^ h". [^ < L^ IL e' ^s) x 3j ^ ^ ^ <M ^ ..cso ro oc< 1 3 \ 100<!1 tOG^ ^ 1 ^ 3 21 <H- l^l l^lj tl >.30. "Y"9 M Si§1IISli! h0- t? n' ^- r^ .^- ^. '"?1 XI-HC-22 ^^[ ^i^l<rf^ ^Tll^^ 1®t<n^^< 3TF^T^T ^jch ^ni^r 5h4-iicb ^f^a ;^.?%.: ^•: 3Tft?T 'q^? / .._.....^..;^.^.<.aZ5^ ^iiy^t ^Hicb "*****" ^^'""^^R'^2® "^^r'""'"""""""""""" 290- 3H^T '^^T^rt ^rf^T &Ms8on Bencfc;- ' -"•' -"• Hon'bSe Mr. L.G. Bhadoo and Hors^te^M^ 6WF^ 12-4-2006 : .•••.-- ;; . ' :' . Mr. J.A. LohGni/cqunse! forth^ Mr, U.N.S. &eo, A.dyitionai PuE| LQ^yerfortheState/respondent/ Ora! jucJgment dictcted on Daf^ Per L.C. Bh®<too.^Js- BythisQppeolunderSectJon 3 nameiy, ,Atm<2ram <& SQnatram hwe jud^mentofconvictionandbrcierofs thc Ist ^cidltiona! Sessibns Jud9e, fta je-Grned Additionaj Sessipns Judge af1 commission of offence under Section causjng the death af Bhog Singh, s iniprispnment for iife and poy d fine further urrdergo RJ.,forone; month. The case of the prosecytion i^ of 26-10-93 deceosed B^og Singh wa^ in the ^oortyQrd of hl^ house, which hoid of the deceased/ took hjm tp^<: LGfhis. After receiving thejnjuHes, chl^id^l'l ^l^<vff^ f^t ite^K } -^? 3?^TH 3T?^[ Qppeljant. - ^ r lic Prosecutor ^ith Mr. Akhil Mishrci, PQne} 74 (2) of the C.r.P.C., the dccused/appe!iants questtonecl legality A correctness of the sritence dated 8th February, 1995, pdssed &y Igdrh, in Sessions Trial No.301/93, whereby er holding the accyajsd/QppeIlants guilty for |302 read with SectiQn 34 of the I.P.C. , for ^ntenced each of the occused to' undergo f Rs.IOO/-, in defavit of pGymentof fihe to |thot at about 9 p,m. -to 10 p.m. in the night mytter;ih9 wd abusin9 the occysed persons enrcged the accused persons, th^y coyght ^ds the streef and sfcrted ossQuIting ^jth leceased Bhog Sji^h cam^ st^ering to his [Tft^ ^n^^i XI-HC-22 STI^I^FT r^icb ^^ /'^1RJ?T ^rft^: ^v-^^ ^'?^FT^^^^^ 3?it?T xra^? &>.A.:...^3A^. •fN^T' ^IT^T ^CT^ '$rft?T hause anc! feli ddut/h. Next dcy ShQrghoda hospitQi for treQtmerit, occurrence WQS witnessed by viiEa9er ^ahakr^m ^W-2) and Sadl^ MehGttar in Poijce Station^ WQS registered by S,R. Ronq ^W\ punishabie under Section 302 rcad ploce^ of occurrence and after 9 PQn&hnama (Ex.P-9) of the body of sent for post-mort^m examinction Dr. B.R. &anJQre (PW-9) conclucted report (Ex.P-3.2) in Which he fK?t! investigQtion, site plQn Ex.P-3 was pi Ex.P-4 and in pursucaice of that/ o? under ExP-6. Accysed SQfiQtrGm thait, one bamboo LGthi ^^ recover^ MelirftQr <$hargho^d iHfhere ^fter cbmpietidn of inV€StJ9txti6n Chief Judiciai MagistrQte/ Rai9Qr? Sessions Jydge, Raigarh, from/wt RdgGrh, received th©case on tronsf^r The prbsecutjon in order t6 ex^mmed 12 wltnesses. StQtemen^ <=bl^?<rt^iw4 ffl^* ^ fezt ':d^$R i?T3?rf^W3TI^l n|brning wh^n Bhog Singli wa^ belng tak&h tb |e succurnbed to the injurie^ on <*h€^oy.The (PW-1) brother of the deceased, one twam ^PW~5). Th©matter was reported by the firstinfprmaflonfeport (Ex.P-I) nl2), ^sistGnt Sub Inspector, for offence |«ith;Section34oft^eI.P.G. Me leftfor th& ving notice to .the Pdnchas, prepwed the |hog Singh. Th^ dead body of Bhog Singh w^s |tt6 PrJmGry.Heaith Centre, ^hGrghodQ, where po^t-'mortem Gnd prepisred the post-morteni ^ed as many as ten injuries. During the tepored. Accused Atmoram gaye memorandum 1e Tendu.Lathj ^as recoyered at his instahce ave memorondum Ex.P-5 ohd in pursuonce of 4d at his instance under Ex.P~7. txtion, charge sheet was flied in the Couht of j, who ?n turn commjtted the cose to the -|©re lecrned 1st Additionai Sessions Judge, fe^fontriQi. ^stQblish charge agQinst the accused per^ons of the occused -persons were recorded. under '^' • ' • -• ^'. •'''-. ' .•' . '. . ' • ;"': . • • -• ' • ' - ; [1cft^ ^Rsi^ s^' » XI-HC-22 3T?^$L^T RviJ5h ^nl^T $bHicft ^f^a l-3^-- ^1??rrai^ 3Ti^T ^f^ :..(^...&:s^^ W^mi^Mie^ 'I^^T' Section, 313 of the CfP.C.. 'm ^hic^ stated that they are innocent and th<| ' ' Learned Additional Sessiond convicted and sCntenced the accus4^ judgment. \ they denied t^e prosiBcution evidence and ^yhave beenfajsely impiicated inthecrime. Judge ^after? Hegrmg respectiye ^ counsei, d/appe iiants as mentipned in pard 1 6f this We haye hear^ Mr^J.A. boho^i U.N.S. Deo, leamed AdclitionGi 'Publil Panel Lcwyer on behaif of the State/^ The honiicidd dcQth of Bhog ^ As for as irivQlyement 'of the concerned, Mehattar (PW-1), brothe^ and who iodged the first information h^s stated jn hi^ evidence that his his doily need^ ahd used to mutter. muttcring Jn his r^sidence, accused | kitchen gdrden, which wo^ in the b( abusing Bhog Sirigh^ After somg tim Qccused .ScinatrGm & Atmaram wer^ brother (deceased). Hearir^ th© that his brother (deceased) vycss time, Sanatrdm atfacked with Lath i which, his brother (deceGsed) fell dx chN?<rl^lrl 1Ri*ai<nI'? fe^ <fa^« ^'a?rf^W3TI^T li, leorncd counsel for the Gppejiants Gnd^r, Pro^ecytor ^ith Mr. Akhil AAishrQ/ leGrned "espondent. ingh is not in dispute. |sccysed/appel!ants itt osmmission of crirne Is e^* of Ifte dcc^ased, who witnessed the crime |r©pert(B<,P-1) at^Pofice Stdtioh; ©hcrghoda/ (^rother VTOS holf-mad, he WGS Qhte to manQge <pn the fateful day, deceosed Bhog Smgh i^os IpersonsSanQtrQm&AtmcrQmcameinthe |ckside of the house, and they diso started ^his;brother CQme out side the house where ^ WGitin9 ond they stcrted Gssouiting his I, h<? (PWf4) CQffle out of the house and saw to the house whiie staggering. ;At that panetal region of Bho9 Slngh os a resuit of 4wn: bnd thereafter, ScsnatrQm aiso a^souited [^^3^ • souhd cot^ing ^n ~F XI-HC-22 STT^T^ R^Jch <3Tl|??T 5b^i<=t» ^f^a '^." ^^^TFn^R,,"®^WT5,t^TOy : ^nt?r ^^ WWIT^^Ech •I^^T' sotne his brother. In the mean tlme, Bho9 Sinah be taken ta the dbctor they are brin9in9 the doctor, bu^ unconscious * ond next day morning token to ^harghoda hospitaS, he die^ The evidence of Mehattor JanQkrQm (PWM2), who ho^ stated i4 8 p;m. to 10^ p.m. Re wos Stttin9 in accused persons were Gssaulting stated that he does nof know whet| th<& viilagers. Sadhuram (PW-n5) ! sfated'that the Qccysed persons From the evidence 6f these ' the acfcused persons Qssaulted th' mtnesse^ defence hcss nDt been ab evidence of these witnesses unreIiQl shoifrs Mr. J.A. Lohani, learned nothing in the ev^rice, which deceased y^ith intention to cause d^ of the Apex Coyrt in thc matteps .1984 Suppeme Court 759 and ^) Sypremc 14, iearned coun^e! GppellQ^ does not trayei beyoricl S ^l^t^4i4 'RPR^f ^ fest ll^R^iT i:T3TPw^?T villagers ccime at th;e door md cxsked that For treatment. The accused pcrsons saidJ'hGt they never returned. His brother beoame pn the adyice of vilicgers when he wa^ bemg pn the woy.; • ' (PW~t) is corroborated by th©evldence of hi^ evidence thot on the fatefui day at ob^ut |the Parchi of his house and^ he sdw that the 1|ie deceas©d^ In cross-exQmsncition, he has icr Bho9 Singh wa$ mad and he used to cfcuse hte alsb corroboroted +h@ above ^videhce and ilted the deceased; , as^ciu •hree eyewitnesses, itstciridsestcfclishedthGt ^ deceased. In cross-exQmination of th^s^ s to eticit ony circumstance so as to rnake the v Iteoruntrustworthy., coubsehfor the QppeiJQnts, Qrgued;that there is thcrt' ^the'accused/QppelJants assauited the ^dth. While placirig ^Q^^ P^ t^. jydgmcnts ^f Tholan ¥. StQte of T.N, reported in AIR Than|<achan v.' SNte ^ of Kcrcita reported in 2005 argyed that offerice cgainst the accused/ lction 304Part-II of the I.P.C. _ : ;..pf^^^ ; =F XI-HC-22 ^' -^-^l^tdq, ^^tWT^, 'f^rRT^ 3??^r 'ET?^ _._jjs..A..5©S.^ ¥Sra^jT<5h^|eb M 200 (c«?<^T* sn^T^ ^Jch 3Tl|^T s^^i<sb ^n L.- 3TI^?T ^<Tl^R^^ On th@ other tiand, AAr. U4 Judgmehtofthe:tnQECoyrt. In the matterof Tholan (supj|ia), the Apex Caurt h@|d that "the .accused stQrted i <^dnst certain orgai^i connectJQn wth th^ d| deceased and the dec^< the accused to go awc^ only one bbw with kni^ somcdisfance." On these fQcts, the Court hel^ < "In the circumstancesl intehtion to commit ml accused, he wiefded a coul4 be Qttributed ^l cause an injury ^Hich remonstratjons using fjithy toguq^e isers of a chit fund who ^had no ^c©ased; 'm front of the house of the lased came out of hjs house cnd asked the accused on spur of moment ^oye fe to the deceased and pushed )him to Therefore, offence agdnst tl I.P.C. I^QS madeout. In the matter of Thantochar that hotrde "Appelldnt. com^ quarretjn9 with his wif- and tried to intervene up a chopper and infjicl knee" arid on occount 01 TheCourtheldthQt chl^Id^l'l ^TH^iT ^ ft'^l' Tf^R^R ^ ^ 3T^R3TI^T: 5; Deo c& Mr. Akhil Mishra supported the ithat ,., ;',• -. - • " ". - 1 . •..- of that case that; though r^qyisjte jrder could not b^ attributed to the ^eapon like a knife snd therefore; he ith knowledge that he was iikely to iikeiy tocaysedeath:" ^las €occused under Sectiorr 304 Part-II of the (sypns), the Apex Coyrt on the fact^ heid in drunken state- and started —beceosedson of appeIJant wote up |to sove his mother—AppeIidntplcked •^d cut insjury on back o^ left ieg below excesslve bleeding spn died. ['lft^ ^fe^- ^^•^•". ;xr-H&22 \ 3Tr^T^T r<riicb ^ni^T sft^i^'gii'^ ^-- "S^S ~^WM^ W^W^, ^IKTy STT^T IRra? , ,^^5^-, WWil^^lGh ^269- •fsR^T' 3T^?T '^RIT^R: TlftcT " Appellant wuid not intention of cGusmg bpdify injury sufflcien^ death"; |ba •said to have inflicted injyry with c^eath or ^ith intentiori of cajsing 5uch in ordipary cour^e of ndture 1^ cause In the iight of obov^ jud9m| record, Mehattar ^W-I), brother ^l his brother wos hQlf-mad and h©u^A I^QS muttering, thepefQre, the accu( the evidence of Dr. B.R. BanJGre ^ thc deceased out pf t^hich there ^ 10 werc on the other ports of th^ sfoted that the deceQsed died on acl T^erefore, as the deceased enr^ed the aecused persons and thj Injury on the head QiTd thepe IOT^ decea^ed;- 'further'. from ,'the' eyid< ossQylted-. the deceQsed ' becausel cjrcimstQnces,: Intention. 'to 'cause persons, ho^ever,l if can safeiy knowJedge that the monner in which | iikefy to cause death. Therefore, of| trave! beyond Section 3Q4 Pqrt-II impbsed upon the •Qccused/appeilcsntl the I.P.C. cunnQT be sustained. ^Nt^^l^ 'RTR^T? ^ fe€t<Pnt^K '^^NH^TI^T mts, if'we exanirne the evidence avQiiabje on the deceosed, has categorlcQlty stated thot id to mutter On the fGfefu! day, hjs brother ^ed persons CGme Qnd assauited him.As per1 ^W95, the^ i^ere ten ihjuries on-the body of ^ pniy one injury on hecri and Ervury ^s.2 to body. T^e doctor In crQSS-examination has ^ount of head jnjury. i|fas <i m^J person and h©wa^ niuttering which i^y Qssau!ted him, but there ^os onfy one fatQl , no| enmlty bet^een the accu^ed per^ns ond the |nee it ?s clear thot tHe accused persons h© WGS muttering and abusmg, in the yeath eatinot be dttributed to tbe Qccused l^e inferred that the accused persons had |they wer©assQulting the deceased, they may of^ehce c^ainst the accused/QppeiJQnts does not |f the I.P.C. AS such, conviction and sentence < ^ under Section 302 reod wjth 5ection 34 of [Tff^ ^f<S(4 ^ XI-HC-22 3^?['^T f^n^'^n^T 5^^ict» <yK<i A. ^ / - ^^^;.^^, '-aomci ^3^ ^TFTI^T, ^Til <-S'i 1 <o, '^irey ww^T^mi^ STT^T '<TSF^ :&>^SI! ^.'•'.^. •••^ -2W- ';f^^T' f^ t7 ^ .. ^TT^T ^TT^ '^^ dite In the result, the QppedE porit| ConyictiQn and sentence imposed upor| read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. above chQrge. H<w@ver, they ore I.P.C. and e^ch of them is sentenced that the Qccused/Qppeficrits <re'm djsputed by Eearned' Additional Pubii served out the sentence imposecS uporl not required in ciny other ca^e, ^ succeeds ond the ^ame is portjy aiio^ed. the Qccused/Gippeliants urrier 5e^^ dife 5©tosid^ and they are acquitted of the c^nvicted under Section 304 Part-II of the lto undergo R.I. for ten years. It is statecl^ |stodys?nce 27-10-93, i^hich hos not b©en it: Prosecutor, thereby, ^thcy haye Qlre^dy them.-Theybeset<2t!jbert^forithivith,if Parties QreentitteclfQrcertifi^dcopYofthi^order. sd/- L.C, Bhadoo Judge ^FH^Nt^T 'HR^f ^^^ <F3l^« % ^^ 3^T Sd/- Dhirendra M[ishra Judge [11ft^^fe^