XI-HC—78 '^fT^T^T f<^Jch ^T8ff ^IT^T 9h^ich 3^^I ^I^IC^^, ?$T{iy<|iS, isf0iyy W^f •^^•••"•^•••••'••'••"•^••^•••••"•—•^ 200^ 3?T^?T x^r^ (^f^<^) '^TTW^Tr3TT^r APPELLANT/: (Accused) (In Jail) RESPONDENT: {Criminal appeal unc|er Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C.} Division Bench: Hon'ble Mr. L.C. Bhadoo and Hon'ble Mr. Sunit Kumar Sinha. <=M^t<n^1'ri Tn1:r?ff ^'f^st <P»i<^i< '^'^if^R'STF^T Muchaki Bhlma, S/o Deva Mariya, Age 40 years, R/o Village Raikad Loharpara, Police Station: Kodenar, Distt.: Bastar (C.G.) /ersus - State oi Chhattisgarh 22^-2007 Miss Sangeeta Mishra, coun^el for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Shukla. Additibnal PubHc Prosecutor for the State/ respondent. Oral judgment dlctated on D^ is. L.C. Bhadoo. J: - This appeal is directed again|st the judgment of convtetion and order of sentence dated 12-12-2001 passe|d by the 4th Additional Sessfons Judge. Jagdalpur, Bastar In Sessions Trisjl No.9/2001, whereby the appetlant was convteted under Section 302 ofjthe I.P.C. and sentenoed to undergo j imprisonment fbr Hfe and pay a fine| of Rs.200/-. in default of payment of fine j to Turther undergo R.I. for two montljis. Case of the prosecution, in| 1 about 4 p.m. the accused came toj brief. is that on 20th October, 2000, at the house of his elder brother Sukhram XI-HC—78 SH^T ^FT f^^Jch ^T^T Wc^T $D^i<=r) 3^T^TFn^T, ?$Tn1HJI<5, is)<y">l^^< TITO^r ^WN? ••••••••••••••••-••-"••—••?••-•- -^ 200 sn^r T^RT (^t-i,<d<ar) ^^R'^arft^ a^n^r chl^Fd^l^ 'RT^lf '^.'fe^ ^N^R '^'stRpT^TI^ carrying axe in hfe hand, in the fii|st instance, h@ rushed towards Parv^i in order to frighten her, when she r^n away, the aecused attacked Sukhram, who was sleeping, with the ax^, as a resutt of which Suldiiram died instantaneously. Next day Parvati| wife of the deceased, atong wlth Kotwar Ramu went to Police Station: Ko^enar and gave merg intimation Ex.P-8, based on that first information| report Ex.P-7 was registered. The Investigating Officer left for the sc^ne of ocGurrence and after giving notice Ex.P-12 to the Panchas, prepare^l inquest P-11 on the body of Muchaki Sukhram. Body of the deceased ^as sent for post-mortem examtnation to Primary Health Centre, Badekilep al under Ex.P-4A, where Dr. Ten Singh Nag (PW-4) conducted post-morte(n on the body of Muchaki Sukhram. He opined that eause of death is con|ia and syncope due to massive intemal haemorrhage as a result of jnjury|over teft carofid artery regiion. IVtode of death Is homicidal. He prepared th4 post-mortem report Ex.P-4. After due completion of inv^stigation, charge sheet was filed in Uie Court of Judicial Magistrate, First ^Iass, Jagdalpur, who in fcirn committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Ja^dalpur, from where leamed 4th Additjonal Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur receivec( the case on fransfer for trial. The prosecution in order tc| establish charge against the accused examined seven witnesses. Statenhent of the accused was recorded under Sectlon 313 ofthe Cr.P.C. in whlch him in the prosecution evtdence an<| falsely implicated in the crime. ie denled the material appearing against stated that he is Innocent, he has been Xl-HC—78 ^n^r^T'f^ri^ ^T^TT 311^1 5h*-llcb j^ 3-^r ^l^l^, ^y^KS, fd0iyy '^FRTT *Nlch c^.^. ^~l ^ 200 3?T^?T ^OK (ijqf^qq^) ^RTTW^rf^T ^T^T Learned Additional Sessl respective parties convjcted and s< We have heard Miss Sa appellant and Mr. Ashish Shukla, State/respondent. |ons Judge after hearing counsel for mtenced the accused as aforementioned. igeeta Mishra, learned counsel for the l^arned Additional Publie Prosecutor for the As far as involvement of question is concerned, there is (R/V-5), wife of the deceased. accused Muchaki Bhima. In the| stated that on the fateful day at her husband was sleeping at husband with the axe, she saw ir| region there were three injuries. the accused said that he has leaving the axe there iteelf, residence. Next day she went lodged the report. In cross-examj the accused wanted to assault herj is correct that she ran away. In stated that when she retumed bai murdered her husband and he was e^bout tfte thereafter Perusal of the first informat (PW-5) reveals that share of land accused by her husband, which <=hl<4{d4i4 'RFToff '^,'ft^ iPil^K ^i" 3TRTR 3TT^T the accused/appellant In the crime In onfly one eyewitness namely, Muchaki F^r/ati Peceased Sukhram was elder brother of examination-in-chief, Parvatl (P\N-S) has 12-1 p.m. she was at her residence, residence, the accused attacked her irljuries on left side of neck and in occipitel committing the murder of her husband, mifrdered her husband with the axe. He is he ran away. She was all alone at the vfith the Kotwar to the Police Station and Ination para 4, she has stated that in fact he chased her, but could not catch her. It |;ross-examination para S she has further ba^k by that time. the accused had already notpresentthere. :|on report (Ex.P-7) lodged isy this witness 1 of the aceused was already given to the ijvas sold by the aecused. even then, he XI-HC—78 ..^. <. ^5^ ^W^, ^W^ ^Wi< _....G3......^....(^ "NINdl 5hHi<»> m. 200 2_ 3T^5T X R ( 4^fvl^<^ ) 3?n^T^Tl^^ j ^^rr 3?n^T ^RW '^RTtW^I^^^ +1^41-1 •v^^^Sf <^^i< ^•3tRFra?n^i used to quarrel with her husband |saying that less share has been given to him. On 20th October, 2000 at abo|ut 4 p.m. when her husband was sleeping in front ofthe house, the accused cjame to murder her husband, carrying axe, he frightened her, therefore, she r^n away. The accused attacked with the axe on neck of her husband as 4 result of which he died. The accused attacked her husbandwith the axe.l There is no other witness to | ie incident and Parvati (RA/-5) is wife of the deceased. The evidence of thi^ witness, who has claimed herself to be the eyewitness, does not insplrej confidence of the Court, because in examination-in-chief, she has state<|l that the accused came to attack her, at that time. her husband was sleepin^, the accused attacked her husband with the axe, whereas, in cross-examjrlation she has stated that the accused rushed towards her and chased herj not catoh her. When she returned, but she ran away and the acGused eould ihe saw her husband lying dead, at that time the accused was not present. l|i her evidence before the Court as PW-5 she has stated that the accused attajcked her husband at 12-1 p.m., whereas in the first information report lodgec| by this witness she has stated that the accused came to her residence at al|>out 4 p.m. and committed ft»emurder of her husband. In the circumstances, there offence in her evidence and there is contradiction regarding the time of |is no other witness to corroborate the evidence of this witness. Her evidenbe in the cross-examination is that when she ran away, the accused chased h^r, when she returned, her husband was found lying dead and the accused h^id already left. This shows that in fact jshe did not witness the incident, wtjiereas in examination-in-chief, she has .;^ '^c^ ^I^K^, tS>TO^^<S, fc|<ri|^^< WHv{\ *<41cb ^200^ 3nit?T xnra? (^ctf^^) ^T^T^'^rf^ ^IT ^TT^T sb^cb L.. Soma '^ffW^f^T 3TT^T stated that she saw the accused evidence is contrary not only in witnessing the crime. Hence,we Parvati (PW-5) regarding involveme<it ofthe does not insplre confidence. The against the accused beyond sentence awarded to the accused entitled for acquittal. ^ttacking her husband. Therefore, her rjespect of time, but also in respect of |are of the opinion that the evidence of accused in the crime in question ^rosecution has failed to establish crime doubt Therefore, cor^iction and ^annot be sustained and the accused is reasohable In the resutt, the appeal imposed upon the appellant under| He "is acquittedof the said charge.l since 23rd October. 2000, therefor|e required in any other case. Sd/- L.C, Bhadoo I Judge GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007 — 50,000. cr»i^f<n<^i ^i^<yff^f^riT'<P?{^{< ^ 3TRpT37T^r bucceeds. Conviction and sentences ISection 302 of the I.P.C. are set aside. The accused is said to be in detention ?, he be set on liberty forthwith, tf not Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge