o o l-J QJ c+ c+ m t» 1-j *1 IB (D o o <D (B O- 1-1 rt-ia O U (D d- (B 3'- ^l u it> i-j S ^ a> (D -) i-l m iSt-WI 3, \^c). • •a2\ 0-> M D O 0 Cy cu cu rf- rl- r+ <D • (D <D uo 1 o=r § (D h-" ?• tn (O 3 c+ <^ o 1-h s- H-o V o•§ 1-i <B p 1D .?• < (D& 1 1/> ^, ^) r -r o i-n cu •o •o h- p- o curl- (-'• u3 i-h u 11 o 1 u10 a. <n (D ^ ^.^•—y 3 ]--o ;g rl-'Sl^ 1-iu IB U 1-" H- OKSl P- cttQ C us11^S'^^.C..M o rt- tn B) U> 01 1 y )-4 U QJ i—*rt-d3 p. 3 "O tn h-'-a 0 'a -o s i-. i-i i-j li) h P- CLt LJOt 3-3 OU> l^ O o o c+ c+ i"^ cr H- ri- P-G) g 1-'-3 (B U> (/) U <•+ ^'Cf" U ^rO"3(Dchl-'*rhf-i (0 UlOIBUlSJ'O OX c 4 ... 3'S B 13. 0.0 cf'P-fD^f^)*-' 0'r<-ST3hiu<I>a> i-u l-J ^T ^ O t/1 H* •O P*(Drt"(/i O) <I>fI> .3 •O 10 (D -O (D 3 U) ffl to O tt< o a. t+ a. QJ CL C) ^TW f0 <D i-l c(D3a>ga.<-t- • c+ 1-( - 1-1 ?• U o rl-Q.CL U> !-*• O- o ^ » y^ c+ iD g <o •<: , y H< Q) U) rf- &> (D <•<: I-)?' (D 3 3-i-hlO i—"0 •O O IB CB If aj i-j ct r<- crus P' o 3 VQ) s.1 in 3-OSOJ (DU11—u ro 0 H"*< fl? 3 iii (D y> f 'O <P 11 Q. 3- O- (O Mi: f-j H t-J* (D ^O U il> 3 U c+ CU hl O rt- t0 rl-u 3'l— ri- 3" iD U) P- ;x> c+yO'CDX? (D rt-rt* a 5<o '-! 4< ^- o , CLOI <c o >-'• O 11 O .3 3 l-h (D u» rf- (& cu 3 •< g -a n- H- a.. 1 :?• t-" i-j rt- ai (D i-> rh rt» CU H*k< • ct <Q yw i-'o w ^Ttn <0 (l> (—•3 (K r<- ca c+g P C . LU h-'S-c-f-H-i-J ^f >c+ fl) fl) t-tl h-*"0 (D •a CL o. a> -y u 40 c+ U U) (O O £U a'3'tD W h-1 0 O U-< ID U) [-' 1-j ct- <0 c+ "J 1 ' 3-? (O (O ^y. niWtWi^TF^ yCTi-Eji^ic.^'I^Ulflii; RciK-l^ C^;4Me.^</9^ % sff^wq^(^fg^) 3II^?Tq>rR-li<b ?CT3ii^TgniTO 8TOT8R Tlf^T SII^ST 10-02.200S Mr. Sushlll Dubey, Mr. Akhil K/lishra, i Argumentsi heg.rd. i|:ounsel for the appellant. P|anei Lawyer for the State/respondeni 1. The appellant has p dated 11-5-1994 passed by Sessions Trial No.415/92, by wh underSection 302^fthe 'ndian her to undergo life imprisonment. 2. The ease of the pr| sheet, is that the appe!!ant and t( 2-7-1992, at about 10 P.M., the| stated that she has assaultet of Rammer, whereupon Chatur went to the house oflthe appellait lying dead in his house. On.beil SP/FS/2005-20,000 g)i<lf<>i<ni tiinV^'fa'^l '(Rl+ril'< ^aif^Tsn^CT .JUDGME.NI •eferred this appeal against the judgment idditional Sessions Judge, Kanker in ch, he, after holding the appellant guilty enal Code, has convlcted and sentenced Flen reecution, as appears from the charge- le deceased are wife and husband. On appellant went to Chatur Singh, Kohvar 1 her husband namely Katti with the helj iingh, Sannu, Soma and othervillagers ind found the.husband of the appeilant ig asked by the Sarpanch, the appellant r: XI-HC-78 dw;l."t|j'tlloi't|,t»TiKl<ls,?Rc'>i^yt ,<>,1./).1A.S9^/?^ r —2_- sn^ST (RPP (iciIgl!i<B) ^F^ZQO gn^nwfSqiw aaiT3flS!!l<pii<n confessed her guiitand stated of Rammer and Kitehen Knife! quarreling after| consuming liqu^ Police Station, Marayanpur on 4-! the First inforrrlation Report, E; 1 eonducted inquest of Ex.P-11 a1 presence. Thereafter, the dead- autopsy to Primary Health Centre P.W.-4, after conducting post m< post mortem, P.W.-4, the doctor, over the chin bf the deceased tHat ajid reg'on. She aiso found contusio(i contusion over his right chin. Anc|l of the head ahd bone of.the upp( the Interna! examination, c!ottec| region. Howe\'er, other interht According to the opinion ofthe death was cerebral .hemorrhag< stained soil and plain soil were r^ Ex.P-4. Bloodistained Rammeil *l<lfd41'1*ll*ldTffIsx3 '<Kl»%ix ^SI^lTSItSCT she ki!led the deceased with the he!p out of anger, as the deceased was )r. Chatur Singh, P.W.-1 went to e; ^-1992 at about 14-15 Hours and lodgedf ^.P-1. .During investigation, the Po!ice| ter due notice to the witnesses in theirf -t?ody ofthe deceased Katti y/as sentfpr Narayanpur and Dr. Shashikala Thakur, ^rtem, submitted her report Ex.P-2. On t'erforming autopsy, found incisedwound a lacerated wound over right parietal oh over the head Qf the deceased.and a jther contusionwas found on the left sidei \r part 6f the nose was found broken. In; blood was found in.the right parietal. |il part of the body was found iintact.i (jocfor, performing autopsy, the cayse of' 1- ' :; due to injury over the head. iBlQOdi r^covered from the place of incideljitl vjde|; :''i;^li p;and a Knife also blood stajn^clgWlTeJi •j^! 1111 ift Wit •ii i' U;ii ^ll' 'IVK ".^- •i^r XI-HC-78 \d-OT|<-<nqi<')<<,t»^1'(l<li»,R|rt|atig< 0^\ ^. ^. S3^/^^ 3n^9Ti(a?p (•i<li^<si<g) W^200 an^a'BTR'licb aaiT3iii?T**ii* B^lTW^lfet 3lrt9t seized vide Ex.F?-5. Above memorandum, Ex.P-S. Spot ma|3 accused was taken into^custody) 1 ^ ^^ ^ '"-: articles were sent for chemij Laboratory, Saga'- and the repoj Ex.P-9. According to the report) Rammer, Knife and blood stainel- of the deceased, sent by the doct vide Ex.P-12. After recording di^i she.et was fi!ed in the Court di^ry Kanker, who, in turn, commit|e( Jagda!pur. Learned trial C.ourt| Kanker received the same on traj'sfer 3. ' Learned counsel based on circumstantial evidenct the appellant is established, the| have beencommitted underthe the ill-treatment meted by her under Exceptioni4toiSectiDn30(|l <ni«fT)<Iliii*tCTl"ifls'c)'(l"|tsi'!r ^iaiRllsiiiRl' ^eisures were made on the basis of was got prepared vide Ex.P^? and the vide arrest memo, Ex.P-8. The ssized tal examination to Forensic Sc.ience |t of the Forensic Science Laboratory is |of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the -soil were containlng blood. The clbthes tor after ^erforming autopsy, were seized statements of the witnesses, charge- t^f Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, id the case to the Sessions Judge, Ij.e. learned Additional Sessions Judge, hsferfortriai. fdr the appellant submits that the case is de. However, even if the involyement of i / :• manner inwhich the offence allegedjto ^ydden and grave provocation becaijiseiOf hu^band after taking iiquor, the bffenReffaJls af the indian Renal Code and, ther^fQre; ii^ i^:i :IS tliBI !i[iSl.S a's XI-HC-78 OT^STWfS'ii* c)aiT3lrt8Ta»HFB r; mnpi^pf ....^^lttidBi yw| ^ywirii), unl'M'is, Rni<<i3x C^\ A- ^ - §'3f/-9^ ^Fl.200 sn^STiREp (ifilya) gTaTWt^asn^w <l>l<lf<A4l'<MI*<dT^"fe'<('<('«Tsl't ^Sli^ai^CT the appellant could be convicte<t! under Section 304 Part II ot the fndian Penal Code and the Court belovj guilty under Section 302 of the was not justified in holding the appellant^ llndian Penal Gode. On the other'hand, iearned counsel ifor the State syp|ports the impugnedjudgment. 4. W^ have heard te^rnedcounsel for the parties. Homicidal i • 1 • • '.•••'.'• : death of the deceased is not |n dispute. Evenj otherwise taking into consideration the statements of ff.W.-1, Chatur Singh, P.W.-2, Sannu and P.W.-3, Soma, before whom fie. appellant has made extra judicial confession and furtber consid^ring the post mortem report, Ex.P-9, h.omicida! death of the deceased is established. The second question for Village Kudlathana has statedin fl in the night, when he was sleepir is statement that on the date of incjdent, g in his house, the appeltant Lakhmibaj came to his house and woke him (ip and stated that she had a quarre! witt-i ^! • :i her husband.whereupon, he, alofig with.Sanny, Soma, Bassu and D^iga went to the house of the appella(itandsawthatherhusband Katti ^as; !ying wth head injijiry and they foi. to how Kattl dled, iLakhmibai cohl •nd that Katti was'dead. On enqyiilyj ias' Issed thatshe has assaulted him;l^ittei B i::3.11 1 ii'ii .31 KS, 191 B m 13B sdjudication of th!s appeaf is whjether the appeltent was responsiblefoF causing the death of the deceas^d. P.W.-1, Chatur Singh, the Kotwar of ; i-:liil 1-:^S; f,ll}; i m n ;i:I I-HC-78 •^ liaii^rqiTl^ito ^SQS^fsb^Mi t-K-i. dwt<-yi4id^,tmlwis,(ei<?)i<<iy O^^A.K£0-^/^ ^-_s"— sn^STiRra? (*yii^qfi) ^200 Rammer used for ramming pa<|dy Kitchen Knife. She also stated t?1< was assaulting thel children, anc) assaulted him with Rammer. Sh^ harass and beat h<sr and her ch| has a!so given statement in tlt' deceased used to assaurt his appelfant confessed that she as; Kitehen Knife under provocation. js corroborated by the statement P.W.-4, Dr. Shashikala Thakur, w the person ofthedeceased, assl 5. It isnot disputed tha moment without premedltetion a' deceased, who returned to his hi abusing and assauiting the appell this provocation, ths appellant, wt in the house and gave few blows Dr. Shashikala. Thakur has not cbl<tfd41''ltll*friT^l^lc) •(luiT^i't ^aiRnsil^?! and .has aiso stabbed his chin by rt Kafti came back home intoxicatedand . because of this, under frustration, she further stated that the deceased used to Idren after intoxication. P.W.-2, Sannu same line and has stated that'the wife and children ;and, therefore, the aulted the deceased with Rammer and The statement of P.W.-1, Chatur Singh if P.W.-3, Soma as also the statement of ;ho has opined the injuries present over ^ted in.the foregoing paras, the offence was committed in a spurof ^ a result of provocation glven by the; 1'me in intoxicated condition and started. Int as also his children and as a resultof :1 |o is a lady, picked-up the Rammer l^ng,; to the deceased oyer his head. P.Wl-4,; |f6und any fractural injury on jinter iUUS!*.LU.i)ut4«41i XI-HC-78 giT^CTWTl^iiw (CTaii^igmro ii. tfel«ulihuiu vlw| T^liylri^, UTH'ri-KB, Rl0ilt13'< 0^\4- ^•<^^'f. 311^91 tRR? (ijt((gq«) W^200 giRiTWflftesirtw <bl<|{d41TfllltldT^fe'c|'<lui'r%it i;ail^T3lACT examination over the head of wound over the chin, all the injur! 6. statements of tHe witnesses P.} P.W.-3, Soma a TalKJng into consid hd further consi the deceased, and except one incised ^s are lacerated wound. sration the totality of the circumstances, PV/.-1, Chatur Singh, P.W.-2, Sannu and tlering the nature of the injuries present over the person :of the deceasect, we are of the cpnsidered opinion that, the appellaht was responsible foi| causing the injuriesto the person ofthe deceased. We are also of the|opinion that, the appellant was havlng knowledge that the injuries, s deceased. However, from the 3 caused, could cause death of the facts and ciFcumstances of the case, intention to cause death of thel deceased cannot be attributed to the appellant as the incident took p!a(;e in a spur of moment and sudden and jrave provocation and as such th^ offenee does not travel beyond Section 304-Part tl ofthe Indian Penal Cofle. 7. !n the result, the ccjnviction of the appellant under Section 302 ofthe Indian Penal Code by ^ie learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside, and instead.we hold|the appellant guilty of offence under Section 304 Partj I! of the Indian ^>enal Code and accordingly convic^ and XI-HC-78 TraCTWfT^ >dCT|«^t^td4^trci1'M<is,fioi'<i'y< C^; 4-M®-^3<^^ "^- snt?!qW (<j5ilgq<s) ^F^200 an^srwf^iw aairsfi^siiiBfitB \: ?TOrsR?i1%CT3ii$?t ordus sentence her to undergo ri^ perusal of the recqrd, it appears] 1992 and as such jshe has airea^ !n She aforesaid circumstances, ii ' 1 liberty forthwith, if she is not requ( Accordingly, the appeal stands di| Si-cih <l)l<lid41'1*ll*ldT'fIs'cl'!lui»cit ^3lt^T3II^CT imprisonment for 10 years. Frpm that, the appellant is in jail since 13-11- completed more than 13 years in jail. j' is directed that, the appellant be set]at red in connection withany other offerice..i iposed pf. S.S iiiia :jg Sd/- DHIRENDBA MISHRA Judge ai-afl iillli 'i'-'- ?'';[it::;i! lillS! SIM^ ^Hf s; tS IIIBI IIIJS tN'B SeS 1(1:1 itii IIE1 3:!^ ina .1^ IM ss ^il tS !1 Ifil