t^ft^s^s ^ fe^Jt^.. Fatherrs Name ^ge - _^^___.^ent enc ed ^o /- ^;P^L_OFlpRISON5R..-</ ime.. W^ r"'!^ ("r!rn?n3f) ;'1'^ '— 'X^^T. ^SM-^T ^2^\ ' ^sidQnce'^ST- ^^^3^..^:&L<dSUM^-.^^ on -,'R7,;,...A.z5X^-.—.under s ecti°•" ^l.iJE.f-J^^y' "SaL^'^&s-.fflL.'SiST0 es^r^^ry^ S.T.Nb. ^.0.3/<C - It :is ^^plMn ed to the pri son sr t hcit i f hs stat es or Wi sh esY to fce xep r $=s en^ed fcy a 1 egal pr^ctlticn sr fche ^>pellat e Cc:urt-^ pro<5^ed wifh the base for seven ddys unless the 1 egal prcicti&lorier ;a.ppears. If -t:he 1 egal practtfeicner dces nofe appea^'^ith .th^: seven days he may fee h_e<^r<3 afc aLll if tbe prl scn'er 3^ cites^ fH^t the^ dc es nofe ^i sh tc;' be r ^>r 6s^nt ed fcy legdl praLcticnsr the Gju^t mciy proceed dfc once with the csise . cind will not fcc oblaged to give A .hearing to^ ^ legal proct^ • itio^e^^ shculd appear, l^ Ddteof cipplication fcr copy cf JUc3g^nent : N€?sk 2» D<At8 of which copy received ^ ^. ^ ^ <-? S 3» Dafc e on , whi ch App elx sent ^- 4^ Whether the prisoner wish^d to be represented cr; nat ^ L,^^ No. __[^___Nam e CDntinued in zss. T^T ^{'' Yes/Jfe-y e'tS^ :- r^ J-2S3J- Jail J^T^K^^^I_ <>^c<y<u^_ Kb._ ^"FSS^TT^ 9Cpat ed ^ ^/^ .9^' For^arded to the CHia'' JUDICIAL MA3 33T Rxfi* E "ST^T^^X'C together with a copx of judgament or oraer/pa^ed in th^c^ £cr fcivcur of transmissiori to the proper ^>fipLtL^b^ Qjir; superintendent-.p^nbcal^i stt./ Date of cecs4.pt ln c.J.M's office. ^g» ^t^ Date of receipt of reccrd cf acccnp^ny^ '•—' . Memo SsS. ^)pedl of the -^ppelliate CX;urt. ^7 ' . .___ Dafced __t-.^ga-' ;-. ;.,. Forwarded tc the _Y-//tf^ ^^<SJOI^A ST^^k^ '\7(2^4s w C.J..- Magistrat^_^^^,^g^^^ ].AG^Al.-Pim Dcit e of recelpt of ^ppelliate Ocurt ^ V^^"; W. '-:tl "- ^vur .r' •."" !-'< • ' .. .• """li" Ifa' a':^ ^^ li^n l;'i ANawoanr (qj^Ssp^qqo jo s^g MOU) qssp^jj ^qp^M jo 9^3 •A ^pUO^ lApB]/^ S66T/T86 'ON laaddv iroimpo audgv^ia AV HWOSIAAVUH-J do Aunoo HOIH •^, ^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 981/1998 Madvi Konda V. State ofMadhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh) Coram: Hon*ble Sluri PaMu'uddin. Aff. CliiefJustice Hon>ble Sluci Justice Dllin RaosAeb Deshmukh, J. Sliri Aldul Mishra, Counsel for fhe appeUaat. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, P.L. for the State. pnmiNfflnu^, JUDGMENT (Delivered on 08.11.2005) The foUowiag oral judgment of fhe Court is delivered by DiUp Raosaheb DeshmuUh,, J,: This appeal is directed agauist fhe judgnient dated 7th April 1995 deUvered by Shri S.K.Awadhia, 3rd AddL Sessions Judge, Bastar, place J^dalpur ia sessions case No.203/93 whercby the appeUant was convicted under Section 302 of fhe I.P.C. for committuig inurder of Madvi Haada aad was sentenced to imprisonnient for Ufe, 2. The factual matnx briefly stated is that fhere was aa old dispute between the appeUant aad the deceased regarding a Satfi tree. In fhe intervenmg night of 3rd aad 4th of Jaauaiy 1993 the appeUant went to the house of Madvi Handa. Madvi Handa was sleepiag inside the house. The appeUant proclaimed that he would ^ ^-- not give the Salfi tonee to Madvi Haada since the said tree belonged to him. Hearmg the shouts of fhe appeUant, Madvi Haada came out of his house. In fhe darkaess fhe appeUant, who was armed wifh. a Bow aad arrow, shot an arrow on Madvi Haada. The arrow struck Madvi Haada on left ; Iside of chest causiag a penetrating wound. The appeUant raa away wifh. his Bow. Next day at about 11.00 A.M. fhere was a Panchayat ia which fhe appeUaiit made an. extra. judicial confession fhat he had shot aa arrow on Madvi Haada to kiU him. The Pan.chas saw fhe arrow iaside fhe chest of Madvi Handa. FJ.R. was lodged by Madvi Handa in Police Station Katekalyaa on 4.1.1993 at 4.50 P.M. vide Ex.P.10. An oflTence under Section 307 I.P.C. was registered. Madvi Haada was sent for miedical exanunation. Dr. Maaoj Vemia who exaniiaed hiin found one arrow penetrated iaside left side of fhe chest. He also found that the wonnd had developed septicemia, 3. Madvi Handa was operafed upon by Dr.Pradeep Paadey P.W. 7 on 5.1, 1993 who removed fhe arrow fix)m fhe lefit side of fhe chest aad foiind ttiat fhere was lot of puss iaside the stoinach. The diaphragm iaside left side of fhe chest was cut The large mtestbie aad smaU iatestme were also cut at several places. Madvi Haxida succuinbed to fhe injuries on 7.1.1993. Dr. K-R.Mourya P.W,6 who conducted fhe post-mortem exainmation found a penetratiag wound on left side of chest over aaterior auxiUaiy liae 3" x 23? deep to fhe fhoracic abdoimnal cavily. Direction of the wozind aiid was downward xaediany aad towards abdonunal cavity froiB. fhoracic cavity wound was at fhe level of fhe 7th iatercostaljt -5- -s- space. In his opiaion, death of Madvi Haada was caused due to shock aad septicenua, as a rcsult of fhe injuiy sustaiaed by Madvi Haada. The arrow was seized vide Ex.P.12 on 4.1,1993. After coinpletion of investigatiou, fhe appeUant was prosecuted under Section 302 I.P.C. 4. The appeUaat abjured fhe guUt, pleaded innocence aad led no evidence ia defence. The prosecution exanuned as niany as 10 witnesses. The trial Judge relyiag upon the evidence led by fhe prosecution convicted ftie appeUant for coimnittmg niurder of Madvi Haada under Section 302 I,P,C. aad sentenced tiim as aforesaid in paragraph-1. 5, Learaed counsel for fhe appeUaat has mLaialy contended that the evidence led by tfae prosecution does not bring home fhe guflt ofthe appeUaiit under Sectiou 302 offhe I,P,C. In fhe altemative, he also contended fhat fhe appeUant did not iatend to cause deafh of Madvi Haada, The arrow was shot at Madvi Haada by the appeUaat in. darkness froiEL quite a distance. Deafh of Madvi Haada was also not caused iristantaaeously. The testmiony of Dr. Pradeep Paadey P.W.7 also showed fhat if proper treataient had been inade avaHable^ fhe life of Madvi Haada could have been saved. Besides, fhe miedical evidence led by fhe prosecution cleady showed fhat death of Madvi Handa was caused due to septicemia, On these grounds, leamed counsel for the appeUaat has ia fhe alteraative ar^ued that at fhe most the ofiFence, if aay, committed by fhe appeUant does not travel beyond Section 304 Part-II of fhe I.P.C, He fiirther contended fhat the appeUant was ia jail siace ~^-~ ® <4- -^- 7.1.1993 and had ab^eady undergone iiicarceration for inore thaii 12 years. Therefore, fhe custodial sentence already undergone by ffaie appeUaiit would be sufiScient to meet fhe ends ofjustice. On fhe ofher hand, learaed counsel has ai^ued m support of the judgment of the tnal Court. 6. We have heard fhe rival contention aad have also penised fhe record, The learaed ta-ial Judge has reUed upon the ocular testimony of Madvi Panday P.W.3 who is fhe mother of fhe deceased. She has stated fhat whUe she was cookmg food, fhe appellarit came aad started shoutmg whereupon Madvi Handa came out of fhe house. The appeUaat said fhat fhe Saljt tree belonged to him whUe Madvi Haada clamied ownership of the Salfi tonee. On this, the appeUant shot aa arrow on Madvi Haada. It penetrated the chest of Madvi Haada. This part ofher testimony is whoUy unrebutted m cross-examiaation. It also finds corroboration from fhe medical evidence of Dr. K.R.Mourya P.W.6 who had conducted fhe post-mortem examination on Madvi Handa and had found a penetratiag wound on leflt side ofchest which has been described in detail in paragraph 4. Dr. Pradeep Pandey P.W.7 has also testified that on 5.1.1993 he had removed fhe arrow JBrom the left side chest of Madvi Haada aad has stated fhat fhere was puss in fhe stomiach aad found large aad siaall intestmes werc cut at several places. Sub-Inspector P,R.Netam P,W. 10 has proved fhe F.I.R. lodged by fhe deceased Madvi Haada which also corroborates fhe above testiinony. In our considered opioion, thereforc, fhe leamed trial Judge has rightiy ccyne to the ^ ^ -g- \ conclusion that the appellaat had caused the deafh of Madvi Handa by &hooting an arrow on him. 7. The only pomt which requires our consideration is fhe nature of ojffence coinmitted by fhe appellaat. The prosecutton story itself reveals that fhe ofiFence was comimitted at fhe dead of night. The appellaat had gone to fhe house ofthe deceased only to proclaim his ownership ofthe Salfi tree and it was only after Madvi Haada came out and started quarreUiag over fhe ownership offhe Salfi tree fhat fhe appeUaat shot aa arrow on Madvi Handa. The evidence led by the prosecution also shows fhat only a siagle arrow was shot at by the appeUaat on Madvi Handa. No further injury was caused by fhe appellaiit It was also borae out fix>m fhe medical evidence led by fhe prosecutfon fhat prompt medical treatcaent could have saved fhe life of Madvi Handa who let fhe arrow rcmam iaside the chest tiU quite some tmie aad had attended the Panchayat on fhe next day aad had also gone to lodge the F,I.R. at P.S. Katekalyaa wifhout reinoviag fhe arrow froxii fhe chest The testunony of Dr, Pradeep Pandey P.W.7 leaves uo manner of doubt fhat tf a pronipt F.I.R. was lodged aad laedical assistaace received, fhe life ofMadvi Haada could have been saved. The post-inorteni report Ex.P.6 also shows fhat septicemia aad shock were fhe root cause of deafh.. In our considered opinion, fhe time of occurrence, fhe maaner m which fhe incident took place an.d fhe suigle arrow shot at Madvi Handa by the appeUaiit at fhe dead of night, fhe requisite iatention for causiag fhe deafh of Madvi Han^da caanot be attributed to fhie appeUaat in fhis case fc "7 since fhe evidence led by the prosecution does not substaatiate fhat fhe appeUaat went to fhe house of Madvi Handa to cause his deafh. However, fhe laanner ia which fhe arrow was shot at Madvi Handa, it can safely be said fhat fhe appeUaat had knowledge that fhe iajury to be sustaiaed by Madvi Handa was likely to cause his deafh. In our considercd opiaion, fherefore, fhe offence committed by fhe appeUaat does not travel beyond Section 304 Part-II of the I.P.C. 8, In fhe result, fhe appeal is partly aUowed. The conviction of fhe appeUaat under Section 302 of fhe I.P.C. aad fhe sentence awarded fhereunder are set aside. Instead, fhe appeUaat is convicted xiader Section 304 Part-II ofthe I.P.C. aad is sentenced to ri^orous imprisonment for 10 years. The appellant has already undergone mcarceratiou for more fhaa 12 years and 10 months. The appeUaat shall fherefore be set at liberly forthwith, if not required ia any ofher case. Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Anjani