CQRAM: Hon’ble Shi'i Rajeev Gupta, GA. & Hon’bie Shri Sunil Kumar $inha. J. Criminal Appeal Me. 619 0f 2903 Maniram Vs. State of Chhatti$garh JUDGMENT For cansEderationJ Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge H€E§3fBLE SHRI JUSTICE'RAJEEV GUPTA Post for Judwg Sd/- Ju‘fg’’e’ 2 0/07/2009 ,L HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTLSGARH B!LA$PUR w l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI-SGARH. B!LASPUR CORAM: Hon’b!e Shri Raieev Gtgpta‘ QJ. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (Appeal under Section 374 (2i of The Code of Criminal Procedure} Appearance: Smt. Savita Tiwari & Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, Panel Lawyer, for the State. JUDGMENT ' (z 1.07.2039) Foilowing judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) Appellant Maniram stands convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Ret ,000/-, in default of payment of tine to further undergo SJ. for 5 months, by the $eoond Additionat Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Jashpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.’ 09/2003 on 31“ of March, 2003. w x \ (2) ’ The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- \ Deceased Hiramati was the wife of the appellant. She was residing with the appellant in his hou’Se. On 6.4.2002 at about 5.00 p.m,, some quarrel took piace between the husband and the wife. ‘ Jalsundri (PW-3, niece of the appellant), narrated all this to her Criminal Appeal No. $19 of 2003 APPELLANT Maniram S/o Khiralram, aged about 32 1 years, by Caste Dihkorva, Occupation Cultivation, Viiiage Saraipani, Police Station @agicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.) r Versus ‘ V f RESPONDENT State of Chhatttsgarh through Police - Station Bagscha, District Jashpur Q (C.G.) 2 Crimimll Angeal No‘ 61 § of 2003 parents. They went to the house of the appeliant and saw that the : doors were closed from inside and the appeuant and the deceased 1 were present in the house. They did not get the door opened. After i sometime when they again went there, they found that the door ‘ was closed fromout side and the appellant was not there. They ; made search in the night but the appellant was not found. In the morning, they went to the house of the appellant and saw from a hole that his wife was lying dead in the house The matter was reported to the concerned police station by 1 “the brother of the appellant namely Budhram (PW-1), on which, a v First Information Report (Ex.-P/1) and a Merg intimation (Ex-Pa) were registered. The lnvestigating Officer reached to the scene of occurrence, gave notice (Ex.-P/22) to the Panchas and. prepared inquest (Ex.- PIS) on the body of the deceased. Plain soil, btood stained soil and 2 numbers of arrows were seized from the place of occurrence under Ex.-P/7 and site plan was prepared under Ex.—P!9. Another site plan was prepared under Ex.-P/1 9. The dead body of the deceasedwas sent for its post-modem to Community Health Centre, Bagicha, where the post-modem examination was conducted by Dr. CD. Bakhla (PW~1Q), who prepared his report Ex.-P/18.The Autopsy Surgeon noticed a stab wound, size 2 ‘A x 1 x 5 om. below the left angle of the mouth. He opined that the said injury was caused by sharp and pointed article and the cause of death was neurogenic shock due to excessive haemorrhage by injury and it was homicidal in nature. After completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet Was tiled in the Court Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jashpurnagar, who in turn committed the matter to the concerned Sessions Court, from where, it was received on transfer by the Second Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Jashpur, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the accusedlappellant as aforementioned. . ,\v\ ‘;\ \ \\ mu“ m @ Criminal Appeal No. 619 0f 2003 (3) Admittedly, there are no eye witnesses in this case and the conviction of the appellant is based on the circumstantial evidence of PW- 3, Jalsundri, and PW-1, Budhram, niece and brother of the appellant, who hea‘rd a quarrel ih the house of the appellant on the evening of 6.4.2002 when the appellant and the deceased both were inside the house; thereafter the appellant ran away from the house; and the dead body of thedeceased was found insidé'the house of the appettant having sustained the above injury; and Dr. CD. Bakhla (PW-1.0) opined that the death was homicidal in nature. a (4) Smt. SavitaQTiwarl & Mr. Vimtesh Bajpai, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the appellant, have neither disputed the homicidal death of the deceased hat the complicity of the appellant in crime in question. They only argued that the appellant belongs to Korva Tribe, it was a case a quarrel between the husband and the wife; in a sudden quarrel, in heat of passion, the appellant caused single injury to the deceased by using the pointed end of an arrow; the bow and arrow are commonly available in the houses of Korva Tribes. Therefore, the act committed by the appellant wouid not amount to murder punishable u/s 302 IPC and the appellant wouid be liable for punishment under some lessor Section preferably Part-ll of Section 304 IPC. (5) On the other hand, Mr. Ravindra Agrawai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court. (6) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and \ have also perused the records of the sessions case. \ 4 Criminai Almeal No. 6] 9 of 2003 (7) Dr. C.D. Bakhla (PW-10) deposed that on 8.4.2DD2, he conducted the plost-mortem examination on the bedy of the deceased and found one stab§wound on the iower hortion of the mouth which may have been caused by a sharp and pointed objeot. He has not deposed that the injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He did not notioed any fracture beneath the injury and has stated that the cause of death was neuroqemc shock on account of excesswe haemorrhage by the algoye injury This shows that in a quarrei between the husband and wife, all of a sudden, without premeditation or preparation, the appeltant took thetarrow which was lying in the house and gave an arrow biow on the is of the deceased not by ustng bow etc but by usmg sharp and " pointed portion of the arrow by hand, which proved‘fatal to the deceased. (8) In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered View, the act of the appellant would not be punishable u/s 802 IPC but the appellant would be tiable for punishment u/s 304 Part-ll tPC. (9) Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appetlant u/s 302 IPC- are set aside. Instead thereof, the appellant is convicted uis 304 Part-ll IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. lt is stated that the appeilant is in jail since 4.10.2002. He shalt be entitled to set-off the period already undergone by him. Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Chigf.,J95.ti§? Judge ;,; Sd/- — % §W§WM ‘ “rm!“