[C—78 ^TT^T^T ^jch 1rI8H ^T^T 5n+ii<=b <^ ^-^r ^I^IO^, y>Tf1y<l<o, («10W^< C^. /)-- ^u- 7-<§*^ *41^dl *Mlcb """"""""""""""""""""" """"^ 200 ^ 3^?T XR^ (lic<^<^> '^ITW^feT 3^TT^T Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri T.P. Sharma. JJ. CrjminalApo^ APPELLANT (in Jai!) RESPONDENT SushilKumar, S/o Ramnihora Kurmi,|aged about 25 years, R/o VilJagejSukhatal, Thana- Kawar<Jha, Distt. Kawardha (C.G;) Versus State (ff Chhattisgarh (ORAL ORDEj 23.01.2008 Shri Samir Singh, counset fc Shri U.K.S. Chandel, Panel Per Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishi The appellant has prefen Section 374 (2) of the Code ofCri 'the Code') challenging the legality of conviction and order of sente passed by learned Additional Sessions Trial No.58/01 whereby under Sections 302, 302. 307 homicjdal death of Dulourin Bai commit murder of Kamla Bai and Bhaiya respectively and sentence^ cM<<t<yl<fll ^IH<A ^f.rs^l <Fai^K ^^ifim^Ti^T iaJNo.287of2003 ^) r the appellant. ' -awyer for the State. a:J. |ed this criminal appeal under (ninal Procedure, 1973 (for short |and correcAness of the judgment |nce dated 21st February 2003 Ses^lons Judge (FTC), Kawardha in l^ie appellant has been convicted ^ 323 of the IPC for causing & Bisoukhi Bai, atSempting to |for causing simple hurt to Ram to undergo life imprisonment on ^.^ ^^ 75ET .^N|0q, ^Tfl<1^|<o, ts|<>>l-M^< t\Wv\[ (bNlcb •^200 3Ti^?T ^nra? (li?lI^<t?T) sn^r '^T R;^jch ^^i ^TI^T^RW -V '^nw^fer ^TT^T the first three counte and Rl for si3k IPC. All the sentences have been d| cieci^d Case of the prosecution, ii|i charge-sheet is that deceased Bis|c matrimonial house along with her was ousted by her husband Sutchi ousted by Sukhiram, tt was Rs.3,500/- to Kamla Bal, mother of Sncident Kamla Bai demanded Rs.3,1 is elder brother of Sukhi Ram on Bai by knife & axe and thereafter, tried to intervene, by an axe on her he further assaulted Dulorin Bai, and Dulorjn Bai died on the spot, grievous injuries. Report was lodged by Badri 2001 at about 7.30 P.M.. 2% hour^ appellant as an accused. On the complainant Badri Prasad (PW/12), P-28 and F.I.R. Ex. P-26 were body of Bisoukhi Bai and Dulorih presence of witnesses vlde Ex.P-1 was sent for medical examination Kawardha where Dr. K.K. Sharma, his report of Cx.P.14. injured Ram Dl cbi<it<rt<fli 'RFI^Jf ^f^fe^ <Pn^$i< ^ 3?ifipT 3n^r months under Section 323 of ected to run concurrently. brief, as reflected from the >ukhi Bai was residing in her m|3ther injured Kamla Bai, as she |Ram. Since Blsoukhi Bai was ttiat Sukhi Ram shall pay Bisoukhi Bal. On the date of ?00/- fromaccused Sushjl, w4io w|iich he firstly assaulted Kamla assaulted Bisoukhi Bai, who |ieck and left leg arfd thereafter, molher of Kamla Bai. Bisoukhi Bai t^hereas, Kamla Bai sustained tte prasad Kurmi on 30' January, after the incident naming the |?asis of information given by |merg intimation of Ex. P-27 & regi^tered. Inqueste over the dead Bai were prepared in the and P-12. Injured Kamla Bal |to Community Health Centre, (PW/9) examined her and gave haiyawasateosentfoi'medicai- ~S^5[ rqNK?-)^, ($Tf|^'Ko, Isj^l^y ^TT^T ?5T ^ic^ 'cT^T 3T|^T sb^icb ^l^ldl **<lch ^ 200 an^yr x^r^ (4c'flc<<^) ^^ITW 1Rf^T 3?n^T -5- examination to Community He^ medico legal injury report is Ex.P-| Bai and Dulorin Bai were sent for Centre, Kav/rardha where Dr. postmortem and gave his rej respectively. During investigation wearirl ct)i<if<n<fli 'Wl^ff ^f^fe^ <Pn^i< '^^itRpT^n^T tth Centre, Kawardha and his 15. Dead bodies of the Bisoukhi lostmortem to Community Health sl.K. Yadu (PW/10) conducted >orts of Ex. P-19 and P-20 g apparels of injured Kamla Bai were taken into possession vid^ Ex.P-1. Wearing appareis of cteceased Bisoukhi Bai and Dulori|i Bai were taken into possession vide Ex.P-2 and P-3. The blood s^iined knife and axe were seized on being produced by the appell^nt vide Ex. P-4. Site plan was prepared vide Ex.P-5. Plain soil into possession vide Ex.P-6, P| occurrence. Seized articles werel ^nd blood stained soil was taken 7 and P-8 from'the place of , Rai|>i sent for chemteal examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raij>ur and the report of Uie same is Ex.P-30. After completing investigati' Court of Chief Judicial Magisfrate, Kawardha, who in turn committed the case to the learnep Sessions Jutlge, Rajnandgaon and the same was received on j>n, charge sheet was flled jn the Itransfer for trial by the (earned Additionai Sessions Judge. Durin^ trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses in all and thereafter, statement of accused was recorded in which the appellfrnt denied the circumsteinces appearing against him in the |>rosecution case and pteaded innocence ahd false implication. | He stated that there is a land K ^•-•- :;a.y 75S( ^N10<4, ^>Tf|<1<l<o, [s|01-M^< ^i^di 'gwra? -^ 200 an^r XI^R (4C<^<^) 371^T ^T ^Jch WT <3^T sh^li<=b -\ '^Rnw^rf?? 3^n^r ^t^- related dispute with Purain Bai and ^ the Panchayat, he has been falselyi^ The Trial Court after hearinA respective parties has convicted ar^d mentioned in Paragraph 1 ofthisjud| Homicidal death of Bisou1(hi dispute. Even otherwise from the Kamla Bai & Ram Bhaiya and and Purain Bai as also from the (RW/10) who has conducted the deceased Dulorin Bai and Bisoukhi injuries on their persons and has deceased Bisoukhi Bai is shock du| |over her vital organs and cause of |shock due to excessive bleeding ar lestablished that the death of Bisou fhomicidal in nature. ThemjyriessustemedJwBjso! eyewptnesses 1. Incised wound Lt Thigh L< placed, Ant7 x 2 cm clotte< 2. Incised wound Lt Knee po; clotted blood present. 3. Incised wound present Lt cms deeply upto bone # present. chi^id^lH Trm^f ^f,fel:3t <Fait^i< '^^ifiTH^^^T ince he stated against them in iplicated. the learned counsel for the sentenced the appellant as ment. |Bai and Dularin Bai is not in sflatements of injured witnesses namely Badri Prasad Istatement of Dr. N.K. Yadu po|stmortem over the peraons of ^ai and has found the followlng op|ied that the cause of death of to injuries sustained by her Pdath of deceased Dulorin as |d injuries on vital organ, it is (hi Bai and Dulonn Bai were ^khLBaj: <wer 5 cm above knee oblique blood prt, margin regutar. ^t deeply upto bone 5x2 cms |Scalp, occipital region 6x2 [occipital bon®,clotted blood ^^. ^TT^T ?7T'R^lN? 'cT^TT 3TT^T 5b*11cb T5ST '<<N10<4, ^>Tf1«4l<o, isf<»!»l-y^< KHdl tb^lcb "^ 200 3TT^?T XR^ ( <lc<^<i?T ) '^ITW^<T 3?TT^T -F cbl^f<n41l *11*1<vlf ^f.fe^ <Pq<^l< ^3tfhH3^?r 4. Incised wound Lt Scalpj occipital region 3 cms above 3rd jnjury, 4x2 cms deej3py upto bone, # occipitel bone, clotted blood prt. 5. Incised wound tnt Lt te nporal region 2x1 cms deeply upto bone, # clotted bloo|d prt. 6. Incised wound tnt over the ear in the cize of 1 x 1 cm. 7. Abrasion Lt arm msdd!e fc/3rd 1 x 1 cm. 8. Abrasion Rt leg lower l/^rd 1x1 cm. 9. Abrasion prt. Lt chest 2 10. Abrasion over neck Antlof 1 x 1 cm The iniuries sustained bv DUIorin Bai 1. Incised wound present] biood prt, on cut section X 0.5 cm over back of neck Rt sided horizontally placed, 5 x $.5 cm deeply upto bone, clotted Isongestion was aiso prt, 'nl < 2. Incised wound presen^ bn back of neck Lt sided horizontal!y placed, 4.5 )4 2.5 cms clotted biood prt deeply upto bone on cut section congestion present. Two injuries are at differenc^ of 1 cm from e^ch other, on dissection underlying r|iusde separated and cervical vertebra atong wifti spin^ 3. Abrasion presentlowerj^ 1 card has been cut. w 1 x 1 cm. All injuries are ante mort^m and might be caused by hard and sharp object for (1) ^o (2) & (3) might be caused hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the ap] of the evidence available on reco iellant submits ttiat from perusal rd, it is evident that the jnddent occurred suddenly without any pr^meditation. No motive has been "^ 3^cT •^l<ll<r'»^,tS>Tf1<-141<o, |s)^l^< ^Wdl thNlcb ^TI^T^T'R^NT TT8iT 3TT^T sti^Jcb •^ 200 3n^?T'tnr^ (4cif'lfl<<i^) '^ITW^rf^T^^^T ^ <=M<<I<y1<fll ^11H<A ^f^fe^ <F»1^1< ^ 3?ifim 3Ti^?r attributed to the appellant for c^using death of the deceased persons and for injuring Kamla $ai and Ram Bhaiya. There is discrepancy in the statement of tti^ eyewitnesses. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are h!9hly interested witnesses and the appellant has been falsely rivalry. On the other hand, learnecll |mplicated because of political tcounsel appearing for the State supporting the impugned judgmentlargued that the conviction of the appellant is based on the statemenjt of injured, eyewltnesses Kamta Bai (PW/1) and Ram Bhaiya (PW/p). Conviction is aiso based on the statement of complainant Bad^-i Prasad (PW/12), who lodged the report, and Purain Bai (PW/3) \|/ho have witnessed the incident. Thejr version is duly corroborated also from the promptly lodged F. been named as accused pereon. We have heard leamed coi perused the record as also the impi from the medical evidence as .F?. in which the appellant has insel for the parties. We have ^igned judgment. Conviction is based on the |statement of Kamla Bai (PW/1), Purain Bai (PW/3), Ram Bhaiya (P^V/5) and Badri Prasad (PW/12). Complainant Badri Prasad has stated that the incident is c 3W/12), who lodged the report, 4.00 P.M. He had gone to thrashing field of SushSI for returjning the bullock cart and after retuming the bullock cart he went ;o the house of Sushil where he ^'s s^ :M 5i ^^- 'M 's.'i' m r T^SS ^l^l^^, ^)rQ'(-<ll<S, ts|(»'»l^^< Z^) 'RP^TT shNlcb ^ 200 3^91 ^S^K ( ^f^^) 3T(i^T ^T f<-lich '<T8TT 3TR?T ^RI^ hn saw Sushil assaulting Dularin Bai, an axe over her neck and after seel He has further stated that the| confession that he has killed Dull cbi^F<n<flri +ii^<^I ^fe^t <P»t^i< '^^tfOT^n^r mother of the complainant, with ing him, he fled from his house. appellant made extrajudicial ^rin Bai and Bisoukhi Bai and injured Kamla Bai and thus, he ha^ finished his work. At that time, he was holding an axe on his shoulper and also a knife in his hand. He narrated the incident to the Vill[age Kotwar and other villagers, who went to the place of incident chest, right leg and knee of Bisoul^ii Bai. They also found Kamla bai lying in the verandah of Judav) over her abdomen. Thereafter, he has been cross-examination at lerl not been able to eticit anything w|hich makes the version of tihis ^witness untrustworthy or unreliabte.l Kamla Bai (PW/1), who is ail and saw injuries on the neck, 'an. She has sustained injurtes lodged the report. This witness gth, however, the defence has injured eyewitness, has stated that on the date of incident at ab<>ut 5.00 to 6.00 P.M. she was sitting in the verandah of Judawarji Kurmi, her daughter Bisoukhi and mother Dulorin Bai atso came fiere. Wife of Judawan was also sitting in her house, at that time |the appellant came there, the complainant also came there. Thq towards them and was stating tha| Bisoukhi. While talking, he caught appellant was hurling abuses he will not keep her daughter Ram Bhaiya by collar, however, Kamla Bai and Bisoukhi separatecfl them. At that time, Sushil was having knifein his hand, with whi| both of her cheeks & forehead as bh he assaulted over her face, ^ result of which she fell on the ^^ T^ ^11<410^, ^Tft^1!^, {s)(»ii|y^< ^< W^v\\ 5h*<|cb "^ 200 3^?T 'CRRF (4^I^<<ST) ^TT^T ^FT RTlich ^^ 3?R^T sft^icfr) ^^TTW^f^T 37T^T -?- Sdshil verandah. Bisoukhi Bai came near appellant has assaulted her gra< daughter Kamla Bai. Thereafter, that he would assault them till they to the house of the appetlant to asl] the appeltant assaulted her also by died. After some time, the appell Judawan and assaulted her on her | Bisoukhi tried to rescue her, the apf axe over her neck and leg as a re^ After committing the offence, he saying that he has murdered two p^i the cross examination, she has promlsed to pay Rs.3500/- as demanded this money from accusep In the cross-examination of these diary statement of Ex.D-2 has bee^ claim that the appellant assauited herself with an axe and knife. Her vk the statement of Purain Bai who ha^ and accused Sushil quarrelling appellant assaulting Kamla Bai separated them. She is also a witnejss Ram Bhaiya (PW/5), a boy ^ injured witness. He has sustained °bl^(<rt<flrl ^l^^ ^fe^ <f^l^l< ^ 3?ifiTH 3?I^T o\fer her. Dulorin Bai stated that the son Ram Bhaiya and her went to his house, saying lare not died. Her mother went the reasons for assault when |in axe as a resutt of which she Ibnt came to the verandah of labdomen. When her daughter ^ellant also assaulted her by an ^ult of which her neck was slit. ^pplied blood on his foreh^id srsons and Injured the third. In lidmitted that Sukhi Ram had compromise and she has Sushil instead of Sukhi Ram. (witness trivial omissions in the brought but she stuck to her the deceased persons and srsion is also corroborated from stated that she saw Kamla Bai |and thereafter she saw the her abdomen and she has of assault on Bisoukhi Bai. p|er ttoth iged about 13 years, is also an aiife injury on his back. He has '3^ ^i^i^, ?s»Tn<i4i<o, fst<v'>i<-ilj,< ^IINdt shNI* 'W^ 200 w^ xr5ra? (4^fl€i<^) W^T ^T f<^i<=h ^T^T 3TI^T $h^!<=h stated that appellant Sushil assaul appellant assaulted his mother also ted on his back by knife. The by knife. witnessles atid Version of the above medical evidence of Dr. K.K. Sharfma Kamla Bai on 30th January, 2001 report of Ex.P-14 of Kamla Bai sustained one incised wound on th^ area of size 6cm x 4cm x 3 cm. \i jnjury and one incised wound of si^e of mouth. Both the injuries were g|riev were caused bysome hardand examined Ram Bhaiya (PW-5) and| 15 according to which he had fountl the right scapula bone which were sye Thus, in view of the Kamla Bai and Ram Bhaiya and namely Badri Prasad and Purain B^ the medical evidence and promptlyl the appellant in the crime in questioh after due appreciation of evider convicted and sentenced the appe|lant and there is no illegality, infirmity judgment. cbN(d4lT1 'HF^f ^ft^t <(^t^l< '^^fRTRSTT^r is duly TOrroborated from the (PW/9) who has e)®mined has proved the medlco tega! ^ccorting to which Kamla Bai right lumber area to ambalaier litestine was visible through the 1.5x1x1 cm over the teft side gjrievous Sn nature and the same sha|-p edged weapon. He had also gave the injury report of EX.P- numerous smatl abrasions on cjaused by hard and blunt objeet. statelnent of injured eyewitnesses fhe statement of eyewttnesses i, which is duly supported from llodged F(R, the involvement of is established. The trial court lce available on record has with the life imprisonment |or irregularity in the impugned 65^ _? 3:S€T"qN|<?)q, ^ixfl^^l^, fsj^l'y^i ^w^i{ 9h^icb TR, 200 3^?T XHRF ( <i<h^<si<^T) 3TI^T ^FT f<Tli<=h 'cT^T isTT^T ^RW Kvr r '^TTW^rft^ 3?n^T f° In the result, the appeal bein|g to be dismissed and it is accordingly|dismissed Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge cbl&lf<rt<flTl ^l+l<ylt ^l^st <Pt^l< ^^tRm^n^T devoid of substance is liable Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^s^