;—78 'ymFiw ^n 'sn^r sft*ifcti liNiuni, 'S^ -'iWW^, (SiS\WIG, RKrtWy _ .Q^,R.\^l^1...... TWffvK WtiW ••"-"-""-----•<--->-"---^ an^W IR^T C^f^8^?) 'g^iTW^ftcT Sfft^T CRiiVilNAL A^PEAL N0.193/2007 fA/*-<^-> i^, L'r=»t»<-*^^! year^ 1 State Statioh Present: Shri Abhay Tiwari and Smt. | Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. Goverl JUDGM (20.1 L.C. Bhadoo.J <iit-l-ilfi-tili<flira? '^J^1^ ^<$R ^ ^?Q*i ^l^i SLE SHRi T. :ami 1-iurra S/o. Pandu, age 43 r/o.Pawaras, Police Station -Suknjia, Distt. Dantewada, (CG) of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Sukma, Distt. Dantewada, (CG) Savita Tiwari, counsei for the appeliant. iment Advocate forthe State. )2.2008) This appeal has been direcfed against the iudgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.02.2(j)07 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar, in S.T. No. 479/$6 where&y learned Additional Sessions Judge, after holding tne accused uilty for committlng the murder of Kartami onvicted him under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to underao imprisonment for life and liav fine of Rs. 500/-. E ./ g:^^Tpnp^, ®TD<H'I<S,'Riyi|^^< _!Sx:A..,..).33./&2........ •mwrr *w* .•^..-..i.'..............-..^. ^ an^?r ^3% (y<<F-t«!<iisT) 200 •s'li^'r ?n ^iiqT ^^lf •3Ti^?T ^qh? TOiIWHftti SIi^t Case of the prosecution, ir( brief, is' that in the intervening night of (he father ofthe deceased was sleeping in his house after taking meal at aboL|t*1/1.30 a.m. one Suni! came to his house 29/30.07.96 whenKartami Hunga, and informed him that accused hasi and he is lying on the road. Hearind occurrence and saw the dead b L 't the share thereof was not given tdj ^»!<<fei<ff*i *<i*ifff '£f,fe%l-d^f^R ^siRprgii^F shot his son Kartami Ganga with an arrow this, Kartami Hunga went to the scene of of his son Kartami Ganga. Thereafter, he lerson Hidma went to the house of Pate! along with ^?K Sunil and his younj Sod.hi Hidma and informed him aBout the incident. He further informed him that about a year back thereto, sojne pigs w/ere butchered in the viitage and the accused therefore, some quarrel had taken place between the accused ^nd the deceased as a result of vvhich the accused was keeping animosity abainst the deceased. He further informed him that on the date of incident a!s^> some quarret took place between the two and on account of which the accilsed shot an arrow which hit the chest of 1 Kartami Ganga. Receiving this r^5ort, the Station House Orficer of Police Statlon Sukma registered the FIR j/ide Ex.P-1 for the commission of offence under Section 302 of the IPC, left f6r the scene of occurrenee and after givinc notice to the panchas, inquest px.P-2 was conducted on the body of f deceased Kartami Ganga. Shirt of (he deceased was seized under Ex.P-3. An I.. s arrow made of iron, plain soil and j?lood stained sojl were seized under Ex.P- i -? •?^' 'R^^SSiaaEsa-- xi-^S ai^ryTftm? ^T^iT 5Sf^l ?h^iqi 1 •——t- iii 'l 3sq' "s)l<<l^^, ^Tflti'ie, Islrtl'yy MWcfl sbNI* .C£X:r..&..:. "^ an^?r TRW (ij«if-t<i<tr) ?Sf(W ^lftiT 3D^T 4, one'bow and an arrow'wert Thereafter, body of Ganga v/ass^nt for post mortem examination to Primary Health Centre, Sukma wfiere Dr| post mortem and found that ther| ctean cut margin, ellipticat J^ sh^ and on dissection ofthe wound it cavih/ and it was extendina up tc ventricle of the heart it penetratec biood was present in She thoracif: nature. He opined that ths cause shock due to the injury on the vital and the death was homicidai in na <*iiif<"i<it-t •WRB^.teA tf^R •^affinsTCSl seized under Ex.P-5 from the accused. R.K. Kuruvanshi (P.VV.-6) conducted the 9 was one penetrating incised wound with pe, 1 % " in length just beiow the sternum vas found that wound penetrated the thorax the heart and after perforating the lower the inferior venacara and large amount of cavity and the injury was ante mortem in of death was neurogenic and hypovolamic organs such as heart and inferior venacara lure. He prepared post mortem report Ex.P- j 6. While in police custody the accjused gave memorandum of Ex.P-9 and in pursuance of that the arrov/ was s^ized under Ex.P-5. from the accused. 3. After completion of the in'i/estiaation charge sheet vvas filed in the i ~ ~ ; 3. Court of Judicial Magistrate FirstjClass Sukma, who in turn committed the ; case to the Court of Sessions jJudge, Jagdalpur from where Additional ' Sessions Judge received the .ca&e on transfer for trial where prosecution examined as many as eight witne^ses in order to estabiish the charge against tfae accused.—- •wsa iii.i.VBBffl •a i^^ !I?:i'lljll SIBB"BI'" 3^^ -^w^, ^•vS\w\<s, Kv^wy, w 41*1^1 *Mlcb ....'53/. "W^ 200 3i^?r'Bi^ ('jcit'i.'siy) •^iT?i( VWv 'i^TT 3H^?T ^tffcfr 'reirar ^ftff an^r 4. Statement of the accused Cr.P.C. in which he denied the md he is innocent and has been fa!se|y implicated in the crime in question. Prior to this judgment, ths appellant w^ and sentenced to undergo imri|iso and therefore, on appeal fiied bvi Court videjudgmentdated 1.12.2( opportunityto the accused for cro; pass the judgment. Accordingly, 'kllf<-l41-< WivS ^JSCS <[»lt<;l< ii'aiRro ail^r was recorded under Section 313 of the terial appearing against him and stated that S convicted under Section 302 of the IPC riment for life vide iudgment dated 30.10.97 as the opportunity was not given (o him for cross examination of the witness |him, the conviction was set asia'e bv this P05 and the trial Court was directed fo give examination of the witnesses and then to he opportunity for cross examination was given and after hearing the coun^ei for the parties, the impugned judgment j tias been passed. ! 5. We have heard Shri Abh^ Tiwari and Smt. Savita Tiwari learned counsel for the appellant and Shr| State. Rakesh Jha, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the Learned counsel for the apt^ilant has not disputed the homicidat death of deceased Kartami Ganga. Mor;eover, Dr. R.K. Kuruwanshi (P.W.-6) has stated that on 30.07.86 he conducjted post mortem examination on the body 'l- si^5-s-£ 'SvSf ^|*||<>i4, tiiTfl+l'Ko, (s|01^3< ^ ^C^..A..J3?./.S3. ^ 200 3ii^?r iRra; (yt(I-i'N<i!T) ^iIWiW TP?T sn^r $p+ii<q) 'S^IIW ^lfef 3II^T <4il^te4N 'WT^f ^f,fe[3t ^1<$R '^3JfOT 311^1 A:A of deceased Kartami Ganga and th^re was a penetrating wound An the centre of the chest (sternum) in the size o' said injury extended up to the heari vesserif"There was a lot of biood pi 1 mortem and the death was hotnicid has been corroborated by the eS/ide that the accused shot an arrow wit Thus, from the above medical and death of Kartami Ganaa was homici 7. As far as the involvement o1 1.5". On dlssection, it was found that the .damaging the same as well as the blood esent in the chest and the injury was ante al in nature. The above medical evidence nce of Sunil Singh (PW-5) who has stated |i the bow on the chest of Kartami Gaga. locular evidence it is established that the fcial in nature. the accused in the crime in question is i p.m. the accused informed hlm that concerned, Sunil Singh (PW-5) ha^ stated that on 29.7.1996 at about 4.00 deceased Kartami Ganaa had stolen the j bicycle of one Amar Singh. There^fter, Kartami Ganga himself came and informed him that he had not stolei^ the bicycie but even then he was being termed as thief. Thereafter, he tojak Kartami Ganga to the house of the accused but the accused was not present there. in the night he atong with Kartami Ganga went to the house iof one Suraj where son of Suraj namely 1 Jagdev, Nandlai and some other ^ersons were playing cards. At that time accused also came there. When is witness asked him as to whv he was [gyeling al!agation of theft of bicyc!* against the accussd though h©has not -J '••^"\ ^.^••—'-^••^^ flA._. '"- 't s ^A-. Sl^s^l ^te-^' 'SSBI '^i^ici^i, aixn'y'iffi, fartiyy .& ..<^C:.^..'..J.33/...CS] •WV g^^....^....-'.....-............-......*....../...........^ 200 sn^r IRW (ijtit.^jiiu) 31'^Fqir K-li.'n W Sf^f! skW* T^giwafsg 3ii^i committed it, exchange of bot wo| accused and the deceased startedl When he was goina to leave Kartal house of the accused and -as accused fled from the scene of occ other persons of the village namety came to the place of occurrence ai *wid<i)-< >)i*)i'iftf.fe^ <Ri<i]< ^iSRfiWSn^I rds foilowed and the scuffie between the Thereafter, al! the persons left the place. 'nl Ganga at his house which iies after the socin as fhev reached near frie house of the accused, the accused who ^as sii|ing by the slde of the road in front of the house of his father-in-Taw, shbt ^r) was indulging in scuffie with him, wfiich arrow ai Kartami Ganga saying that he hit at the centre of his chest.As soon as Kartami Ganga took out the atovv from his chest, he fell down and the ^irrence. Thereafter, he informed the father of the accused namety Markami HUnga, viliage Pate! Sodi Hidma as wel! as Bhima, Mukka and Pandu etc., ali of them I by that time Kartami Ganga was already dead. In the cross examination oftiiis witness, the defence has not been able to elteit anything which discredits t^ie evidence of Suni! Singh. The evidence of Sunil Singh (PW-5) is corrobsfated by the medical evidence and the recovery of arrow from the place of ;occurrence and the bow at the instance of the accused. Thus as far as the involvement of the accused in the crime in question is concerned, it is established by legal, clinching .and ocular evitience. B.:g ..^L^LJ w J-: XI-HG—TSSg ^s 3^'^Tpn?pr, ^i-ny'ic, isirti'My . .C-r.A-. ?33/o^ •qTOW *N(cb —-•-'•----"••"- c-------^ 200 an^r ^H^t (^?^?s) ^ 7 a'li^tqn'^nw "^^1 sn^Tsh+iicn '^HSST "?if?TT ^I^T 8. Learned counsel for the aool therefore, it cannot be held that th4 1 there.was scuffle between th'e ^ccu accused and in the heat of pass therefore, the offence aileged agadst section 304-1i of the IPC. 'hwfci'il-tiWcififfs^ <R<t<;i< ^? siRpi <tii?<(i - eliant argued that there is only one injury, accused attacked the deceased with an intention to cause his death. Theyf^irther argued that just before the incident, lccu^ed and the deceased which enraged the on he shot an arrow at the deceased, hst the accused does not trave! bevond 9. On the other hand, Shri Ral^esh Jha counsel for the State supported ! the impugnedjudgment of the trial Qourt. 1 , - . - j g 10. !n order to apprecjate the ar^uments advanced by the learned counsel 1 for the appeilant, we have perusedjthe evidence of Sunil Singh (Pw-5) who witnessed the crime in question. Ttiis wltness has stated that when he and Kartami Ganga went to the house of Suraj. there was exchan.ae of hot words ? between the accused and the dece^sed and then scuffle also took place. He intervened in the matter and thereafter the persons who were playing cards in the house of the accused, ieft thejplace. However, when he was going to if ieave Kartami Ganga at his house, t|ie accused who was sitting by the side of j the road in front of the house of jhis father in iaw. shot an arrow at the deceased asking as to why he injciulged in the scuffle with him. This fact ^teeii:: i;ati ,alI-H€—78 •^i??.. 3'CTf'^FTR5q', ®Tfl«'l<o,(°101'H^< . CnT-A. 193/02. •WTCW g?wg? ....T.........,.....................<.......*..........^ 200 an^r IR% C'pf^??!) ^. •STT^T ^T'f^T^ ^^ 37i^rsi*i)qi ¥RIIWdf?tTSII^T suggests that the accused was sitti] the deceased v/ith arrow and.the inl inferredjrom the nature ofthe weap| was inflicted and the foree with background of the circum^nces. 11. In the present case, of cours^, and the deceased prior to the inciddnt was sufficient tims for the accuse <f>ltlP<tFft?I 'WRlf ^fj^t3t ^f^R^R ^aiRnsii^r ng on the wav with oreparation to attack ention of ths accused can be nathered or m used, oart of the body where the iniun/ which it was infiicted, aiong with the there was scuffie between the accused in the house of Suraj, thereafter, there i to cool down but ih stead of that he prepared him- self with the bow an^ arrow, sat in front bf the house of his father in law watehing the deceased theroad, he shot an arrow, a deacj i the deceased. The arrow was shot and when the deceased was oassing bv !y weapon, on the vital part iike chest of with such a foree that it osnetrated the j chest of the deceased and damagejd the heart as weil as the blood vessels and the Kartami Ganga ciied spont^neousiy. Thus, intention of the accused was writ large to commitths murder Oft'ne deceased. 12. In view of the aforesaid diseussion, we are of the opinion that the accused has riahtiy been convicted tbv the triai Court under section 302 of the 1 !PC and sentenced to undergo imprjsonment for llfe and pay fine of Rs. 500/- i. Therefore, we do not find any illegal ity or infirmity in the findings recorded by ••=—'-=1.^.-^. -.-.-.j sEiS6iist.^i r-^-K? 3:c^'.^rpn^Rr, aTfl+)'i6, fa^iuy ^ WTOIT *Ntcb ;_.<2xA.i...t.3.S/^ "HT; 200 aii^?r ^RW (1pfg?5?T) sn^i 5^ Rt'ii'n wff sn^i sk^i<* ^^ii^R -Hf?<r sn^r the trial Court in the impuaned, substance is hereby dismissed. Sd/. L.C. Bhadoo Judge <4tftlEsTqlt ''Wl^tf 'cfj^1^ ^t^R ^? 3<ig»TSII^T judgment. The appeal being devoid of y"& 1 Sd/- T.P.Shaigna Judge f& ^-