IC—78 3^€T^i^i^q, ?$Tfi^^|^, isl^K-iy ^ITE^IT sbNScb "^ 200 'sn^r ?FT I^NT 'cT^rr 3TR?T 5h*41cb 3n^?T 'qiTO (4G8?1^<^T) ^ri^R: Trf^r arr^r HIGH COURT <=M<4t<n<i1<i 'RT^ ^l^st <R?i<^« ^'3:ff?rH3TT^r CHHATTI8GARH BILA8PUR CRIMINAIi, APPBAL N0. 619 of 2001 DIVISION BENCH APPBLLANT RE8PONDBNT Present Mr. Vishwaaafh | accused/ appeUaat. Mr. D.K. GwalreJ State/respondent. BLE 8HRI L.C. BHADOO. & BLB 8HRI DHIRBNDRA MI8HRA* JJ Maadvi Hadiao S/o, Dashru, aged 32 years, resident ofviUage Bagmiiuidia, Paaeda, P.S.Gidaai, Distdct Dantewara, Bastar (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through PoUce Station -Gidaxn, Distaict Daatewara, Bastar, Chhatdsgarh. Prasad Gupta, counsel for fhe Additional Publlc F>TOsecutor for fhe OR Per L.C. Bhadoo, J This appeal is aiid order of sentence Additional Sessions Judi[e ^L JUDGMBNT 27th June 2007) duicted d^ted agaiast fhe judgment of conviction 218t May 2001 passed by leanied 4th , Bastar at Jagdalpur in S.T.No.426/00 A_ S-HC—78 ^^A-AA ~S:v5( ^|<41CY')<4, ^Tfl'y^l^, (si01'<-l^<; ^INdl th^llcb WI, 200 3?T^T ?FT ^ioh TI^T'STT^T ^F'RN? W^f TT3T5F (^^^) ^^TTW^f^T^T^T .^.^_ wherebv learaed Se^ accused/appeUaiit guilty| Section 302 of the IPC, f<tr / Hidiae Maadia, sentence4 ao-d to pay a i5ne of Rs.| further undergo R.I. for si^ sions Judge after holding the for commission of fhe offence under committmg the muxder ofone Maadvi him to undeqgo imprisonment for life ^OO/-, ia default of payxaent of fiiie to months, prose^ufto: acciised 2, Case of ftie Maadvi Mangdu (husb^md Infomiation Report (Ex,P^ effect fhat the wife of suspecting that Maadvi witchcraft, Today at aboi4t caine to his house sleepiag ia fhe parchhi ol his wife witii fhe axe ao.d cries, At fhe saine tiiEieJ fetchmg water. His staadiag outside the hou^e. meaiitime his son went mbid< was dead. She was tyirig was iajuiy of axe on her l^ft of ftie right hand. He mfcjnn Patel of fhe village Bemo <=t»l^{d41'1 ^w^ti ^fe^ <R»I^K ^ ^iRiH ^n^?T ^ution, ia brief, is that on 9.05.2000, of the deceased) lodged First 1) m the police station Gidani to fhe Maadvi Hadmo was iU aad he was ^Iidxne (siace deceased), was practiciag 12.00 noon, all of a sudden accused 4g axe in his haad, At that tmie he was his house, accused/appellant attacked ^as running away whereupon she raised his son Maadvi Budhram cacae after ^hter in law Maadvi Soindi was also de. The incideut was seen bv her. In fhe fhe house aad saw that his inother ^>n ftie ground m a pool of blood, There l^ft ear, left eye, left side nose aad elbow his neighboiir Maadvi Saako and Boiada fhat accused Maadvi Hadnio has dau^hte iahide mfdnned XI-HC—78 3:5xT^TTqT^q-^ ^T[iy<|<S, Is)0|<-|^<,, ^ITORT *^|cb ••••••—"••"••••"•"••—-•••••—•"—-""-^ 200 3Ti^yr xr5ra? (^c<[^<yyr) ^n^r^\ ^i^ ^^T ^n^f $h^J<=h -1.' '^cITW^rf^^TT^T ~s- <=bl^<Ill *lW<!lf ^fe^ <n»I^K ^^FiRm^i^T attacked his wife Maadvi I|idme with axe and raa away. Receiviag this report, the Investi^ating Officer left for the scene of occurrcnce, after giviag E|otice Ex. P-3 to the Paiichas, prepared / inquest Ex,P-4 on fhe b4dy of Maadvi Hidme, Body of Maadvi Hidme was sent for post |oiortem exammation to Pnmary Healfh Centre, Gidaai vide Ex.P^S where Dr. P.S,KoDire conducted fhe post laortein. aad prepared^ post iiiorteni rcport Ex.P-SA, He opiaed that cause of death was diie to massive Hemorrhage as a resxUt of mjury Nos. 1,3 and 4. Th^se injuries were fatal in nature caused by hard aad sharp object ^sid death was homicidal ia nature. 3, After completion of i|ivest^ation charge sheet was filed in. fhe Court of Chief Judicial| Magistrate, Daatewara who m tura committed fhe case to tiie) Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur from where fhe leamed Fourth Additiojaal Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur received the case on traasler for tirial. 4. Prosecution in onfrer to establish fhe charge agaiast accused/appeUant exami^ied six witaesses, Statement of fhe accused/appellaat was re^orded under Section 313 of tiie Cr,P.C. ia which he denied ftie prosecution evidence, ^naterial appearing agahist him ia fhe -r' ! XI-HC—78 3^T ^I-MI^, ^^^(0, isfcl>l^^ S^S ^T fqilcft ^T^T ^TT^T 5b<-tl<^ ^INdl sbNI<*» -^ 200 3n^?r x^^ (4c(Ilc<<^) '^TTWHf^T 4- 5. Leamed Additional fhe respective part^ accused/appellaat as af<| 6. We have heard appearmg on behalf of f^ie Additional PubHc Prosecl MaaUvi 7. Havinig heard cou^isel evidence of P.W.-l P.W,-4 Maadvi Maagdu evidence, fhe tdal accused/appellaat chief fh.at a year back h< attack made by Maad^ relation. On fhat day sh< sleepiag ui fhe house. A attacked her niofh.er-iD.-; cbRid^ii'1 "RW^f^fe^ <P»t^i< ^^Rm^i^i Sessions Judge, after hearing counsel for ;s convicted aad sentenced fhe ^rementioned. 4r. Vishwaaath Prasad Gupta, counsel accused/appellaatand Mr. D.K,Gwalre, itor for fh.e State/respondent. for the parties we have perused fhe tlvi Sonidi, P.W.-2 Maadvi Budhraxai aad Piusbaiid of fhe deceased. Based on fheir has convicted and sentenced the CoiLirt 8, AU fhe above tl]|rce witnesses had given contradictoiy statement. P.W-1 Maadvi Soindi has stated in her examiaation-ia - :|r motiier-m-law Hidme died on accouat of Hidiao, who is her brofher in law in Iwas at her house. Her husbaad Budhraai went to fetch water froxti Naala, her fafher m law Maagdu was (tcused cacae holding axe ia. his haiid aad Ifew wifh the axe. He made five attacks-on her head, back of fhe he^d, cheek aad on fhe back. She alone saw the accused/appeUant a^tackmg her moffaier-m-law no body else XI-HC—78 .^- 3:^r ^ii^i^, ^T{i'M4i<o, (si0i^<; 'RTTRW ^FRra? ^ 200 ^TT^T '5FT f<-lich TCT 13TT^?T ^TRTSF 31ii(?T X^RF (i^c(i^<yST) ^^iTW^rf^T^TT^T —y- ittacktmg lll saw him whfle attackp accused left fhe hous4 mcident, her husbaad| attacking her Biother-i|t Hidmo had attacked examiaation, she has fhat she was sleepiag ia| tiie Verandah, When shk niotiier-ta-law was lyia{ Thereafter, when her fhatwho has inurdercd the room. She came ouf iiiurdered. Thereafter inother-ia-law was She saw the accused accused while he was she has stated that she between the place wheij mofher-in-law was fix>m tiie place where ftus witaess is mconsisl that she had wito.essed fherefore no imT t^s ntade hiilsband visible wtile sittinlg sNe mconsislent iplicit reli^nce cji>Hi<vi<i1i TTP^f ^fe^ <Rn^i< ^^TRffr^n^T her mofher-in-law, After attackmg, When accused lefk fi?om the place of canie, however, he did not saw hiTn la-law, She iaformied her husband fhat niother Maadvi Hidine. In fhe cross- a contradictory statement aad stated |her rooin, her niother-in-law was sitting in canie out of fhe robm. she saw fhat her dead and nobody was staading fhere. caiiie after fetchiagwater, she said ^ier inother-iD.-law. She was sleepiag iaside of fhe room after her niother-in-law was the Court question she said fhat her froia fhe place where she was sleeping. coTning & going aad she also saw fhe |.ttacking. Agafca ia fhe cross-exainiaation ^as sleeping in the rooni, fhere was awall she was sleepiag and place where her m fhe parchi fhat place was not visible was sleepiag, Therefore, fhe evidence of & contradictoxy in respect of the fact jthe accused attackiag her mofher-m-law, caa be placed on her evidence, oti ^te s=78 •3^ ^1^10^, t$Tf|^^|<S, is)<?ii|-(-|^ ^TI^T ^T ^h=h ^TSTT ^ii^l fl'i+ii^ ^Wvi\ sh^Jch •••"•••"••———••—"•••"—^ 200 3il^?T ^ra? (4<Nf^<^) '^TRR ^rfin 37T^r ~G clu4f s^w tb 9, Husbaad of fhiis cross-exaimnation-ui-chid after fetchuig water he was runnmg. When he condition aad blood was | up when he asked liim has coinmitted miurder mfomied fhe viUagers. In| when he rctunied after sleepiag wifh fhe child wife fhat 'my inofher is| ftirther stated fhatwhenl Hidmo was staiidmg nea^ ald 10. On fhe question bl retunied after fetching niurdered his raofher, h|( fhis witaess is also not he saw the accused his house. 11. P.W.-4Maadvi daughter-in-law was at was sittmg m the ci»t^f<n<ili *iH<nf ^f^^l <fa^|< ^^tRRiR^r ^itoess P.W.-2 Maadvi Budhram. in the had stated fhat when he caine back accused canying axe m his hand aad ^ame out his mother was fyiag ia dead ooziag. His father was sleepiag, he woke awake. His fafher told him fhat Hidino lof his mother wifh axe and thereafter Itiie cross-exaimnation he had sfated fhat |Tetchmg water he saw fhat his wife was he asked her to wake up, He asked his fying dead let us go and see\ He had |he rctumed after fetchiag water, accused his house, jv counsel for fhe accused that when he (water he was not knowing as to who repUed -yes. Therefore fhe evidence of c{lear axid cogent on the aspect fh.at in fact runjaing away canyiag axe in his haad fi-oni Ma^igdu has stated that on fhe fatefal day his |the house aad she was sleeping. His wtfe veran^ali. He wake up after hearing fhe cries of XT HC—78 'S^ ^WW^,^-^\W\<a, isi<yl>W^<; "RP^IT sbt<|cb 3?n^T ^T'f^ri^T 'cT^T 'STI^T $h^Jch ^: ^ 200 31T^?T X[^7 ( 4C(^<S<<^) mailk his wife, went near her an4 canyiag axe in his hand he saw that fhere was / aad on the waist In fhe was sleepiag ond his son up, whereupon he woke saw that accused came out offhe room 4iid went away pushiag tiim. Thereafter ofmjuiy ofaxe, on the head, forehead clross-exammation he has stated that he Budhram caiiie and asked hini to wake saw fhat his wife was dead, aojd 12. In view of fhe witaesses fhere is no fhese fhree witaesses sawl saw liim runniag away his haad. Therefore, find| sentenciag the accused/aj cogei|it sed/a^pe camiot be sustaiaed as evidence. 13, In the result fhe Accused/appellant is acqu ftie IPC and accordiagly fh.< him are set aside. He be aay ofhe^case. Sd/- L.C, Bhadoo Judge cy»(<<t<vi<jli7TO^f ^fe^ <H>t^i< ^^tfOT^I^T inbonsistent statenient of these fhree clear evidence to fhe effect fhat aay of the accused attackiag the deceased or oi^i fhe place ofoccurrcnce canyiag axe in ing of tihe tdal Court convictuig aad sUant under Section 302 of the IPC [the same is not based on any legal appeal succeeds, same is atlowed. icqu^tted of fhe chai^e under Section 302 of conviction aad sentence imposed upon ?t at liberty forthwith if not required ia Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge