CF0000057524 ..y"'?^T!^^f, 1LIBS HIi3H.(SfU8"r_-QF_MADHfA FWQSSH CT JPB^LEyg Criminal Appeal No ! Oth '^/ if 93 Fanch aaEB son o-f Birju Kanwar ages about 40 yesrs Cul'tivstor, Resident of Villacse Binjkot, / P.S*Kharsis, Ois-fci. Reigarh, M. -l^'d'^ b SESPON3£NT ,/ -3£ -^ ^ t1E E^ .•!-..I.._<^..^U._'^ ; The S-fcs-te of NaAvs Fradesh CRIWIWL .AS'FSAL ^M)-SR 3SCTIOM 374 0£_TOg_C®e_OF_CB3¥INAL PBOCEDl^IRE. lAflllllll limr«rnkii»l^iuiw^»oa RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Date: 2025.02.07 12:29:05 +0530 mGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.Appeal No.1016/1993 Pan.ch Rara -Versus- State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) CORAM: HON'BLE SHRIFAKHRUDDIN. HON'BLE SHRIDILIP RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH, JJ JU D G M E N T 1 I !1 PaD.ch Raiu -Versiis- State of Madhva Pradesh fnow Chhattisgarh) •s. J ~1 CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI FAKHRUDDIN. HON'BLE SHM DILIP RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH. JJ Shri Sachm Singli Rajput with the accused appellant. Shri Ashish Shukla, Govt. Advocate with Shri M.P.S.Bhatia,^ P..L for the State. (Delivered on 29.09.2005) The foUowing oral judgnient of fhe Court was delivered c This appeal is directed agamst fhe judgnient dated .22nd September 1993 delivered by Shri Sharad Shrivastava,i 2rld AdditionEd Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No.90/92 whereby fh.e appeUant was convicted uader Section 302 I.P.G, for committmg murder ofButiiram Kewat 011 14.04.1992 at 7.00 A.M. in village Biujkot, P.S. Kharasiya, Distaict Raigarh aitd was sentenced to tmprisoninent for life. 2. Briefly stated fhe prosecution stoiy is fhat due to partition of laild fhere was a family dispute between Buturam aad Pancb Ram. On 14.04.1992 when Buturaui was goirig towards his Kbfhd'; co- accused Mst. Bundu Kunwar, the mofher of fhe appeltant No.l, caught hold of Buturain Kewat aad fhe appeUant-Paiich |Ram iaflicted a single blow by Tangia on fhe head of Buturam., due to which, Buturam. died on fhe spot. Saatram P.W.2, Saiikunwar P.W.3 Euud Basaiiti P.W.4 saw the iacident. .. m^w • g. F.I.R. was lodged by Phaguram. P.W.l in outpost Bhupdeopur of Police Station Kharasia on 14.04.1992 at 10.00 A.M. Sub-Inspector Rain Naresh Singh Paritiar P.W.14 reached the spot and prepared inquest vide Ex. P.9. Dead body of Buturain was sent for post-m.ortein to Priniary Healfh Ceiiter, Khar.asia. Dr. G.N.Tiwari P.W.ll conducted the post-mortem on 14.04.1992 aad foiuid au iacised wound 3" loae and 1/2" broad in its iniddle over fhe skuU ui the left parieto-teinporal junctioB. verfical coninienchig froin fronto-parieto junction aateriorly du-eGting backiffard to ftie paj-ieto occipital junction, 2" aboye the iipper border of tlie Pinna of ftie left ear. The bone was cut in patieto- teinporal region and lacerated brain inatter was visible fhrough fh.e woiind. Upon intemal examuiation, he fotuid fractui-e of fhe cranial bone in parieto-teinporal area of fhe left skuU. MeniG.ges were cut and haeiaon-hage froia the cut vessel was present. The brain was lacerated. Dr. G.N.Tiwari opiiied fliat the injuries were aate-inortein and were caused by soine heavy cuttiug weapon with force so as to cut the bone aad penetrate fhe skiifl. In his opiilion, cause of death was head injuiy due to cuttiiig and laceratioa of flie brEiia. Nature of death was hom.icidal. 4- After coiapletion of fhe iavestigation, fhe appeUaat was prosecuted under Section 302 I.P.C. along wifh his niofher Mst. Bundu Kllnwar. The appeBant abjured tlie guilt, pleaded false impUcation due to laiid dispute aad adduced fhe evidence of Jethuram D.W.l. ^. The prosecution exaiaiaed as m.aiiy as 14 witnesses. The trial Court convicted fhe appeUant-Panch Ram on fhe basis of'tlie ^ iliIII KiiB^-i^ i"lt ocular testunony ofSanta-ani P.W.2, Saiikunwaj P.W.3 and Basaiiti P.W.4. It however acquitted co-accused Mst. Bundu Ktinwar. 6. Leamed coiuisel for fhe appeUaat has contended thaf 'there is no legal and reliable evidence on record to prove fhe guilt Qf fhe appeUant under Section 302 I.P.C. He has ars testunony of Santrani P.W.2, Sarikunwgj- P.W.3 aiid Basaiiti P.W.4 was uot reUable since fhev aie relatives of the deceased and hence iaterested I'ri.tnesses, In ftie alteniative, he has also argiied tliat it is a case where only siagle blow was given by axe, aiid therefore, the ofFence if auy, comiititted t>y fhe appeUaiit would not travel beyond Section 304 Part II offtie I.P.C, On fhe ofher haad, lea-ned counsel for fhe State has supported the judginent of the trial Coiirt. V/ 'f: We bave heard fhe rival contentions aiid also pcrused tiie recoid of the Sessions Triai No. 90/92. Saatram P.W.2 is fh.e nephew of fhe de.ceased. He had stated fhat on 14.04.1992 between 7,00 to 8.00 A.M. while he was bnishiag his teeth, he saw froin his Bada that Bund Kunwai- had caught hold of Buturain Kewat arid Paiichram. assaulted Biiturain by Tangia on the head. Blood started oozing froni the wound aiid Buturam. feU unconscious aiid died soon thereafter. The testimony of Santi-am P.W.2 is corroborated by fhe testiiaony of S?jikunwar P.W.3: and Basanti Bai P.W.4. Saixkunwar P.W.3 is fhe wife of fhe deceased aad has deposed that ia fhe iiioming whfle her husbaiid Biiturani was goiag towards fhe Kothar she saiv fhat Bundu Kiuiwar caught hold of Biiturani aad Paacbrain assaulted Buturara. by a Tangia 011 the head which feUed Buturam on the ground. She shouted IW iffilp whereupon Phaguram P.W.l and SEUitram. P.W.2 came aad brought her husband hopie. Phagurain P.W. 1 has also deposed in paragraph 2 of his testmiony that he brotlght the mjured Buturaia to his house aud asked Tnm as to who had assaulted \ hiin whereupou Buturam. told him. that Panch Raiu had assaultedl hun ou his head by a Tangia. Basanti Bai P.W.4 is the wife of Phagui^iii P.W. 1 an.d has coiToborated fhe testJTnony c'f Saiitram. P.W.2 m toto. '8. Leamed counsel for the appeUant has not been able to poiat out anythiag ia fhe cross-exam.in.ation of Basauti Bai P.W;4 or Santram. P.W.2 and Seuikunwar P.W.3 which would rebut ttieir testimony and render it unworfhy of credit. It is weU settied that fhe testuiiony of a witness caanot be brushed aside m.erely OB tlie ^round tliat he or she is a relative of the iajured. A relative pr aa iaterested ivitness would not Eke to shield fhe real culprit; aiid implicate an. innocent person. Therefore, law only reqnires fhat ttie testimony of such witaesses should be scrutinized wifh due care and caution. Having done so, we fiiid that fhe testisiony of Sautram. P.W.2, Sankunwar P.W.3 aad Basaiiti. Bai P.W.4 iaspires confidence, is worthy of credit, consistent and reUable. Alfhough \^/ duriag cross-exaiuuiation of Saiitram. P.W.2 it was suggested by the defence fhat one Sidar had assaulted paiich Rani by a Tangia and whUe Panch Rain ducked fhe Tangia hit Buturam. However, this defence has not been accepted by the leamed trial Jud.ge aiid we also find that no fouiidation for this suggestion has been led by fhe defence. The testiiaonv ofDr. G.N.Tiwari P.W.ll clearly shows that Butursun had sustamed an uicised woiind 3" long and W BH^'?;^l^l:I!l": ./>'' yyy broad over fhe skuU in the left parieto-teniporal junction which. had a fracture offhe cranial bone undemeatii and nieniuges were cut and haeinorrhage froui fhe cut vessel was also present. In his opiaion, the injiiry was caused by soine veiy heavy ciittmg weapon with siifficient force so as to cut fhe bone aad penetrate the skuU. We, therefore, find no infirm.ity in fhe conclusion reached by tiie trial judge fhat the appetlaat Panch Ram. had caused fhe deafh of Buturam by assaultnig him by a Tangia on the head i.e. the^vital part. 9. The only question which reqiiires oiu- consideration now is that what ofFence was conuuitted by tlie appeUaiit-Paiichi'am. Although it has appeared ui fhe prosecution evidence that there was soine dispute relating to lajid betaveen the appeU.ant-Pan.ch Racct aitd fhe deceased, yet there is absolutely nofhing on record to even suggest that inunediately before the occun'ence there was a quarrel beta/een Panch Ram aiid Buturam.. At the tiine of tiie occurrence, Panch Ram assaulted Butura-oi on fhe vital part wifh such heavy force by a Tangia fhat it caused fracti-ire ofthe crajlial bone in the parieto-teinporal region aad the skiiU ineiiinges were cut causiag haeinon-hage from ffae cut vessel. At fhe tLme of occxirrence, the deceased Buturam was coioing towards liis Kofhar aad was unanned. There is absolutely nothiag on record which would be suggestive of a sudden quarrel or a sudden heat of passion during which the iajuiy was iiiflicted. In our considered opinion, fh.e fatal iajuiy was iiiflicted by a very sharp ciittiiig object by the appeUant after complete deUberation on vital part intenduig to cause fhe deafh of Butaram. gg 10. After haviag considered the evidence led by the prosecution iii its entirety aiid fhe facts and circuiastances of the case, the reqiiisite intention to cause fhe death of Buturain can safely be attributed to the appeUaut as has rightly been done by the trial Judge. We, fherefore, find no infirmity ia fhe jiidgnient offhe trial Court. 11. In the result, there is no substaiiceia this appeal whichfails and is accordingly disruissed. . 1 Fafchruddin Judge Sd(- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge jAnjatii