g WW, §Y‘i W Q W ‘ I aEgpcNDENT: Versus — Siate af Chhattisgarh. -(Criminal appeai ur§der Section 374 af Cr.P.C.) Preéent: Wir. \ Jameei Akhta! Lohani, couns< M1: D.K. Gwa:re, Additiona! Hibii: 2i for the appeliant. : Prosecutor far the State/respondent. ‘Divisioa Bench: Hon’bie Mr. Hon’ble Mr. ORAL (De5ivered q LC. BHADCO, J. 1. This appeai is d§recied again ...C. Bhadoo and Bhirendra Mishra. JJ. JUDGMENT an 19m Aprsg, 2007') the judgment of conv§ciion ahd order of senéence dated Pt March, 20 1 passed by ihe Specie! Judge, Raipur m Sessions Trial No.129l20 , whereby learned Speciai Judge after hoiding the acousedlappeHan guiity for commission of offence under Section 302 of the LP.C., se enced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rsi ,OO l~, in default of payment of fine ta further “\\ undergo Rl. for one month. \ W m ®..J....&nlum3.mn(ug wt 200/ an?“ W (WW) mm faaia? ammm mmm WMikém a: aimm ‘APPELLANTI: Chamanial, ‘ (Accused) Son of Mannulai Satnami, 1 (in Jai! since 12-1-2000) \ Aged 23 years, R/o Viiiage—Ghanod, RS. Mandir Hasod, Distfict — Raipur (6.6.) WW,W1W;,W 4 ‘ GjAg/O/ mm @ 2 W 200/ piain soii and biood stained er EXP-2. He prepared the site After giving notice EXP-4 to th Panchas, he prepared inquest EXP—5 on the body of Bindabai. Accused Chamanlai gave mem randum EXP-8 while in police custody regarding the place where he iii from the piece of occurrence under ian (EXP-3) of the piace of occurrence. oncealed the axe, weapon of offence, and in pursuance of that he got recovered the axe under Ex.P~9. Ciothes of the accused were deceased were seized under) Forensic Science Laboratory, report EXP-13A was received stained with blood. Body of Mekahara Hospitai, Raipur u der EXP-16 where Dr. Sanjay Dadu {PW-16) prepared the report eized under EXP-10. Ciothes of the xP-t2. Seized articles were sent to aipur under EXP-13, from where the nd as per the report, the axe was found indabai was sent for post-modem to x.P-19 and opined that the cause of T e Patwari prepared site plan EXP-6. mam (W) 2. Case of The prosécution, in bri 3f, is that 0:1 11-1-2000 when deceased 1 Bindabai aiong with Sukhi @ Sukhbai (PW-10) was returning to the \i‘ pond after doing their wark in the threshing field, the accused appeared on the scene carrying; axe in his hand and attacked Bindabai with the axe on which Sukh raised cries and caiied Shyamratan, ‘ husband of Bindabai. By the time Shyamratan reached on the spot, i ‘ V the accused attacked Bindaba repeatediy with the axe as a resuit which Bindabai succumbed to the injuries’lsustained by her. The matter was {eported by Shyamratan (PW-5) to Police Station: Mandir i Hasod, whereupon the first inf: rmation report (EXP—1) was registered. i The investigating Ofdcer left fcr the scene'of occurrence. He XI-HC—78 WW,W,W @ 3 cgaya { Wm H‘L 200 maa-as (W) m XI-HC—78 WW,W,W G» AVE/T) Wm aizoM yi‘; W m (W) mmm WWW r WWW . mwiwm aaecifmm $. As far as invowement of the accused in the crime m question is concerned, Mr. Lohani, ieamed counsei for the appellant, argued that the accused has been fal:se!y impiica’red in the crime, whereas, Shyamratan (PW-5) — husba 1d of the deceased himseif committed $he r’ murder of his wife. Q.‘On the other hand, Mr. Gwaire, ieamed Additionai Public Proeecutor supported the judgment of the trial Court. i r lOgn order togppreciate the ar ument advanced by learned counsel, we have perused the evidence Shyamratan (PW-5) — husband of the deceased, has stated in his vidence thaton 11-1 -2000 (Tuesday) at about 2.45 — 3.00 his wife ai ng with Sukhi was going from threshing field to the pond, at that ti e, the accused appeared on the scene carrying axe in his hand an attacked his wife on which B'nagwantin Bai raised cries, whereupon e saw that Chamanlal and his wife were standing in front of‘each ot er, Bindabai was protecting herself with ‘ r s ['3 / hands, the accused attacked the deceased with axe on her head, as a result of which she fell dow and thereafter, the accused repeatedly attacked her with axe. rushed towards the accused, but the accused after moving abou 10 steps remained standing there, he asked him that he has com itted the murder of Bindabai he will aiso not be saved and the God punish him, on which the accused said that he came to murder Bind ai and he has murdered her. .ln cross-examination of this witness (PW—5), no such defence has been raised by the defence counsel that in fact Shyamratan himseif H w; l Soma i;m XI-HC——78 WWW ammm suggesticn came in cress—exmination that on account of any ¥ animosity or on any other grou d Shyamratan has falseiy implicated 1 ChamaniaL The evidence of Shyamraian is corrobmated by the evidence of Sukhi @ Sukhbé? ( W40) who was waking as iabour in the threshing’tieid of Shyamrata with Bindabai. She has categoricaiiy c stated that the accused attack d Bindabai with axe when they were returning ftom the threshing fiei-l to the pondz in cross-examination of this witness aise, defence has nt been able to eiicit any circumstance £ makee the evidence oft witness unteiiabie untrustworthy. which evidence s or untrustworthy. Mereover‘ the evidence of Shy ratan is corroborated by the medicai evidence of Dr. $anjay Dadu ( ‘ 11 6) who prepared the post-modem report EXP-‘39, and as many as 1 injuries were caused on the body ef Bindabai with the axe. The axe n question was seized from the house of the accused at his instance n the memorandum given by him and that axe was sent for chemiai examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur from where report EXP—13A was received which suggests that the axe in questict was found stained with blood. 1.2.Therefore, from the above evid nce, it is estabiished that the accused was the author of the crime in q estion and we do not and any itiegaiity or infirmity inthe judgment of th triai Court. The appeai has no merit same is iiabie to be dismissed a d it is hereby dismissed. ,gl(_e A Sdl- L.C.BHADOO J Sd/- ‘ Judge ‘ DmNDRA MismA Judge