^^^i^Sa.. 'FSvt ^nZi'H;!^', «lTf)ti'l(o, R)ciiy^< C^. Pt- Mo . -S /o^- ^Wvil d»K|cb••-•-•••--•-•••---•-•-•••---•••^200 anf?r xoq; (ijcif^^) SII^T.TF R;-ii«b wnan^r WTffi ('• DB: HON'BLB SHRI bHlKEMDRA MlsUKA & HON'BL-E SHHI T.P VBRS APPBLLANT RESPONDBn'T 2S-1-2UOS A4«- Ninirima T^ains Mr, D.K. Gwaire, Ai 'jt,, 1'lus crumnal ap] conviction aud. order of s S.T; No. 249/2001 whei Raipur has convicted thi seatencecl to unclergo 500/- aud in default of fhree nionttis. The wtte Dasri Bal. 'l'be iacidf itdpnso] appel|ant 3. (Jase ol ttie prosecl soine o-G yeara pnor to IWo days belore Uie incl had gone to vfflage Paatc) date of iacideut in the i iiouse ot yufctiau (P.W. 41 is alleged fhat the appef iiquor. Un tlie date ot Dasri Bai and the app( assaulted Dasri Bai froj chNhn'4l'ff^^ ^f f^el' <f^^i< ^aiRmsii^r ASMA, JJ. Mangal Kamai-, aged about 30 years, S/o Sukhram Kamar, R/o Pantora, Korio Ratt.ar, PS Qariyaband, Distt. Raipur, CC DS State of Chhattisgarh ^L, Advocate for fhe appeUant. idl. Publk; Prosecutor, for fiie State. (eal is directed ^auist fae judginent of ^utence dated 3ra November, 2001 passed m :by Jeamed 7th Additional Sessions Judge, appeUant under Section 302 of I.P.C. aad jprisoiunent for tife aad to pay a fine ol Rs. Ipayinent of fine, to iurther undergo R.I. for is charged for comnuttiag uiurder of bis [•nt is of 2nd May, 2001 at about llp.m. ition is that fhe appeBant inarried Dasri Bai pie uicident. He is blessed by son Biiustian.i [dent, appeUant aud his wife along wifh son ~a for treatinent of his son Bhushan. On fhe ju^ht, fhe appeBaat consumed Uquor iu fhe aad thereafter he quarreled wifh Sukhau. it lant used to beat his wife atiter consuiaiag (ncident also, Uiere was a quan"el between ;Uaat, as a result of which, the appeUaat fhe back side of axe over her head. The c"^^ ?M? ^n'<?"i', TRRNnN — p2007 —30.000. sn^s ?ir R-fH ^TSTT STT^T ?ti^tct> 'sstecaigBiis1 ^7^-- 3S? '^WW'f, •ST^WW, RlWWy Ml*4dl **11<* WI, 200 sn^yr ^ra? ('^f^^w) ^aiW ^lftd SII^I ~L- uicident was seen by hi! UuKtiuram naBielv Kulctic Kuimcjiancl 4. Report was lodged b 6.30 a.in. vide Ex. P-9 nar ot ux. f-iu was also Dukhuram (P.W.l). Dr. niorteiii over me person report ot Bx. H-l^. >^- Dukhuram (P.W. 1) on 3-5-2001 at about na4ung the present appellant. Merg taftmation reccjrded on the basis of HUormation given by (Smt.) B. Bara (P.w. 9) couducted post |ot Uie cleceased uasn Bai ana gave lier usilal subseque|iuy s>. Atter coiapletuig tlie same was Judge aud thereafter the the same on traaster tor titial dar &. MoitucMlal deam ot| Kveu ottier wise, troiu ttie| P.W. 5 Sukhchand as als< y} wfio tias conductecl pos|t and in. whicli she noticedt rcgion just over me lett peeled of skm. and braui was also visible fiom. the ^E Iracture ot teinporal Donfc she has opuied the caus^ iD^juiy over the head aud Dasri Bai is estabtished. ——^ ctii*fT<i<)1*f^i4^ ^'fe'^ <^t^i< ^aiRn sii^i brot&er Uuimuram (K.W. 1) ana son ot (P.W. 5). investiganon, c&ai^e slieet was tiled aad coinnuttect to t&e (Jourt ot yessions learued Additional Sessions Judge received |the deceased Dasri bai is not in dispute. evidence ol P.W. 1 Dukhuram Kam.ar and t> the statement of Dr. (Smt.) B. Baj-a (P.W. |t mortem aiid proved fhe report ofEx. P-12 one lacerated wound on fhe left teniporal qar ot size 4x4x1 cin, lett teiaporal t>one ifaaterial was seen aud bone tu.sid.e the skuu. ^uiuiy aad on opeiung the skuU she noticed and niiddle raengila arteiy was tom aad ot cleam as excessive tileeding clue to me lioiaicidal ia nature, the houiicidal death of ij.-rt^^^atoi 3^ ^WW^, fST^W'1'a, Rt<*iy^< tdKdI **11<k Wt. 200 an^?r 'ws (ipf^gqtr) 3II^?I.^I R-(i* w sn^r **<w CSSSt!^8" WBIWHfCTSD^I 3 T. i^earaed couaSel for—EII -witneSs Dukfauram is not the eye-witne^ running away from the place oj fhere is niaterial onussion in] regaid to his preseace at the has also not menlioned ia his| statement under Section 164 o| betiveeii Sukhau and the trufh. Lasuy it was argued appellaat to the deceased fro4i snows that the appeUant did Dasri Bai aad, fherefore, the 304 Part I or Part II of I.P.C.I under Section 302 offhe I.P.C. appel^aat tttfet y. Un tne otRer tian.CL, fue impugned judgment arguej established as the appeUant ta£|i to the charge whereia he has| Deaten trom ot&ers aacl usea | assaulted fhe deceased with tt| other wise, fhere are two eye-^'a else taaa ttie real DrotUer ol Ui)5 nephew SuKhchaad (P.W. 5). 9. We have heard learaed ''nwli'llll ^in5lf if f?CS tfa^K ^affiwsil^t appt;aaut ytil>uullt;u Uial P.W. 1 and he has only seen fhe appeUant incident. She ftuther submitted that the statements of Suiuicnand wifh ponng aear ttic place ol uicident. l-1e diary statenient of Ex. D-1 and the Cr.P.C. ofEx. D-2 regarding quarrel aad thus he is not the witness of onty siagle blow was given by the DacK side ot tlie axe wlucfi cteariy tiot iiave uiteuUoa to cause tleatti ot o|ffence does,not travel beyond Section and he has been wrongly convicted leadaed counsel for the State supporting P that involvement of fhe appellant is lumself adinitted the charge in reply stated that his wife used to get hiin (o quarrel with him and, therefore, he back offhe axe over her head. Even ^'itnesses to the uicident who are none appeBaut Dukhurain (P.W. 1) and his counsel for the parties. We have pei'used fhe record as also tfae impugned judgnient. ^ie^f ^rN^r ^i{uir<1^, u^Ti 1/5?—S/JW —30.51'U. "Sf '^Jfe^' 3^^ '<<l<<l<?i<l, BiTti+f'Ko, fcj<?i|yy<. *<I*ICTI **1(ch ----•••--••--•--•-•-•-•---^ 200 sii^yr 13?; (1ipf^??T) sn^i.w ft-ii'ti WR sn^T •*4i<* iaeigr wirar ^rfro sii^r ^ 10, Conviction of the appe] Dukhuram and SuMichaad. D about 10-11 p.iu. on the date| reaclied ttie place ol uiciclent, were quarreliug. T'he appeUant he reached fhere, the appeiiaii|t his wtte. He chased him to apprenend nim aad ttie appe4Jant ueceased Uasn tiai was lyiag sustamea nuiuerous injiine! examiaation, he has stated fhal spot. No ottier person was pre; electricity failure. in para 5, tie) appeUant assaulting, however after assaultiug, He has deo|E quaTrel with me appeUaat. also 11. P.W. 5 SuMicJiantl tias there was a quarrel between iJ^i iu the house of Sukhau. The at of fhe house of Sukhau, at th\ Sukhau retumed froia inidwa^ appellaiit and liis wite quanjE appeUaut assaulted her on h^i wifh the appeliant aad his wife|. his home. Dasri Bai feU mere.! ct»l<<t<?ra)T1'^W^ff^ 'fe^t' '^^7 ^iafRnan^r laat is tiasea on ttie statenient ot (ikhuiam (P.W. 1) has stated that at of incident, hearmg coiamotioii he jt that time the appeUant and his wite t?as cLrunls:, l-1e was tioldmg axe. Wtien )t was ruiuung away atter assaiiltuig catch nim, however he could not inanaged to Uee wittt ttie axe. t?n fhe spot with ftte axe injuiy. She over her head. In ttie cross- his son Siikhchand also reached the snt there. There was darkness due to has aditutted fhat he did not see fhe [he saw the appeBaat ninning away ed the suggestion that he has aay stated that dn the date of incident, appeUaat and SuJdiau ia the iiight )peUant aud his ivife were coming out it tlme, he was stancling near boring. Tbe appeUant was holdiag axe. The •led near fhe boring, fhereaner me head bv axe. SinaU child was also He (SiiKhchana) brought the child to His tattier reac&ed on ttie sport atter Wfl^T ^sft^" ^imi'cWI, H ^FS/59—8/2nn- —30,CI!U. SII^T.^I R'fi* wir an^r •^cihi' IBiffi* 3-c^ •<<i<ii<?i<<, »Tn'y'i<s,fstdl+fy Tnwr **<i* "^ 200 3II^?T 1R% (ljc<t-l«<<y) twiwHtei aii^r ^ some tune, 1'tie appeUant l&ere is one nouse betwee: bas also stated ffaat his he could not be caught. fras intoxicated at ttie time of incideut. fhe boriiig and his house. This witness tried to catch fhe appeUaat, however tattier i'2. t<rom ttie eviaence ot] he saw the appellaut runm4g axe whereas P.W. 5 Suldinbni omission ia the evidence of will not impeach the credj evidence ot ttiese two evidence and proinpUy lodi given by tbe appeUaat to the crime in question is est^blished witnelsses fhat it is a case of siaipll fhe appeUaD.t assatdted the teiuporal bone aud the inj slde of axe wifh sucli a lbr( (^i<lT<t<flTi 'RF^f ^^^ <^^\i %3TfOT3i1^T IP.W. 1 Dukhuram., it is establtshed that lg away trom the place of incident holdiag tai is the wituess of the iacident. Trivial '.W. 1 Dukhuram and P.W. 5 Sukhchand i|Lbiiity of fheu' evidence. Thus froni the ., which is also supported by inedical ^ed F.I.R. aud also considering fhe reply chai^e, involvenient of fhe appeHaat in tUe 13. So far as fhe argumetA of f&e leamed counsel for me appellaat ; injuiy given by back side of axe aad fiierefore, the offence faUs ilnder Section 304 Part I or Part 11 of I.P.C. is concenied, trom ttte evi<|ence available on recora, it is clear tfaat deceased wifh the back side of axe on her head with such a foroe that the deceased sustained fracture of ury was of such a grievous nature fhat braul material and bones 4f skuU were visible from the bone iD^juiy, fhus takuig iiito coiisidersjtion that the assault was niade by back wmc& caused uistantaaeoiliT fhe appeUaiit of kilHng hfe *ife is established. e over the temporal bone of fhe deceased deatti of flie deceased, the intention ol ?TRT<Sl? ^f ^U|)<?1^, <M-li^—— ^— 8/20H'? —30,&OU. s"\Ss>. ''tfc y^HSt., ^ &' ^i' 1 < i VSi-Si.' 3ssr -<ii<<i<?i<<, yiTtiy'is, Iqoi'yy t<l*<<^I fhKlcb WI. 200 SII^T 'WV (ijpf^^t) awsi.'W R-li* OTT3ITOI •st^l'* yssss.. WITWHfCT 311^1 "Tz^~. iu view^uF Uict^fctfoiciS>£U? opimon "ttiat ttiere is no °ni<i(<n«iliTin?ff tf felzt <fa«;i< ^siiwan^t il dl»Cu-ai&lOU, ^fC. Stif^ ot U% coiisictei'ecL linfiniuty or illegatity in t&e tmpugned judgment which caUs for auf iaterterence. 15. The appeal being devofd of substance is aismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge wy'^r ^? gsffn^r, —FS/S9— 8/20m —30,GOU.