CF0000062148 IS SH6. BIfiH G0i?&2 Off JBDIGAl'OM Al JABALPIB (M.P.) ^ ^^^i}.- [^- G&IMINAL AE'Pi.AL'lO.^'Z^ / 1999 ;•'• s Yipin@Bhi<i S/o B-imis A'Kka Aged about 23 y©ars,Oeeupation Agriculture, B>/o NaVatoli, y Till. Poogro, P.S, K^nsabel ^' Bistt, Jashpur Kagar (M.P.) r' V£& SU .3 io^ i£SFO!©BNIS ^^ Ihe State of M.P. Ihrough Poliee Statioa Kftnsabel, ^' Distt, Jashgar Hagar ( ) ! a?l^^^IMIHAL APPi.AL mom .3SGIIOS 374Q2)Gg Gr.P. G. J^^o^^^~~~-~"1""' ' .,. . ,. XL-ti[C-78 CT^T^T^iob <mT3TT^T$h^r<=b ^. i, ? HI+IMI a»?Ti^> ^sT^Trar^pT, ^Ti1^ji<o, faoii^y< ..<??..A...a^/^<x- 2^ OT^?T q^P (yit^^T) ^TT^TC Hf^cT 3TT^T &lvlslon Bench: - Hon'ble Mr. L.C. Bhodoo and Hon'bJe Mr. V.K. Shrivastsya. L 5-9-2006 Mi5S San9eeta AAi^hra, Mr. fi.D. Vaswani, ©ovt.Ad^ OraJ jud9ment dictated on Psr L.C. Bhadoo. J; - Thls appeai is directed^^ of sentence dated 1-5-1999 Jashpurnagar in Sessions Trioi Sessions Judge after convictin9 offence under Section 302 of impr'i^onment for iife and pay c fi fine to further* under90 5.1. for fi Cose of the prosecution i: yvhen Juvei (^ince deceased) was accused al! of Q sudden came witN heod with the axe as a resuit of w|iich The said Incident was witnessed (PW-8) ond MoriGni Ekko (PW-9).| (PW-3) in Poiice Station: Kans^bei re9i5tered. The Investigating 0| Ssction 302 of the I.P.C. left Panchanama (Ex.P-9) of the body chN?(r1<41'l *4I^^lT^'tel:^'<Rl^<-K ^^rf^TW^i cour|sei for the appeliant. (ocate for the StQte/respondent. ^Pais, |nst the judgment of conviction and order podfsed by th& Additioncil Sessions Jud9e, |No.212/98, whereby learned Additionol ^he accused/appeiJant for commission of the I.P.C./ sentenced him to undergo (ie of Rs.5,000/-, in defauit of poyment of 1|V€years. thst at about 7.30 p.m. on 13-10-1998, ^ittjng in his house near one liiyGzar, the an axe ond Gttacked the deceased on his he feJi down and died instantaneousiy. ^y Aiisha Ekka (PW-4), Kum. Sushiia Ekka The matter wos reported by Anil Ekka ^bei on which the F.I.R. (Ex.P-6) was fficer after rey^ermQ the crime under ^or the scene of occurrence, prepared lof Juvei and sent the body of Juvel for P.T.O. h--- XI-HC-78 W^T^Tf^TW cT^W^Tsh^lcb ^- ? *TTRCr[lSbNlcb 3^^1^1crt^, ^Tfl^^Ko, R<dl^^< ..&,A..t.7.^.7/ 20^- an^rq^^ (^q^q^) ^RTTW ^cT W^T post-mortem examlnation to YashwGnt Kumcir Toppo (PW-3 and prepored the post-mortem r^ death is due to shock csnd cerebrd 2 &4. During the investigation, memorandum Ex.P-7 and m purs| (weapon of offence) under Ex.P-8. Prir^Gry HeGlth Centre, Kansabei, where Dr. 1) coi^ducted post-mortem on the body of Juvel ^port (Ex.P-1) in which he opined that the haemorrhag^ ^ <2 result of injury Nos.l, whiie in Poiice custody, the accused gave ^ionce of that he got recovered the axe After compietion of invest accused in ths Court of Chief J|i turn, committed the case to th|i learned Additionai Sessions Jud9^ gation, charge sheet was filed against the udiciai AA^i^trate, JashpurnG[9ar, who in Sessions Judge, Roigarh, from where received the case on transfer for triQJ, The prosecution in order exQmJned ten witnesses. Stater?l< Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in whicHi him in the prosccution evidence. hearing the arguments of Additio^al accused, convicted and sentenced We have heard Miss Sar accused/appeiiant and AAr. &.D. Va the Stcte/respondent. Leorned counsel for the homJcldai death of daceased Juv< Aiisha Ekka (PW-4) - wife of th <=hl^fd41-i HTR^rf ^*f^t <Rl<-41< ^3Tf^T3TI^T i-o estciblish cha^e agdnst the accused, |ent of the accused wos recorded under he denied the materiai appearing GQdn^t l-.earned Additionesi Sessions Judge Qfter Pybiic Prosecutor and counsei for the 1-he accused as mentioned above. ^geeta Mishra/ learned counsel for the |wani, learned &ovt. Advocate on behalf of ^tppeiiant has not dlsputed the fact of |1. Even otherwise, from the evidence of 4 daceassd, Kum. Sushila Ekka 0?W-8) <& P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3T{^?T ^F)T R?TW c^TTW^T^Tk) ^^ \—. *11*1^1 S»»Hlcb 3^ ^l^lld^, ^Tl1^jl<o, f^c11<r1^< ^.fe,.A....(.-72.-7.^ 200 3n^?r ^ra^ (y<t^^) ^TTW^fN'CT^T AAariom Ekka (PW-9), who witnes^ Yashwant Kumar Toppo (PW-1) w^ Juvei, it is estoblished that the d^ M far 05 invoivement ofl concerned, learned counsel for tl|i ore interested witne^ses, becausc) therefore their evidence cannot biood was found on the axe, whi accused, On the other hand, learnecl re^pondent supported the judqme} It is true thpt the eye witi| of the deceased/Kum. Sushiia Ekk| MariGm Ekka (PW-9) is sister-in-i oniy on account of relation, evide| The Court is required to scruti circumspection. The incident is sa| cvening and Alisha Ekka (PW-4) h< she was at her resJdence and her h| liiycszar who was suff€rin9from ieft the house, thereafter, the ac< Juvel with the axe, her dau9hter thsy storted roising cries on whid sed the crimc, as ciso the evidence of Dr. conducted post-mortem on the body of icth of Juyel was homicidol in noture. chl^Id41^ ^l^dT ^' te^<Rl^l< ^3Tf^T3T^fT the accused in the crime in question is appeliant ar9ued thot ali the witnesses they are ciosely reioted to the deceased, be reiied upon. She also argued that rso ;h was recovered at the instance of the ©ovt.Advocate appearing for the State/ it of the trial Court. iQSses nameiy, Alisha Ekka (PW-4) i^ wife (PW-8) is daughter of the deceased and ^w of the deceased, but it is settied thct ice of the witnesses cannot be rejected. lize their evidence with great care and d to hcve token place ot about 7.30 in the |s stated in her evidence thot at that time i^isband was sitting near his brother<w4$»y iment smce hst one year. When one Anil used came with oxe Qnd started attacking ^ushild <& son Sushii were present there, she came with kerosene !ontern and saw P.T.O. Xl-IiC-78 w^r^T^icb <T8TT3TT^Tsh^r<=h 'Q h"». *II+I<MI awr^ 75cT^TraT?RT, ^Tfi^^Ko, Ridwy< ^..&.,.ft.:.l7.^^ ^_ ^ 1^1 q^W (y<t^<q<^T) ^RTTW ^fgcT W^T that the accused WQS QttQcking h| to the injuries sustained by him.| and neck. The above evidence (PW-8) & AAariam Ekka ff>W-9). wife, daughter ^ sister-in-iaw Juncture cannot be doubted, witnesses, defence has not been they were not present at the tim^ has been further corroborGted ccime from the market to the drinking woter. He has stated in deceosed Juvcl, he heard the towards the house of Juvei, thl a^ay, he couid identify hlm, and h th4se The ocuiar evidence of by the medicd evidence of Dr. -statsd in hi$ evidence that he and noticed that there was incis^d 'm the 5ize of 4 cms. x 2 cms. x 2 Tnere was another incised woun^l right eye and above maxi iiary &. cms. x 3 cms. and both the bon^ wound on the right supra ciavicl^ <=hi^I<n41'i iTTR^rf ^f te^t <r^<-<ii< ^3Tf^T3T^?T sr husband with the axe and he succumbed Injuries were present near ear, forehead h4s been corroborated by Kum. Sushila Ekka Tphey ore c!ose reJatiyes of ths dece^ed i.e. ^nd their presence in the house at that |Aoreover, in cross-examination of thesc 4ib!e to eiicit any circumstance to show that of the incident. Moreover, their evidence |by the evidence of Ani! Ekka (PW-3) who hc^u^e of deceo^ed Juvei for the purpo^e of iis evidence that when he !eft the house of s^reams of AUsha, therefore/ he returned sre he saw that the accused was running rsported the matter to the Poiice. witnesses further stonds corroborated YashwQnt Kumar Toppo (PW-1), who has co^ductsd post-mortem on the body of Juve! wound-on the forehead of the deceased ws, and frontal bone was found fractyred. on the ri9ht side of the facs below the ^omQtic bones in the size of 4 cms. x 2 ^ were found broken. There was incised region in the size of 6 cms. x 2 cms. x 3 P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3TT^T ^T f<4Jch cTSTT 3TT^T sOTW Q-- ^—' '/t. Soma ^. WHWl ?h«1ich ^^^I^M^^tft^i^Ko, (st^l<rl^< ^..C^...A... -200- 3^i^i ^rar (^cii^Gt^T) ?^cTTW ^rf?cT ^STT^T cms, T^iere WQS a JQcepQted w^und on the occipitai Qrea behind the heod in the size of 2 cms. x 2 cms. x 2 ^ms. thbt Evenas perth©evi< (PW-10); when the occused wos 10-1998 ond in pursuonce of offence^ under Ex.P-8 from t| recovery of oxe at the instcnc^ Ram (PW-5). dence of Investigating Officer <&hurGn Ram Bhagot n custody, he gave information ExP-7 on 23- •, he got recovered the axe, the weapon of ie house of his brother-in-iaw Vipin. TTie of the occussd has been proved by Inder ^erefore, merely beco? on the axe, ocuiar evidence disbeiieyed. Moreover, QS hos of the eyewjtnesses, invoivemei estabiished. In the argument of ieorned counsei f< Court regardln9 jnvoivement of on Jegd and clinching eyidence; this Court. eircum^tohces appetsl In the resuit, the dismis^ed ond it is Qccordingly, Sd/- L.C, Bhadoo Judge Gbl^f<n^^ WToff ^ f^t rf^OT; ^3Tf^T3Tr^?r jse there Is no report that biood was found [of the prosecution witnesses cannot be ^een mentioned eariier, as per the evidence it of the Qccu^ed in the crime In question is ?, we do not find any substance in the ^r the appeiiant and the findin9 of the triQJ the accused in the crlme in question js bQScd which does not require any interference by is devoid of merit, same is liabie to b& ismissed. Sd/- V.K. Shrivatava Judge P.T.O.