..,HC-78 ^[T^T^ f^ii.ch TT^TT'S^ST $ti+licti 3^cT Kl^ldl sb^lcb •^1^10^, t$T{l'yJt^, ts)<^i<H^< <^-y. j\- ^. n^i/^i 200 3n^?r xisi^ (yifyi^sT) ^. '^<TTW^T3??T^T APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT Present:- Shri K.K. Singh, coum Shri Ashish Shukia, Ai DB:- HON'BLE SHRI L.C. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRll 3HADOO & IENDRA MiSHRA, JJ. ORAL (Delivered L.C. Bhadoo. J The accused/appellant has p of conviction and order of sentenc< Additionai Sessions Judge, Ja< No.426/2000 whereby he has Indian Penal Code forcommitting him to undergo imprisonment for lif< payment of fine to further undergo beeh 2) The case of the prosecutio 25-6-2000 Somari Bai along with h Ghassu Ram and stayed there. At in his house. Accused/appeilant - C cbl^fd^l'1 TTOcff ^fe^T <Pqt$l< ^3^RTiT3n^r Chetram, S/o Dashru, Aged about 40 years, R/o village ChandeJi, P.S. Keshkal, District Bastar. ersus- State of Chhattisgarh, Through D.M. Bastar. e! for the appellant. Id'rtional Public Prosecutor for the State. UDGMENT n 81" May, 2007; I'eferred this appeai against the judgment |dated 29-10-2001 passed by the Fourth jdaipur (Bastar), in Sessions Trial heid guilty under Section 302 of the hiurder of Lachhu Gond and sentenced & to paya fine of Rs.500/-, in default of ri^orous imprisonment for six months. \\, 'm brief, is that 3-4 days prior to ^r husband Lachhu went to the house of |that time, Ghassu Ram was not present hetram came there carrying battle-axe in ^^- ..,HC—78 ~3^ ^1^10^, ?S>T{1-MJt(5, fsf^l-H^ ^ll^dl <b*<|ch 3^T^T^[ch ^T8TT 37T^T?RTyT5F ^ 200 3^{yr xraw (^[^^) ^^TTW^ritcT 3TI^T his hand. Lachhu was sieeping in t|iecourtyard under a tree. His wife Somari was sitting at the door of room. him. Lachhu replied that "you are p| hrjnT^f ^fe^ <f^i^i< ^^TRpT^n^r Accused enquired from Somari whether Lachhu is improving or not ? (pn which, she replied that there is no improvement in his health. Accus^d asked for !iquor & said that he will treat racticing witchcraft, how you will treat me". On which, accused attacked LachKiu with battle-axe, as a result of which he died spontaneously. Accused fled|away from the piace of occurrence. The matter was reported by PW-2 Sjsmari in the next day in Police Station Keshkai and gave merg intimation|(Ex.P/3). Based on that, First information Report (Ex.P/2) was registered. Thje investigatlng Officer left for the scene of occurrence, after giving notices to fie Panchas, prepared inquest (Ex.P/5) on the body of Lachhu. Accused w!^ (Ex.P/5-A) regarding the place pursuance ofthat, battie axe was s sent for postmortem to the Primai |ile in Police custody gave memorandum Iwhere he conceaied the battie-axe, in |eized under Ex.P/6. Body of Lachhu was |y Health Centre, Keshkal where Dr. Om Prakash Pillai (PW-6) conducted riostmortem & prepared report (Ex.P/7), in which he opined that cause of de^th was dus to excessive blood ioss from injuries. Death was homicidal in n^tyre. 3) After compietion of investig^tion, charge sheet was fiied in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Ciassj case to the Court of Sessions Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdal^ 4) In order to establish the c| prosecution examined 7witnesses| recorded under Section 313 of th^ Kondagaon, who in turn committed the |Judge, Jagdalpur, fromwhere learned ^ur, received the same on transfer for trial. tiarge against the accused/appellant, the |at the triai. Statement ofthe accused was Code of Criminal Procedure in which he J-HC—78 37T^T ?3T'f^lT^ 'cT^T ^TT^T $h^i<=h 3'c^r ^1^10^, ^Tf1^^i<s, [sf0i'y^< Nl*{dl <b*<14» -^ 200 3iT^T 'q^? (^dl^^) '^nw^f^T^n^T denied the material appearing agai|ist stated that he is innocent and has b^en 5) Learned Additional Sessiorl respective parties, convicted & afore^mentioned. [s Judge after hearing counsel for the sentenced the accused/appellant as 6) We have heard learned coun(sel for both the parties. 7) Shri Singh, learned counsjel disputed homicidal death of LachhM. deceased, has categorically state<| battleaxe. The evidence of PW-2 Sbi PW-6 Dr. Om Prakash Pillai, who| Lachhu. He opined that cause of d( homiddal in nature. His report is E^( medical evidence, it is establishedl nature. 8) As far as involvement of question is concerned, PW-1 Ram( has established the fact that on residence. Accused came to her| R/V-2 Somari in para 2 of her stat husband with battleaxe on his elbd informed about the incident to villa^e 'matter in the Police Station on the 9) Shri Singh, learned counse from the evidence of PW-2 Somai «=bl<<i<n<I1t'RI^RTf ^fec3t <pq^l< ^3'3?TRfH 3?T^T him in the prosecution evidence. He falsely implicated in the case. for the accused/appellant, has not Moreover, PW-2 Somari, wife of the that accused attacked Lachhu with a S|omari is corroborated by the evidence of conducted postmortem on the body of ^ath was excessive bleeding & death was c.P/7. Therefore, in view of the ocuiar & that death of Lachhu was homicidal in |the accused/appellant in the crime in t>ati, has turned hostile. Even then, she |the fateful day deceased was at her house carrying battle-axe in his hand. ^ment stated that accused attacked her ^w, back portion & neck. Thereafter she Patel & Sarpanch. She reported the day under Ex.P/2. n^xt for the accused/appellant, argued that , it is not established that she. in fact, \ I.HC—78 3^ST •^1^10<4, ^TflH4!^, (c|<^l'y^< *<l*<dl sb*<l<sb ^ 200 ^r^r^r R;riich 'cT8H 3?T7^T 5h+li<^ 31Ti?T ^5RF (^c|I^c<<yST) ^cn^'^Frf^T 3TI^T witnessed the incident while accu^' that she was sitting inside the ro^m witness the crime in question. re^ult th4n 10) PW-2 Somari, has categ<() hu^band with a battleaxe, as a on elbow, back portion & neck. she was sitting in the room, but ^ husband wassleeping. Even about the health of the decease4 Somari it is established that accul of PW-2 Somari stands corrob< evidence of PW-1 Rambati, in has categorically stated that dec^ Accused came with battle-axe to| iVloreover, the evidence of evidence of PW-6 Dr. Om incised wound on the elbow in the) on the ieft shoulder in the size of the size of 8" x 3" x 3". He hasl internal part came.out ofthe wHose 11) !n view of the above, w^ prosecution has been able to es| attacking & causing death of Lachjiu 12) Shri Singh, learned couns|el when accused asked Lachhu to whinh rl^r^aft^rl r^nli^ri that he iid <=M<i{<n<iiTi ^H<A ^fe^ <P»I^I< "^ SffRpT SffT^T ed was attacking her husband. He argued i; therefore, it was not possible for her to >rically stated that accused attacked her of which her husband sustained injuries io far as place of her sitting is concerned, Ihe was able to watch the place where her i, accused came & enquired from Somari Therefore, from the evidence of PW-2 -sbed attacked the deceased. The evidence [irated, in all material particulars, by the presence the incident took place. She ^ased and his wife were at her residence. her house where the incident took place. eye|witness is corroborated by the m^dical Prak^sh Pillai. As per the report, there was size of 3" x 2" x 2", another incised wound ?" x 4" x 3" & incised wound on the neck in stated thatspinal cord was fully cut, the bodyjand left elbow was separated. are of the considered opinion that the tablish the involvement of the accused in for the accused/appellant, argued that bring Ijquor so that he can treat him, on irar^firinrj wiffthf^rflft hftw h^ v^iil tr^^t him, X..HC—78 •S^ "4|q|0^, t$Tfi^^l<o, [s|^iy^< ^ ^N<yll 9bN(ch ^TT^T ^FT-f^R- ^T8TT 3:TT?¥T 9FRT^7 Gowrl ^ 200 3Tit?T 'cra^ (^ctI^^ST) '^iTw^rfin 3?n^i Accused infuriated on the dece; deceased. Therefore, the offenc^ travel beyond 304 Part-11 of the fised, all of a sudden, he attacked the against the accused/appeliant does not Indfan Penal Code. 13) On the other hand, Shri Sh|ukla forthe State, supported thejudgm^ courlsel accused/a^pellant 14) Having heard iearned evidence as also the injury report has categorically stated that battleaxe, as a result of which he & eibow. His elbow was separi learned counse! for the case does not come under the Merely asking anybody that he is| provocation. Moreover, accused times with deadly weapon i.e. assaulted the deceased, it is with intention to cause his death. 15) For the foregoing reasons,^ is no illegality or infirmity in the accused/appellant under Section being devoid of merit is liable to Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge <=t»i^f<n<iliTTP^f 1?f^'^l <Hn^i< ^ 3?TfOT 3?n^T i, learned Additionai Public Prosecutor ntofthetrialCourt. for the parties, we have perused the fend the evidence of Doctor. PW-2 Somari attacked the deceased with the ^ustained injuries on the spinal cord, neck jited. Even ifthe argument advanced by is accepted as it is, even then the ^xception 4 to Section 300 of the I.P.C. practicing witohcraft does not amount to ^ssaulted the deceased continuously three k. From the manner in which accifised that the he assaulted the deceased battleaxe estaUlished <ye are of the considered opinion that there Judgment of the trial Court convicting the }02 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal be| dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge