r# ,), ._‘_,._._.._—-v— ’Lrr‘ Maggzrrg ::i: WW,W,W m m Q.ifIfYBf; Q.. Wm (W) Hi 2001, ‘ mam ’ mmm WW§wm ' $Wm Criminal Aggisa! Eo. 606 [2002 APPELLANT Suban, san of Jéydgo Mahra, aged about 36 yams, residant of Dhurawa Para Raikot, ‘Dolicc Station— Kodenar, Dismct Bastar((:G) E IEr'sus RESPONDENT ‘ State of Chhattisgarh M QRIMIIEAL APPEAL uls 374 Q! OF THE GODE OF CRIMINAL 1 PROID'EDURE 113.: Ham’gLE‘sHm Lg. ammo, J: a; H 8 lL KUMAR SINHA J ’ GH’BLE SHRI . { Agearance: Smt. Usha Chandrakar, Shri Akhil Mishra, Pane] Jawyer far the: State. L.C. Bhudooi J9 Heard. This appeal is directed gainstihe judgment of conviction Additional SossionS Judge Jagdalpur in. Sossions Trial No.$3]2001, whorehy, the lea ed Additiondé Sessions Judgs after ~ m am? gamma, vw‘cmia Fs/59v 2/2007 —30,00u , 1 m m Vi 200 mm (W) mwiz‘aiaa mmm w 7.F WW WW‘ %3if%maném W $3M gwmm 'Jolding the accused/appellant g Jilnder Section 302 of IPC for committing .murrler of his mother—in- l 'aw namely -Satu1i, sentenced h' ife and to pay a &1e of RS500}- "’urther undergo RJ. for 6 months The case of the prosecuti o Daughter of Satmi name1y-R accused] appenant; however, the second marriage with a lady n Manki Bai used to quarrel; theref use. On the fateful day, her fa rsons came to the village of ong with Ramhati to drop R eased. At that time, the accur club on, her head, as a result .arted oozing out of the injury. e accueedlappellant by the aused went inside the house, h the crow-bar on the thigh aharani Hospital, .llagdalpnr. 13.1.2001. ' he succnmhed to the injuries on hxiliy \ of the offence punishable m to undergo imprisonment for , in defauit of payment of fine to o g 1r reached to the hospital, Where, f Kotwali Police Station, Jagrlalp n in brief .is that. Satmi (since ieceased) was mother-in-law the accused]appellant-Suhan. mbati was married to the accused / appellant contracted a 'ned- Manki Rai‘ Rambati and 1e, Ramhati went to her parental her and mother along with, other he accusedfappellant at Raikot mhati at the residence of the LU appellant attacked Satmi with f which, she fell down and blood hen the Club was snatched from family members of Satmi, the ought a crow-bar and. attacked of Satmi. Satmi was taken to hile undergoing the tieatment s ’{ilV W *‘ \ . /2oo7 40,000, o l e c . t h c M 't r W §i 200 mm (W) ‘mmm wmum mmm pgN WW WW $Wm Dehati Na}ishi Ex. 13,! 1 was wrifjm and lgiven by Sonam father-in- e Investigafjng Ofi‘mm‘ prepared inquest EXP] 2 on the body of x atmi. Postmortem on the: body of Satmi was conducted. by Dr. K. Shanna (PW-4). He. opined that the cause of death was she k as a result of head injury (Compression and lacoration of rain) and its complications. The death was homicidal in natur 1aw of the accusadl appa11ant. F‘JR. EX.P,H3 was 1‘egi3tared.. e Site plan. Ex. P] 14 was prepared After completion of the in, 'ostjgation, charge: sheet was filed ‘in the Court. of J.M.F‘.C, Jag nr, Who in turn comlnitted the case to the Sessions Judge, J alpur from where the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Jagd lpur received the case on transfer for trial. The prosecution in onder estahh‘sh the charge against, the accused/appellant examined 9 messes. The statement of the accused was recovded. under. S ion 3130f the Code of Cn'minal Procedure, in which, he denied e material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent ud has been falsely implicated in the crime. The accused/appellant p uced 3 defence witnesses, who have stated that Satmi sustaine the injury on account of fall} as .. her head dashed against the do . . e i 1", i i i . i W m WW, W ~FS/5$~ 8/2007 —30,000. .7_‘: .L—.. f h . d a . p e et i r d o WT m gi 200 WW,WW,W was: m (113W) WW wW amWwlwéw Wwm p q- The learned Additional Sessions Judge; after hearing the counsel for resyecfive farties, canvicted and sentenced tha accusedf appellant as afore mention ed. We have heard 81111.. Uslia Chandmkar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Aklnil Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Smt.U3ha Chand rak at hae nof dxsputed the hormoldal death — Qonavu hnehand of the deceaeed of Satmi. Moreover, PW- PW~2 ~— Shanti, PW—3 —- K1 nan' have smted that 1n then‘ presence only, the accused] appella t attacked the deceased — Satmi with a club on her head. The a ove ocular evidence is cormhorated by . KB. Sharma(PW—4), who has stated that on l3. 1.2001 , he con ucted postmortem on the body of Satmi and there were following in. uries : (1). oontusion 3" x ” over right side of forehead and tight parietal region of scalp. (2) Contusion 3" X 2 over left thigh On decention of the ody, it Was found that clotted blood was present above the brain d brain membrane. Qmall particles were present. in the Wind p pe. On openingthe h d, it; was found that the right side temporal parietal region of rain was lacerated in the size of 2"x 2". a . Clotted blood was. piesent on the left, side of brain. Clotted blood was present. in the brain mbrane. Cause of death was shock the medical evidence of g n .e m m “i 200 Wm (W) WWW Py— WW wW $aimm due to head injury and its com View of the above ocu1ar and, that the death of Satmi was h As far as involvement o the accused/appenant in crime in question is concetned, PW-1~ r Rambati was married to the t \ licid a1 in natura. Sonaru, husband of the deceased, has stated that his daugh "accused/appellant. As his d Jghter came to hi5 residence after ’so‘me quarrel at her mattimoni 1 house, he along with Satjni, Miri, Shanti and other persons Went to dmp Rambati at the resid ence of the accused] appellant— Suhan it Raikot. When. they reached to the house of the accused, the aoc1 sed came with a clnh and attacked. Satmi on her head. When th, dub was snatched from him, he d with that crow-bar on the left brought a crow—bar and atta thigh of Satmi. Thereafter, the“ took Satmi to the Tokapai hospital, from where; they took her to Jagdalpur Hospital, she died while undergoing the treatlnent.‘ So aru gave report EXP} 1 . The above ‘ evidence of Satmi is cor-whom ed by the'evidence of PW-Q- Shanti, who has also stated that th ‘accusedfappellant attacked, Satmi with a club when they reach rd the house of accusedlappellant along with Ramhati, as a resi 1t of which, Satnii sustained. injury on her head and she became onscious. The evidence of these 2 Witnesses is further confobora rd by the evidence of PW-3- Kumari, ‘who has categorically stated t ,at the accused. is residing at Raikot. Rambati and Satmi(since dec sed) are known to her. Rambati is v ram FS/59— 3/2007 —30,000‘ mw,m§migr plieations. His report is EXP/3. In medical evidence, it is established o c 1 e WT m “i 200 Wm (W) Hw% .Q WWW Pg- ggmm the wife of the accusedla Hant, wheraas, Smi was the: mother- in-law. Satm de o mlnt of hcad jury inflicted by the accused/appella wh a . Shc only snatc thr: club from thc accused, on which, t accuse went insi the house, brought a crow-bar and attacked th tt on the left tgh, of Smi. In th€ cross-examinio e 3 Witnesses, defence has not been able to licit any cileums e, which. makes the evidence of these witnesses urustworthy. A11 the 3 Wnesses are natural Witnesses and they have tegorally state that on the fatef y, they aloug with som ther pesons went to the house of the accused] appella to dvo Ramhati, We of the acsed/ appellant an daughte of Satmi at he resince of the accuseappellaut, there some quarrel star hetwee Raati first wie of the acce audoMa Ba eond wife of t acced broht hy him after h rtiage wi Ramhati. The above ocar evie is corrohorated the evi e of PW-4- Dr. KB. Shanna, who exame the injies conducted autopsy on the bo of Satmi. He categorically te that there were injuries ou hea d io e o in Vie la l that the accused/appellant was the author of the crime in qu stion and he inflicted the injury on the head. of Satmi with a cl illegality or infirmity in the ‘udginent of the trial Court, Q i ha hi at atn of es e t ne nt it aic d ul da e o r nt p if mi d r t de df t, d n mb f usd lnki i, e he us ug is ma ts ul denc hy d ne ind ur d dy t ad d an thigh regn. Ther re, w of the ocur and medica evidence, it is estahlish . To this extent, we do not find any p e at i id n cc in nt it lub had h d de e £1? WW, NETWW mm 1H 200 Wm (W) Warm WWW __ 7 mmifwm ' amm’am Smt. Chandrakar, also 511 1appened on account of quam accused/appellant and it is mtentjou to case her death, th accused] appdlant does not travg [PG [On the other hand, Shin Akhil Mishia supported the Judgment of the trial Court. In order to appreciate the- Counse] for the parties, We have 3n. record. PW—l- Sonaru, husha r an1bati(Wife of the accused), anghter Rambati came to his h n account of some quarrel, atrimonial house. When the with a. club. ln the cross-exam' correct to say that the accus When. they reached to the hons with his daughter— Rambati, Firs. The accused] appellant sglattacked Satmi without any rea on. PW—2— Shanti, daughter-in- law of Sonaru, in para 9 of her ross-examination has stated that umi1ied that the Whole incident i1 hetween the 2 Wives 'of the not a case, where the i accused/appellant attacked the deceased (Mother-in—law) with an arefore, the offence against the 31' beyond Section 304 part-II of arguments advanced. by learned scrutinized. the material available rid of the deceased and father of categorically stated that as his use from her matrimonial house decided to drop her to her nt to the house of the accused. long with Ramhati, the accused appellantattacked his Wife-Satmi A of the accused[appellant along Wife of the accused, his second wife~ Manki Bai was at his re idence. mmgaw, 1m.+..\_5~’F'S/59— i/zom -—30,00u. nation, he had stated. that it is appellant brought second, wife. e ha l y € e mw,mg§m m m ‘i 200 Wm (W) MWW mm‘m WWWIE’fs‘z‘rm mamm aisiransuéw Fgh accusmi /appel]ant, some quart second wife. of the accusedfappe 1am, Ramhati(daughter of PW—1- Sbnaru) and Satmi. Them was nodisyute between Suban a11d Satmi Why the accused attac ed Satmi, is not known? On account of the assault made by t ‘e accused [appellant with a c1111) Hm Satmi, she hecame unconscio Is. Thereafter, a Panchayat was ‘convened in the Village. A perusal of the Panchay .t proceedings ExDjl-C reveals that on 12. 1.200] , a Gram Pane ayat at Raikot in connection with the dispute hetween 2 wives o the accused/appellant namely- Rambatj and Manki Bai was co vened and in the proceedings, it has been. menh‘oned that Ram i was manied about 12 years back with Suhan' and thereaft .1", Snhan married. another girl namely-Manki Bai. Quarrel, stai led between Ramhati and Manki Bai, but no final decision was a ved in the Panchayat. However, it is mentioned that the dispute rted on. account of Manki Bai~ second Wife of the accused. ieiefore, in View of the above ,7’n1ateria1 availabk on recom, 'v. ‘ u \WVV swam an ‘ ‘5vhen both the ladies were quarnming and Satmi was intervening, ‘Lhe accuscdjappellant brought a7 club, which hit Safmi and she. ‘ ”accame unconscious and there she was taken to the hospital. 'PW-S— Kumari has also ad ‘tied in para 5 of her cross- :xami-nation that when they re hed at Raiko? to the house of 1' started batwaan Mauki Bai, is established. that after the of with the Rambati, the maniage accu sed / pellant ' i \‘ t ;- 8/2007 ~30,00U. a r , t ., a l t @ war mm, m?mmgt m m..mm...m...“m.........‘.m‘.................,....gi 200 Wm (W) WWW ‘ mwm mammwwfsém - “3% ammm accused l appanant again conh‘aqted a second marriage wifh Manki Bai and both Wives uscd to quarrel, werefore, Rambati left the matrimonial housa and went to fer pamhial house. On thn fateful day, Satmi (since deceased), her husband - Sonaru and other fami1y members along with R atj came to the house of the accused/appellant. There again some qparrel started. between the 2 ladies and the accused] appe“ nt attacked the deceased (mother- in—law) with a. dub and that p ved, fata1 and on account of head injury, Satmi died next day in .he hospital Whi‘e uhdergoing the treatment. In the given cimutnsta ces, which have been extracted above, it cannot be inferred 'th t the accusedlappeilant attacked ~ the decea‘ed with an intention to cause her death. The dispute started when the deceased 9101 g with her husband and daughter came to the house of the used, they dropped her there. Rambati and Manki Bai the 2 wives of the accusedlappeliant staxted. quan‘eling and at that. time, without prepaiation and pre- meditan'on, the accusedjappel‘ant attacked the deceased With a club on her head, only once, W ich proved fatal and Sauni died on account of the injuly sustained by her. She died in. the hospital on 13.1.2001. However, the manner in which, the. accused] appellant > attacked the deceased-Satmi with the club on her head, it can he H. infened that the accused had definite knowledge that he may likely to cause her death. Theietbte, the offence against the , l W am gamma; qwmfa ——FS/59— 3/2007 .—3o,oou. a b a ,c u W (7,9 3am, m, m m.mum................T............‘....‘........t....gi 200 mm (13W) mwas mama?“ -—[o» WWW%'1%€IW awfmm A accusedia1§£3ellant does not tmvel beyond Section 304 part-II of IPC. V hrthe result, the appeal succeeds partly. The conviction. an senhance imposed against the d accused] appellant und er Section 302 of IPC am set aside. Instead thereof, he is convicted under Section 304 part —H of IPC and sentenced to undergo RJ. for 8 years. It is stated that the aoeusedj'appellant is in detention since 19.1.2001 tin date; thérefore, entitled fonthe set off of the above detention period. already undergone against the sentence imposed upon him V fff/ f\ W7 ‘ V rewi Sd/- \ L.C. BHADOO \ W w w, W —FS/59— 8/2007 -—30,ooo. .._... r w." .._ the accused/appellant shall he Mfgi//[yl /( 3 5d,- Judge r/ runll Kumal' S‘nh :_ P_ l ‘ / L