fhey are si <*iii!^41'i i-tWvS ^ fsc8 <h<-ti<. ^srPiraan^F e, iu brief, is tfaat, SIiivshankar, P.M., Shivshankar was lying on a ishwaaafh also came fhere. The ^n of Shivshankar was inassagiag [accused/appeBaiit Uruendi Siugh littiiig here, who has aUowed fheni Sting here; Upon. which, Kaushal Prasad asked the accuse<L.as to \vb-y he is taUdng like fhat, which iafariated fhe accused aad he jpicked up the buming kerosene lainp, fhrew it on Kaushal F'ra^ad who was wearing a polyester shirt, as a residt ofwhich,. the s^iirt caught fire aad upper part of the bodv of Kaushal Prasad was feumt. The'Kotwar was asked to report the inatter as the doctcjr oT the yillage refused to give treataient to Kaushal Prasad. TU to Dharam Hospital, BUaspur. T{he Of&cer-ia-Charge ofthe Pplice Outpost Pachpedi registered an F the deceased Kayshal Prasad h^mself. The Investigatmg OfScer >. / :refore, Kaushat Prasad was sent I.R., Ex.P-3, which was lodged by [^ ^f<a4 XI-HC-22 a'ltw'qn R;-ti+. sssw ?h^i^)^^ ^sg A||o|ic)^, a^i+i'is, hcll'MS? CAi\^. »^a.^c'€/3^' canie to the scene ofOccurrence, bumt shirt of Kaushal Prasad, qii<<I<'i<fliii*i<nl''?feIzt'^R?R '^siRTiisn^r He took iuto possession the half the kerosene lamp aud fhe half bumt bedding under Ex.P-1. Dujring fh.e treatiaent m. ttie Bilaspur Hospital, after 15 days, on 24-3-|L993, Kaushal Prasad succumbed to fhe bum. nijuries. A PaachnE|ina, Ex.P-5 of ftie dead body was prepared by the Investigatuig Ofpcer and post luortem. of fhe body was conducted bv Dr.G.L.Aroj^ report Ex;P-4 ia whicb he-menticjned the cause of deafh of Kaushal Prasad to be septiceinia due to iAfected areas of deep burus. After coinpletion df fhe iavestigation, wherefi-om. the Vth Addittonal fhe case for trial. , who prepared a post m.0rtem. a charge-sheet was filed m. the Court of IInd.Additional Chief J^idicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, who, ia tum, coiiunitted fhe case tjs fhe Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, essions Judge, Bilaspur received 3. The prosecution, ia the accused/appeUant, examiaecjt fhe stateinent of the accused w^s order to prove the charge against 7 witaesses. On fhe other.haad, s recorded under Section 313 of [^^ ^fe^ -/ -5> •- •->'< ii!;^i»tF XI-HC-22 siKnan sn^! ?t1^!<t)TH^ sg:;;Ba> INBtsSB'iSlg :1;B|3^ii?~:.^5^ ^ei -t|i<<|d4|, d^ti'is, faoi-yy Q^-A- Vto.206/5^- ..^ ..^...........^ ^ sn^i'yEgiwHft'cf the Code of CnBiinal Proced prosecutiton evidence and implicated ia this case and furth bumt on account ofthe buming ture, iu which he denied the stafted that he has been falselv 4. |lam.p fhrown by Vishwaaath. After hearmg fhe aji^uinents of leamed counsel for Ad|ditional Sessions Judge convicted The fact of hoinicidal nature of not been disputed by leamed Apart frorii that, froni fhe evidynce P.W.-2, Vishnu, the eye-\vitaesse|s Dr.G.L.Arora, who conducted Kaushal Prasad and prepafed which he/has nieittioned ftiat tliie <:f)i'4E<;l41i TFTO^ff ^ 'f^St <f^^R i? srfigi? sn^r . :r stated that Kaushal Prasad was bofh the parties, the learaed and sentenced the accused/apF|eUaiit as laentioned ia para 1 of this judgrae'nt. o. We have heard leartied counsel for bofh the parties. ithe death of Kaushal Prasad has cibunsel ttie tijie •-^i- ibr fhe accused/appellant. of P.W.-l, Stuvshaiikar and aad also the evidence ofP.W.-6, post inortein on the body of ! • • - post niortem. report, Ex.P-4, iu cause of death was septiceinia [''f^ ^f^ Xl-HC-22 SII^T^ i^i'* sng^i ^i^i^ '^fl'cT :4--^-^^ 16 :aaiB: ;s^)' ^ -Swt -^w\v\i>, ^Wic, hwmy. c^.^^'-^^e/^^' -5'— H» due to lEifected areas 6f deep nature of the death of KaushalPri ^ ''...- 6. As far as iavoh^einenj cruiie in question 1s conceme^ Uums, at fhe relevaat tiine, at:abput 7. cM<ltpl4ll '"npq^ff ^ 'fe^ Tt^:?R •^ Slfigil an^l i, it is established that, fhe a.sad was hoinicidal. of the accused/appeUant in the , the same has also riot been disputed by the counsel for fhe ^ccused/appeUant, Shivshankar, P.W.-l; fhe fafher ofthe decease<l, has stated tu his evidence fhat, }0 P.M., beiag Ul he was lyiug on fhe cbt aiid his son KaushaJ P^asad, since deceased was dohl niassage aad Vishnu was sittulg Uniendi Singh came aad said, allowed fhein to sit here aad asld there. At that time, fhe accused who are sitting here, who has ;d that why they are sitting here. ected the accused Uinendi Singh Upon which, Kaushdl Prasad 6bJ! /•^?~- I ^ - aad said why he is talking Kke f|iat, wlifeh infuriated the accused and he picked up th6 bumiag k^rosene lamp, fhrew it on Kaushal .' i . .. . ... . . Prasad, who was wearing a poly^ster shirt which caught fire, as a result ofwhich, the upper part ^if fhe body of Kaushal Prasad i.e. ftie chest and the above area of •• / Ithe chest were burat and he was - 5 [^tfigA IMlMI XI-HC-22 •ssi ^|]t|]d-ll, s9'dly<is. 'feTO'y C^~'A-^.20^/3^' "^.""""M 21W 3Ilt?I3iI r^-ii.'* sn^i ^iiNT^fta 3n^rwiiwgft?r iminediately taken to fhe hospital,! to ttie Dharam. Hospital, Bflaspur,i about 15 days aa^ tiltimately on bum injuries. This eyidence ha| Vishnu, who was sitting at fhe exaiiiuiation of these two witaessds scene witaess^s, fhe defence has not been able to eUcif aav fact which inav Bablce fhe evidence of these two witeiesses uiLreUable; ''Even P.Wj before fhe iacident,--fhere vvas n<^ dispute between Tiim aiid fhe accused. The evidence offhese tjyo eve-witaesses stands further corroborated by the evidence i^f P.W.-6, Dr. G.L.Aroi-a, who conducted the post ruortertl on tjie body of Kaushal Prasad and fouiid fhe bum iajuries. Thetefore, fhe involvenien.t of fhe '^Frf^fr'T 'lTPRff ^^S •(J^re^K i? aifigiT an^l first ia fhe viUage and fhereafter where he received treatment for B4-3-1993 he sucGumbed to Uie ^ been corroborated by P.W.-2, of occurrence. In the cross- -1, Shivshaakar has said fhat, accused/appeUaiit iu the crmie finduig to that effeet offhe leamed ^a. question is .esfabUshed and Additional Sessions Judge does not require any interference by fhi^ Coiul, 7. Learaed counsel for fhe accused/ appeUant argued that^if/the facts of the prosecutio|n case arc taken as true on'fhe •i^~ -^. *\^ .^ ~<^^ ^!0<4 -F XI-HC-22 ^"g ^Tqi^R. -^ahTTre. 0^1- '/\- u<,.r2c<,y^r- wz 3)1^1^1 fe^at]^' %*lN"Hf^t SSEf « 3n^i?(giwgfet face of it, fhe offence agamst the a{ beyond Section 304 Part II ofthel no intention of the accused/app^llaat to coiirmit the inurder of Kausbal Prasad. <*i^F<-i*i)-i im^if 4 fs^ <R|^R ^3ipg*i3ii^[ 'cused/appeUaat does not travel Indian Penal Code as fhere was harid 8. On ttie other Prosecutor for tiie respondent/St^ti trial Court. 9. learued Additional PubUc :e supported fhejudgruent offhe In order to appreci^te fhe argument advanced by leanied counsel for tlie accused/E evidence ofP.W.-l, Shivshaakar, evidence, he has stated that, at t| Iie was h'iuR on tUe cot and Kau^hal Prasad was inassaguig him, aU of a sudden fhe accused camj who has aUowed theni to sit he4 :ppeUaat, we have scrutuused ttie the fafheroffhe deceased. In his tte time of the crune ia question, aad said, who are sitting here, and why tfaey are sittiug here, •Vfbich was objected by fhe decesjsed Kaushal Prasad, aud in fhat process, fhe a^cused/appellaut Ipicked up fhe bumiag kerosene •• / •«s- ['1Ef^^,f^ I] II XI-HC-22 •s=";iia; ^q ^ll^ld^, 8T)l+i'is, isiMi'y'it C^,\ A'-^a.2°-&/3-^' •-S^-"-""7K 2w 31I^TqCT T?:ii?T3]^i *t!i'*'H^i sn^i'swwgft'a lamp and mimediateK- threw it o^i Kaushal Prasad, as a result of which, fhe kerosene splashed onj was wearmg aad the sbirt u'n^nediately caught fire. P.W.-l, Shivshaakar, in fhe last Hne ofpjara 6 of his evidence, has stated that, there was no dispute wifti ^ie accused Umendi Singh before the iucideut. Therefore, in yief? of the above facts, it is not disputed fhat, in a sudden quanj up the buining keroseue lamp, •*''!<fri'iii-< 'qpraf'? ft^ <r»i«;i< ^'sipan ailtg the shirt whicli Kaushal Prasad ;1, tlie accused/appellant picked without giving second thougbt, threw it on Kaushal Prasad and Ijhe polyester sl-urt which Kaushal F'rasad was wearing caught fire.| Therefore, fhe case is covered luider Exception 4 of Section 30'fl offhe Indian Penal Code as the accused/appeUant fhrew the buijumg kerosene lamp without auy preplau aad preineditation in ajspur of inoinent fai the heat of passion on a sudden qiiarrel, aa|l froia'titie above facts, it cannot be held fhat, the acfcused/appellaat fhrew the buraiag kerosene lamp QU Kaushal Prasad with However, fix>ia fhe above facts, i iiitention to cause his death. caa safely be inferred .fhat, fhe accused/appeUant had knowled^e while ttLrowiag' the buniiug •• / :as-^ ['tft^^fe^ XI-HC-22 sn^i'q? f^wsn^i 'anTRi"BT5(T "3^ -4141d'i), Kl-dlWlii, !»tOi'Mli< C^,': A.' M^~- so-6 /9y~ ti]*<CflTSR*irai •s- sn^i'reiigf'Hf?? kerosene laiuu on Kaushal Pras^ •*i*i!<'i<il-i 'WHvS vfsVi\h-tii<. ^T 3lf=g*T an^i d tliat bv such act he inav likelv to cause death ofKaushal Prasad. 10. Therefore, we are of| finduig of fhe trial Court ^o accused/appeUaut guilty for coir^mi; uiider Section 302 of fhe ludiaiii aad saine is Uable to be setasidel 11. In fhe result, fhe conviction and sentence passed Indian Penal Code are set fhe considered opinion Ihat, fhe fhe extent of holdiug fhe iiission of the offence punishable Penal Code cannot be sustaiaed |appeal is partly aUowed. The ^gaiust fhe accused/appeUant for coiniaission of the ofiFence puni^hable under Section 302 of fhe aside. I'nstead thereof, fhe accused/appeIlaQt Uiriendi Siiig^. is co.nvicted under Section 304 Part II offhe Indiaii Penal Code 4nd sentenced to uiidergo rigorous imprisoiuaent for 10 years. Tb^ accused/appeUaat is ia custody suice 9-3-1993, fliereby he has ^lrcady served the sentence. It fa, •• •/ '-M^. I1[n^if^ XI-HC-22 (^ •S^ '^MWi, ^•Aw's. hwwf, 3IRg-^ {?;ii??aRi?i ^4 ^T^ ;3.Smgh // ^ ^ 111CTI 9>W«tl 'q^? . /_ — C^.^-'\L3.2c'fc /3S-^ TO%""~-,Zl"]"g,"_ll."""'""""^ 200 SII^I ^<!IWHf6d st)^I<?i^l'rr 'RWcff ^^Q ^R£R ^? giRra sn^i therefore, diiected ttiat, fhe ac •used/appeUaat be set at liberty forfhwifh., ifnot required in. aay |)fher cnme. 12. In ftie Ught of abovd suspension ofsentence and gra4t ofbail aad I./LNo^32Z2J2004 for ui^ent hearing stead disposed of. Sd/- L.C. Bhaduo Judge oider, M.(Cr.)P.No.2304/2004 for '. / Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge [^^4