[C—78 ^TT^TMftPtte 1cCT^n^T^iNt ^> TSST^TPTT^T, «>TTl^4t<o, fsi^Kiy (g) 'WRW 'SPira? "^ 200 3n^?T XRra? ( 4<i!||^<ST) '^RTTW^rf?cT 3?TT^T [a<i1i *iw^iT ^fe^ <t^i<^i< ^ ^FTfipT 3|T^[ CR.A.3 1277 OF 2002 APPELLANT Versud RESPONDENT APPBAL UNDBR SSCT: PROCl DIVSSSON BEHCH: HOrBLEl HON»BLE Present: Ms. UniaTiwari, couns' Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. ^.1 for the appeUan.t. QoverGiiient Advocate for the State. is< Telami. Bhioia, S/o. Telmzii Sukram., aged about 25 years, r/o. School Para, NeraM, P.s, Bachell, Distt. Daiitewada, (CG) State of C.G., Through Police Station BacheU (CG) :ON 37412] pF_TH^CR5M.mAL SDURB CODE- BHRI L.C.BHADOO, J. & ^HR! T.P.SHARMA^J, OR^L JUDGMSN' March 2008) * was deMvered bv The followro.g judgiaentl L.C.Bhadoo,_J_s This appeaJ is directec^ and order of sentence date<|l Additional Sessions JudgeJ 283/2001 whereby the learfied holdiag tlvp accused/appeUaj|it guilty for coBim.ission offhe ofFence against the jiidgxnent of conviction 15.07.2002 passed by the Fozirth Bastar at Jagdalpur in S.T. No. Addition.al Ses.sions Judge affcer 3'ssr .-AII^II^AI, ^Tfl'y^Ko, f«»<»)i^^< 'WfW ^if^ "^ 200 ^r^r ^it ^j^ ^IT <3?T^9T ^^N^ 31T^?T ^R? (yilys^Sr) '^RnW^f^f 3TI^T imder Section 302 oftlie IPCj Raiaivati, sentenced hiin to pay a fiiie of Rs. 500/-, in undergo six iiiontlis ioiprisoi^m.ent for cominittiiig tlie murder of his wife i|indergo roiprisonnient for life aad to p.efault of payment of fiiie to further 2. Case of the prosecutio|i was niarried' to the accusedj moiiths prior to th.e dateN-of Village. Nerali. Four days - p\ Guddi, father of tiie decease^ taBiariiid and on the fateful p,ni., when tlie accused anc1| tlieir house, her niother Ma^ tlieBi io. order to see tliera of. Kalmuini Torel, Rainvati wh4 asked for v^ater. The accuse.d to huny up for goiiig to th^3 weut niside to bring wat| attacked Ranivati with flie at she feU down. On -hesiriiig tl^e the deceased, accused/apj) Thereafter, Maadvi Lakhm.e hus.band Maadvi Guddi asKl Ramvati was lyiiig. dead ia day • iiieetiiig was convene.d suiiimoned aad io. tJie nieetiA;; cbl^tid^l'l 'Wl^f ^fe^ <Rn<$i< ^ 3FyRpT 3H^T L, ia biief, is that, deceased Ranivati l/.appellaut Telaini Bhima abozit six iiicideut aiid they were residiiig ic. |ior to the date of incident, Maadvi took thein to his hozise for pluckiiig Iday i.e. on 28.3.2001, at about 4.00 deceased Ramvati were retuming to l.dvi Lakhine was also acconipanying While they reached near the house of was doing giidal^u, ^vent hiside aiid also followe.d her. He asked Ramvati house. When Duma, son of Torel ssr, the Hiomeut accused/appellaiit ^:e ^on her neck, as a result of which cries of Maadvi Lakhm.e, motlier of raii away froia the spot, Went to her house aiid iiiformed her callecl the viilagers, who saw 'that kitchen garden of Torel. The next pii which fhe acczised/appellant was jig, the accused/appeUaiif niade extra th^ir d/ap^ellaiit fllie ^i^r??T^w 'cCT 3?n^T'iTRpF -1.. vd-^c) ^ww^, y>xn'y4i<o, fs)<»»w^< ^SNdS ^»NI<*» ^ 200 an^r iTsra? (^^^) ^«ii^R^a 3?n^[ judicial confession, Thereafte Guddi fatlier of the deceased Fi^s Tlle Ex. P-4. Based on th.at, registered. Clothes of the plao. Ex. P-5 was prepared by| Investigatiiig Officer after gi^| io.qtie.st Ex, P-6 on the body| possessiou plain soil • aiid ^ occurrence under Ex,P~7. TU custody gaye meinoraiidum. axe-weapon of offence was s^ tlie accused/ appeUaiit. seized under Ex. P-10. Body exaiiiiaa.tiou to tiie Prmiaiy| P.S,Patel conducted the post| opiiied that death was as a| heniorrhage by extemal aiid honiicidal, He prepared post decfeased Clotb.es 3. After coinplction of in\|< th.e Court of Chief Judicial committed tlie case to the S^ssions leanied Fouilh Additioual Se^ on trao.sfer for trial. cM<it<n<fli +ii*i<!if ^fe^ <Pn^i< ^? 3?rRpT ^n^r ^ fhe raatter vvas reported by Maadvi ia the police station Bacheli zinder i^st Infoniiatiou Report Ex.P-3 was were seized uuder Ex. P-1. Site the Sub Inspector MJ<.Sharma. The tiag notice to the paachas prepared of dcceased Rainvati. He took iB.to |lood stamed soil froBi tiie place of accused/appellant, while in police |Ex.P-8. In- pursuance of which, the tized under Ex. P-9 at the io.staiice of of fhe accused/appellant were j)f Rainvati was sent for post xiiortein Health Ceutre, Bacheli where Dr. 1 Biortem. on tlie body of Rainvati and result of Syncope due to excessive ^itemal iiijuries. Natxire ofdeath was 3|iiorteni report Ex. P-12. ^stigation, charge shee.twasfiled.io. Magistrate, Daatewada, who io. tuni Jndge, Bastar froni where the •sions Jiidge, Bastar received fhe case 3^T •^1-410<1, t$>Tflwi<?, is|^>l-H^< NWdl shUSch •^200 3in^[^ET Ri-ii^ 'cwi^n^T^^ ^ 3TT§RT XI3R? (<if(fy8^y) ^'wi^R ^a ^T^ 4. Prosecution in order accused/ appellaat exaoiio.^ Statenieut of th.e accused/4 313 of the Cr.P.C. in whi4 agaiast hiai aiid stated tha| ioiplic-ated ia tlie cnme in. qrj 5. After hearing couris^| Additional Sessions Jud^ accused/ appellan.t as aforenl.entioned 6. We have heard Ms, aad Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. G' Um^ 7. At tiie outset, Ms. not disputed the honiicidal| Maadvi Lakhrae, m.0ther of| tb.at the accused/appeUan.tl The above ocular evidcnce is ofP.W.-7 Dr. P.S.Patelwho 2.00 p.m, he condiicted the| ancl tiiere were th-ree iaciseld and right side of scapular r4| fhe cex'vical vertebra was seen. Spiiial cord, vertebr^l aaterior ^pisial arteries were^ chl^fd^l'1 *li*l<?ff ^fe^ <P»i<$i< '^3TRP:[3TT^T ;to estabMsh the charge against the |sd as masi;^ as eight wifnesses, ^ppellaiit was recorded under Section |h he dcnied fhe Biaterial appearmg t he is iiinocent. He has been faJsely ^stiou. for the respecti.ve parties, learaed ;e, convicted and sentenced the Ifma Tiwari, counsel for fhe appellaiit ivem.inent Advocate for the State. Tiwari, counsel for the appeUaiit has dcafh of Rainvati. Moreover, P.W.-2, |the deceased has categorically stated attacked the deceased with. the axe. C9rroborated by fhe niedical evidence Ijias stated that cn 30.03.2001 at ahout post niortem. on the body of Raoivati ise|d wounds on th.e head, neck aad left Igiori. On dissectiou, itwas found that se^arated froni the skull, bony iojuiy not arteries, posteiior spio.al arteries, cuf. The cause of death was shock as 'S^ ^|A||^^, ^)TO<y<|<o, (s|(>'>l^^< ^INdl ^i?N^ "^ 200 3^T?CT R^ ^CT3??^TiF^F ^INIII"^ L. 3iT^?r 'ro'cR (yi^yi^) '^nw;fff?^ 3^n^r a result of iutem.al and e^ horaicidal io. iiature. Report is| 8. In view of fh.e above established that death. of Raidvati 9. As far as the coinplic] cnine ni question is coiiceTa^ argued that P.W.-2 Mdad\\ accused/appellaat iiiflicted trj to niform. her husbaiid and P,. he' went niside the hous accused/ appellant attacked evidence of 'these two witness aiid no reUac.ee can. be placed tlfce '10. In order to appreciate for tlie appeUaiit we. have pe^ LaldiBie aiid P.V7. 3 Kalmumi categorically stated. tiiat on tlji^ danghter Ram.vati and acc| taiiiamid, fhey took nieals QI^ out abng witli th.em. ia ordei| who was doiiig gadaku, sto^ Torcl and ^asked Dunia to bri^; ^ followed hfer and tliere he chi<i(<n<i1i *<w<;il ^fe^ <Pn<Sf'< ^3TfiFT3Fn^T teiiial heinorrhage ancl death was Ex.P-12. pcular aiid iB.edical evidence, it is vati was homicidal in nature. .ty' • of the accused/ appellao-t io. tlie ?d, .leam-ed counsel for the appellao.t i' Lakhine has stated that ¥7heii e first blow she left th.e place io. order W.-3 Kalmunu Duaia has stated th.at to briiig water at that time, Ramvati. Therefore, io. vie^v • of- the es they had uot witoessed the crmie ou •theu' evidence. tllie argument advanced by the counsel t'.used fhe evideuce ofP.W.-2 Maadvi Duma. P.¥/.~2 Maadvi Lalchme has fateful day at about 4.00 p.ai. her |used/appeUant aiter pluckin.g the |d left for their house. She. a.lso cain.e to 'see fhem of' Thereaffcer, Raaivati })ped near the hoiise of her brofher li^g v^ater. The atCcused/appellajit also atjtacked Raoivati witli the axe ou her ^^~<^^^-..^^3.^,.^^^<K^y^»^<i£^^ 75ST •^11^10^, ^Tfl^1!^, fc|0i'y^< NWdll SK^Iieti ^T^T^T KrfW W^ 'SH^T ^^i^ c •"^200 31I^9T T[5RF (^ctl^e^) '^nw^Tf^r^n^r neck and it was witiiessed b^ of the injuiy of Raixivati aiid ^ Dtinia 11. P.W.-3 Kalmumi accused/ appeUaat aad acciised/ appellaiit was askio|g house ao.d wheii he canie ou| accused/ appeliaiit attacked, ] was witn.essed by htm froni| an.d died spontaiieously. 12. Therefore, both these 'fchey saw the accused/appe Duma where Ramvati wen accused/ appellaut attackecl away. Therefore, ITOIH the coinplicity of fhe accused ic mid to tbiat extent we do no- judgnient of the tdal Court. 13. ' in fhe cross examin.ati< has not been able to eHcit evidence ofth.ese witoesses, 14. ^ . Leamed counsel fo^ •..accuse.d/^.ppellao.t ajid dece| <=M<l(<yl<ill *1W<A ^fe^ <RH^I< ^>3ifiFT3TT^T Dunia also. Blood started ooziiig out iccused ran away. hsLS also stated th.at the Ranivati canie to his house, Rambati to -hurry up for goro.g to the L of his house after biio.gio.g water the Rainvati with axe on her'neck, which mlside the house. Raoivati fell down witiiesses are uatural witaesses aad llaiit aad deceased in fhe 'house' of t to ta±e VvTater ancl pit tiiat time -with the axe 011 her ne.ck ao.d raii evidenc-e of these fc¥o witaesses the ciiine io. question is estabMshed I: fnid miy iU.egality or' iTiflniiity 'iii the )n of these two witnesses, the. defence circiiio.stance which discredits tb.e a|iy the appellan.t argued th.at fhe 3.se.d were leading tlieir life peacefully ^n^r ^FT ^jch 1cTSTT <3TI^T ^RT^ 3^ET ^N|<»')<<, ^iTfl^Ko, fs|0i'y^< @) NlNdt 'SP^N? "^ 3n^?r'q^? (lllct^<y<^) 'g^nw^f^ 3^T and there was no quaiTel bet| accused/ appellzm.t attacked dc.cease.cl to hurry up to g-o tc^ the accused/appeUan.t attacj Dziaia as she was delayiiig tlj the. accused/appellao.t do n^ IPC. 15, On the other hand, le^rned counsel for the State supported tlie judgment of fhe trial Coii^ 16. It is true that ID. th.it regardiag tlie iiitention of ffae| of Raoivati but it is establllshed retuniiiig to therr house, on| house of Duina aiid he went I accused asked her to huny ii| wiih th.e axe. 17, \¥henthere is no cleaz or Biotive ofth.e"accused/app that situation, in.tention ca circiiinstaiices ofthecase i.€ force with. which -tlie attack.v. for iiiflictiiig iiijury are tlie fa< order to ascei'lam. .the iatenti^ cM<i(<n<iiTi 'Wl^if ^fe^ <Pn^i< ^ 3iRp:r 3?n^r ^een tliesii aad 011 the fatelul day, the the deceased as he asked the their house early em.d in that process ked tiie deceased.at the house of -e departure. Therefore, the offence of t travel beyond Section 304-11 of the s .case, .there is no direct evidence accused/ appellant to coiiiiiiit niurder that when both of 'thein we.re the way, Ramvati went iaside th.e t.o take water as she was delaying, tiie ^) aiid in fhat process he attacked her cut evidence regardiiig the io.tention pllaiit for coiximissiou ofthe crime. In n. be gathered from the facts aiid j. 'the natare of the weapon used, tlic [as io.ade aad part of th.e body chosen ^tors to be taken itito couside.ration.nl ^u. 75ST ^|<4|0<ii, ©Tfl'y^Ko,?5|0l^^< Wflw ^w^? "^ 3?n^r ^T ^ wy ^[^t ^it^ ^uguna 3Tr^?r X|?T?F (i^l^^r) '^nw^f^T 3?n^T 18, !n the present case, deceased on the vital part weapon axe aad he attacked ^ ofthe neck were iio.Biediatell by tlie accused and profuse^] spontaiieously, Therefore, fhj wa.s writ large to comBiit nii^rj aiiy substaiice io. the argiinie^ for tiie appellaat. .etits 19. Iu the result, we do no judgineut of the tnal Court. aiid admissible evideuce. The to be disniissed and it is here' Sd/- L.C, Bhadoo Judge <=M<<(<n<ili *iM<nf"ff,(^^ <P»I^I< 'sfr^tRm^FiT^r tlie accused/appellaat attacked the )f tlie body i,e, neck with a deadty ritli such a force tiiat the vital orgaiis ^ cut as a result of the assault inade 1 bleeding. started aad Ramvati'-died ^ .intennon of tlie accused/appeUaat ler of Ramvati as such we do not fiiid advanced Ms. Uiaa Tiwari counsel L fiiid any iilegality or iiifirBiity iii fhe ^he same is basecl 011 legal, .clmching appeal being devoid of Bierit, is Uable 3'y dismissed. — Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge