SV^t W it;1 ?TSH 371^1 ^*4icr> SliSSSiSSSajgs^B -3:s3i ^\m^<\, ®Tf|y'i<c,Rt<>»i'yy. an^r TTO (Tpf^sRW) TOiiwBftgsn^w CBlmInal Atweal »o.964/200i2 APPELLANT yeai; D»tri Daur^an S/o Motuaam aged Aout 43 R/o ViBage SadAo, P/S Janj^-, jct Janjgu--ChaBapa Versus RE8POKDBMT D.B.: HOITBLB 8HRI L.C. Bhadoo. J:- <t>i*i[i-i«ii-i'wRff 'if.,'fe^t <r«>]«$i< i; arRiit siii^l State|of CUhattisgarh, Throijigh Police Station - Janjgir, Distrjct Janjgir-Ghampa CRIMINAL APPBAL u/»314(21 OF TBS CSODB OF CRINniAL ratOCEBURB t,.C. BHADOO. J. fc HOH'BLB aHM twim,. KOWWK.wWa&, J. ORAll, JUDGMBNT (0^.09.200'^ Shri P.K. Tuslyaa, cou^sel for the appellaut Shri D.K. Gwalre, Gove|-maent Advocate for fhe State. Heard. I. This appeal is d^iected against fhe judgaicat of conviction and ord^r of senfnice dated 9.7.2W2 passed by the Second Add^tioaal Sessions Judge (FTC), Jaajgir F XI-HC—78 sn^i ^sf fc(-ii<(i .1 •^STT 3TT^T ^^ticti 3rcT ^i^i^.ii, di-cTi^is, Rjrti.yy. ^....A:....<^o^^lQ3- •''•'•••••'••••••••••^••—•••-•••••••••'••f-^^ ; aniRT ^ra% ( 'S^IIWtfe 311^1 -<- pioseci4tion flie ia Sessions Trial Second Addidonal accused/appelfant uader Section 302 his wife iiamety Bijnl intprisoument for U^. Case of the Chandrika (PW-3),| had gone towards at about 10:00 amj (accused), stepaiotl^ea Deshlnunar and Wttcn he was and Terasraxa his fafher ~ DaiiraKij with aa axe. He his mother was flie house, fhere wa^ haad aear tfae neck! oa fhc grouad, aad not there ia the wi(h blood was fyia^ ineaatune, his crune was witaessfcd ^io.359/2000, whereby, the leamed |Sessioi Judge after holdiag the IguiMy for the oflfence puni&hable ^f I.P.C., for cwiiaaltting aaurder of iBJnla Bai, seateaced him to uadei^o ^[^ftrpft'1 'FnH^lf ^fi^Sl' <^R$i< ^TSiRRStI^t iu brief is that on 01.08.XIOO, soa of the accused/appeUant, pond to answer Ifae caffl of natare teavnq; beliind his fafhier- Daiuam ^er - Bimla Bai, younger sister - brother -Leldit'am ia liis honse. fi?oin fhe pond sale, Sidheshwar ^vaashi inet tiitn aad iitformed fhat is attacldng his mofher - Bimla Bai towards his house aad saw that on the ground ia thc courtyaid of an injuay oa fhe shoulder ofthe left [Infticted by tbe axe, btood was lyms ]his mofher was dead. Hte fattaer was ;. Axe, weapon of ofifenee, stained in a pit near the courtyard. la fhe ^aiother retumed Smisa. flic pond. The by Yogesh (PW-2). ThCTeafter, yoi4ager rotuntmg Suuy^vaashi rusbed tymlg hotise gran4aiothe XI-HC—78 37I^?f ?tT K.-W'h •tWTsn^isBtiN? ^-K'S^^'^^^ ^^^^^?<^^ 3:CTr^tFiR5<r, ^y'iti, teroy A..^.:..MO:..1^102~. sn^T iraw (1jaif^i?s Chaadnka alongwitti Ookulal, Kotwar, wcnt to fhe Police. Statfon, Jaajgir aai|t lodged thc report After registering fhe casc uader Bx.-|P/3, the Investigatiag OfBca- lcft for fhe scene ofoccurr^nce, plain sofl and blood stained soil were taken into pos^ession under Ex.-P/1. Asae, weapon of ofiFence, was sei^ed iinder Ex.P/2 flx»ia fhe place of occurrence. Site pl^n (Bx-P/5) was -psepaseSt by Halka Patwari, body of Qj Kcanunatton to the Ex.-P/6, where Dr. and opined that th^ postinortem report ( P/9) on the body prepared by Uae m.v^stq;atmg offiGer. 3. Afiter coinpletion of filed in fhe Court °bl'4ifl4t-l HIH<n( ^'.test tFt^K iT3»RfH3II^t .imla Bai was sent for postmorteai .Govemnient Hospital, Jangjir under jS .N. Jangde coaducted postmortem eaused of death was haexaorrhage, shock aad conia, a^ a result of cxcessive loss of.btood 6xva. cut carotid a^tery and jugular veins.- He prepaxied Ix-P/7). Axe, wcapon ofoSSsnce, was sent to fhe Assistsjat Suigeoa ui»lerEx.P/8 A fw Isus opinion, he gave oj>iaion under Ex.-P^S. Inquest (iEx.- of the deceased -Biaila Bai •wgs the uwcstig^tiDn, eharge sheet was if Chief Judicial Ma^tstrate, Jaajgn-, who in tum conun4ted the case to the SessiDas Jiidgc, BUaspur, Smva. wh^re, the leacned Secoad Addltioaal Sessions Judge (F|TC), Janjgir reccwed fhe casc on tiansfer for trial. XI-HC—78 3I!^I W K-ti+. ^STT 3T^T fliHlch 3^r ^raT^r, (?Tf!'y'i<o, iEKrtitiy .i...:.A,.,3.(..^../9, sn^?r IH% 4. Thc prosecutton m accused/appeBant s. <=t)i-4[cl41l HIH^ ^fs^ ^Tt^R ^rsifgion^r oxder to establish chargc agaiast exammed 14 witaesses. Vbe statement of ttoc aci|:used/appeUant was icconled under Seetion 313 of fhe C|ode of Criaanal Procedure, in whlA, hc denied the mat^rial appeariag ^aiast him ia the prosecutfon cvideac^ and steted tliat he is ianocent and has been fateety imppicated to fhe craae ia questkm. The learaed Secon^ Addttioaal -Sessiens Judgc, ator hearfug the argun^ents of teamed counsd for fbe respectwe parties, aecused/appdlant a^ aforeinentioned. We have heard Shri convicted and saiteac«d fhe P.K. Tii^aa, teamcd couasel for the appeBaut aad D.K. <pwatre, Govfc Advocate, for the State. Learaed counsel foij the appeBaat bas not disputed flie homicidal deafh of |Bimla Bai. Moreover, Scctsa. flie ocular evideace of eye-wiljnesses - Yogesh (PW-2), Terasram Suiyavanshi (PW-4)^ Sidheshwar (PW-ll),who aU hare stated fhat the accifecd attacked Bante Bai wifh fhe axe, as also fl-oin the n^edical evidence of Dr. S.N. Jangde (PW-5), who has ststted fhat on 2/8/2000, he condueted postmortem on thejbody ofVimla Bai aad npticed fhat there were two inci^ed wotinds, one abrasion on fhe left cheek, inusclcs, cer^ical vertebiac 5th, 6fh, vessels carotid artexy aad jugular ^eins were cut, cause of deafh was :a-HC—7i ~Sv3i ^]<l||^, l$TTlyi6, (s|?'>iy'4,< .^.A.:.......l.^..l.aM 3II^?1WW\* ^qTSIWaTqW MS>»?tt2S 's^iRR'gftdsn^i 8 '^Fffef^l^ -ITR?f? '^.'fS^ •<f<^t't. ^srRman^r excesswc haeniQrr^i^e on account of iajiufes -jg the carotid arteiy and j^igular veius, it is established fhat fhe death ofVimla Bai iras homicidal in nature. As far as coiaplicil^ question is concen^ed, PW-2-Yogesh, a boy aged about 12 years, who is has stated that oa place belween his Dauram (accused/ the neighbour of acciMed/appeflant, |the fateful day, hc was playing at a ihouse and accused house. He saw a.ppcllan^ beating his wife - Bunla Bai. When Biaala pai tried to go out fiom fhe housc saylag that sbe wi^. not reside wifh hha, accu^d said that how she wffl g towairis the pond, about fhc iacident; aad sa»fhe accuse accused/appeUant, ofthe accu^sd/appeUant in cnme ia and dragged her back ia tiie house holding her hairs. I^e saw that the accused picked up an axe and attacked Bixnla Bai on hcr ncck. Bimla Bal v?as prayi% to fhe accu4ed wifh folded haads to not to attack her, she was cryv^ for help. Thereafter, he rushed tinformcd Sidhcsbmar and TetasBaaa jthey caiue to fhe place of occurreace ^/appeBaut attacking Banla Bai wifh the axe. TerasBata snatebed the saee fiom tiae thiew the same, Biiala Bal was writhing in pain. T}ie above evidence of fhfa witness ~ Yogesh is corrobo^ated by the evidcncc of Ter^raax Suiyavanslu (PW-4)j and Sidhestawar (PW-11.), who ateo i-HC—78 ss^vw R;-fi<* ?iqi aii^i'arqw ^.^s^^^.^ssSSS, iA SwT '^i<4i<ri<i, tfiifl'y'Kc, fai?iiyy .&.A.;....^.^/°^ 'wi, an^r Tra% ( 'RTOR ^ifei sn^t ^. saw the accused/ap^cHaat attaekmg fhe deceased wlfh < j4 the axe. These two •^itncsses have slated fhat tfaqr infonned about fhe dcceased), who had towards the pond. Wpien Chaiuirika returaed bacte to hia house, he saw his which discredits fhd the accused in a fal^ i*l'j<f<rt<fl-l W^vS'?,fezt <i»i^i< '^sffiiTian^l incident to Chandrika (son of fhe gone to aaswer fhe call of naturc xuother tyia®ia a pool of btood. Thereafter, he went ^o fhe PoUce Statlon and lodgal tfae report. AU the tfaree wit^iesscs namdy - Yogesh (PW-2), Terasram Suryavaa^hi (PW-4), Sidheshwar (PW-ll) are iadependent witne^ses. In their cioss-cxatniaatioii, defence has not be^n able to elfclt any cBcunistaitce, evidcnce of thesc witnesses. Thcre is nothing in fhe cro^s-examination of these witnesses to show that tfaese wit(iesses have implicated ffae accused on accouat of any ai|iimosi1y or bias against Iiim. la fact, Yogesh (PW-2) resijles in fhe neighbourhood of the accused and fhere i^as no occasitMi for him to iaipBeats case, ia a heiuous ouac ofiaurdcr of his own wife. Evjen son of fhe accvwedf sippeQant - Chandrika (PW-3) h^s stated fhat he was iafonned about the iucident by SicjUieshwar aad Terasram, aiear the pond. Thereafter, h^ immcdiatety rushed to Itis house aad saw his motherjlymg dead m the house. There was t-..t -HC—78 s^cr "t|i<iio<i, (S'TTly'Ks, Rfoiiyy. ,.A.._1^...^ sn^iw [c;-ii+, ^T^^TT^T 9h*<|cb ||8P ai^?r TBW (4etil»i<ST) ^nwHfeTsn^r ^- 10 blood oa the groi^ad, axe was tying ia a pit near fhc courtyard and ac Therefore, m view i that the accused aftacked fhe dcceased wifh fhe axe, Leamed coimsel f<j>r the appeUaat subniitted that ftonu fhe evidence o^i Tecord, it appears fhat the accused/appellant quarrel, ia a heat cffpassion, wifhout pre-meditatfon aad preparation, fheijefore, the evideace agaiust the accused/appeBaat on record to accused/appeUant deceased wifh fhe carotid artery and died spontaneousl^ 12 PW-2 - Yogesh hasj fhc neighboiu-hoodj accused/appellaat) the axe, attaclEed ^rq^4^ 'l:fH^f '^t\'fe^ <^^R ^aifgtrsil^r ;used was not fhere in. the house. >f fhe above evidence, it is estabtefaed attacked fhe deceased in a suddai does not taavel beytmd Section 304 Part-II ofIPC. He fi|ufher submitted ttiat there fa nofhlng cstablish the latention of •Qxe to cause fhe deafh of Banla BaL 11 It te an admitted ijosition tbat fhe accused attacked fhe |axe oa the neck, as a result ofwUch Ijugiilar veins were cut aad Biaala Bai categoricalty stated fhat Iie resides in oftbe aocused/appeUant, he saw fbe beating the deceased aiid wfaen sfae tried to go out of tt^e house, accused dr^gged ter bach in the housc by holdi^ her hairs. Thereafter, he picked up her, iaspite of fhc fact that die was repeatedly prayu^j to the accused wifh folded haads to i^F:li-i|-< H-HC—78 an^r ?Rr K-<i<* ?fsiTTSTI^T^+fl<=ft !§tP"»;""- Shyna 3:"r^n?nwT, isxTi'y'i<i, sn^?r 'WK ^grar ^itei sii^i y not to attack her. deceased ineroiless) caused m.ultiple ingi therefore, intentio^t Bimla Bal was wiii by fhie judgaent TlMUMBdTa VS. 13 14 The appcal belug '*i^[<ri'!i1'( ^w<-i( ^'fs'et <I»I^K ^r siRriT an^t |The accused/appeltent attacteed the jty with fhe deadty weapon i.c. axe aad inguries on the vital parts of tlfc body, of fh.e accused to cause dcath of large. For fhis view, wc are fortified lf>f the Apex Court ia fhe mattcr of Stfate of TamU Hadu S»OS, &I.L.J.. 684. In fhe facts and ci^?cumstauces of fhis case, we do not find auy substaajw in the arguments advanccd by leamed counsd foij the appeUant. devoid of luerite, fa Habte •to be disaiissed and is a^coidiugly disinissed. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge Sd/- SunU Kuroar Sinha Judge