——78 WW, m, W ‘ LV..O.9© WW @ w: 20m mm (W) WWW ‘ ammm Wwm APPELLANTS {IN JAEL) WWW f§Q§W awimanéw 1. Sadhu Ram, S/o Ronu Ram Age 29 years, R/o Sargipal Hikmipara. gu REsPONDENT: . Presrmt: ~ Shzi RN. Jha, counsal for the z Shri Ashish Shukla, Addition: Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the S QRAL (Deliversd LEE, Bhadea, J. 1) This appeal is dimcted aga oniar of SGBtEnC€ dated 27 Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Bastar at Jagdalpur 1'41 S.T. No.118j2000 whereby learned Special Judge after holding accused Sadhu of otfeneg uncle: Section 302 of the \ Ram guilty for commission Ronu Ram; S/o Sonu Raln, Age 62 years, R/ 0 Sargipai Hikmipara, Pohce. Statioxi Bodhghat, Jagdalpur, District: Bastar. Isrsus— T116 State of Chhatu'sgarh, gapellants. i1 Public Prcisacutor with Shzi Akhil tate/ respandent. ———._.__.~.__._L__~_ JUDGMENT 011 10-4-2907) 11st the judgment of conviction emd h Juno 2001 passed by file Spocial Qivision Beach: - Hon’ble Hen’ble Shrk Sh i Bhieemlta L.C. Bhatleo Misha &. tw. XI—HC 78 WW, WWI—<5,W Wm WW (W) 01‘ @ wt 200 WWW ‘ ammm mmm LP} 3., ssn’mncea 51m to 11118 a fme of Rs.500,/—, 1'11 dafE undergo RI. for 1 year; an‘ commission of oEence unde of th€ I.P.C., sentenced hip to pay a fme of RS.SOG/—, in V .‘ undergo RI. for 1 year. f5\ 4'} Case of the prosecution, in 1 @bout 4 pni PW—2 Laxmé 5 Sadhu Ram also came the: were also present in the te: took their meal. At about mmeeam mmm ergo mpnsonment ior Eie Ev; to {my 111t of payment of tine to further i co-accused Ronu Ram guilty for 1: Section 302 lead With Section 34 to undergo imprisonment for life 85 iefault of payment ‘of fine to further mief, is that on 3rd January 2000 at Ln went to LaXInan Devi Temp1e. ‘ 1n 1e. Accused Ronu Ram and ‘e. Hando, Sampat and Sukhdev nple. After performincr Pooja they .30 p.111. Lachchu Gond also came od. After some time they started eir residence, at that time Lachchu as to why they are defaming him t of committing theft of ‘Sulphi’. u Ram brought trident (Trishul), However, Laxman intervened, as on the tight eyebrow of Laxman, to snatch the trident from Sadhu 7ent inside the temple and brought hing towards Lachchu. Accused Accused Sadhu i Kadari on his head and chest, as a 1 there. Laxman gave him f leaving temple for going to t (Since deceased) asked Ro saying that he is in the Hearing this, accused Sad attempted to attack Lachc a result of which trident h' but Laxman could manage Ram, on which Sadhu Ram Kadali (knife), he came ru Ronu caught hold of Lachc u by his hands. Ram attacked Lachchu with \ \ f ll down. Thereafter, Sadhu Ram \ Iesult of which Lachchu ““h n h h . i XI-HC—78 v1 200 man W 31m attacEea 3—4 times WEE a Ks succumbed t0 the. injurias S}: 3) Th€ raport EX.-P/2 was 10d by Laxmall (PW—2). M6rg im Laxman. Aftm" registratiofl of 1€ft for scans of occun‘snce. thq body of Lachchu. Whj Sadhu Ram gave memoralld sweapcn 9f offenca Kadxi (1 Trident was sei2€d under E: sent for vimstmortem exami Jagdalpur urmier EX.-P[ 12 conducted the postmortem Ex.—P[24 in which he ox} haemon‘hagc and shock on him. Death was homicidal 1r ilnjum'eg of Laxman and he weapon of oiTence, was also t his report EX.-P/ 11—A. Site E a f mwcwm $afméné¥1 a an, as a result of which Lachchu ontaneously. ged in the. Police Station Bodhghat jmation EX.—P/3 was also given by the crime, the Investigating onicer He prepared inquest EX.-P/4 on 1e in the police custody, accused 1m EX.—P/'5, in pursuance of that, :nife) was seized under EX.-P/6. :.-Pi17. The body of Lachchu was iation to the Maharani Hospital, where Dr. Vivek Joshi (PW-9) and prepared postmortem repott ined that cause. of death was account of injuries sustained by nature Dr. KM. Gupta examined gave. his report Ex.-P/9. Kadri, ixamined by Dr. Joshi and he gave lan EX.-P/ 15 was ntepared. "on, charge sheet was filed in the gistrae, Jagdalpui‘, who in turn ecial Judge, Jagdalpur, where the. esses. Statements of the accused Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they gainst them in the prosecution 4) After completion of investig Court of Chief Judicial M committed the case to the S nrosecution examined l 1 Wi persons were recorded unde ‘ denied material appearing Wm Wm (W) @ 4 Wm m 200 mm (W) WWW t mmm WM§1§QNW awfwm evidallcs. They stated that they have. been impEEaTacFm a false crime 011 account 0f animc sity. 0116 deferlce witnass namely, Murha was examined as DV {— 1. Leaxned Special Judge ‘ai‘ter healing arguments of lealned couxlsel for the respectivetparties, convicted and sentenced the accused g3ersons as aforeme 11tioned.. ‘Vi‘ 1 6‘: We have. .11eaxd leaned cou gearned counsel for the. a cusedllappellemts has not disputed homicidal death of deceas .d Lachchu. Moreovex, as per the evidence. of PW—2 Laxman sel for the parties, PW—4 Mangh' Bai, who witnessed the crhne in question as a1 o evidence of PW—9 Dr. Vivek Joshi, who conducted postmoit and has stated that the. death of the deceased was homicid l in nature} it is estabhshed that death was homicidal in na ire. As far as involvement of th accused; appellants in the ci‘ime in question is concerned, th‘ incident was witnessed by PW—2 Laxman, brother of the de eased and PW—4 Mangli Bai, wife of Laxman. They have catego 'cally stated that on the fateful. day they were present in the ple. When Lachchu asked Ronn Rant as to why he is hei defamed saying that he is thief of Sulphi, on which Sadhu m, son of «co-accused Ronu Ram, brought trident and tried t attack, on which he intervened and he sustained injury on th. right eyebrow, somehow he could manage to snatch the trident. Thereafter, Sadhu Rain went d e ,m n a XI—HC 78 w Wm an 200 mm (W) ‘ ammm may; mfm g WW%H&&? WWW %@W $§Rmemé¥r 1113136 tEs tsmple and Emu; 1t Kadeui (Knife) w emas, accused Ronu Ram caught hcld of Lachchu. by his hands. Accused Sadhu Ram attacked with knife on his chest and head, as a result of which Lachchu feil down. ln the meanthne, accueed Rona Ear}. away but accus'ecl Sadhu agaixl. attacked Lachchu on his back with a. Kadn', as a result of which he succumbed $0 the a ‘mjuries. The evidence of these two witnesses is consistent. We d0 hot find auy i11§1mity in the evidence of ‘dlese two Witnesses. Even 1'11 crossexammation’ defence has not heen able to bring on record‘ any Circumstance to diecyedit the evidence of fliese two witnesses. Moreover, PW—Q Laxman Lutervened in The first n iustaglce when accused Sgdhu attempted to attack Lachchu with a trident: as a result of which this Witness sustained injuly of tn‘dent on his right eyebrow, Therefore, from the evidence of these two eyewitnesses, it is‘ established that accused Sadhu in the first instance attacked the deceased with knife on his chest aad head, at that tmle, accused Ronu was holding Lachchu, thei‘eaftei‘, Lachchu fell doivn aiid' Ronu ran awav. Accused Sadhu even at that time did not stop and he again attacked Lachchu with Kadri, as a result of which Lachchu sustained fatal injuries. Even his lungs wei‘e damaged. Their ocular evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Vivek Joshi (PW—9) as also eviden 3e of PW~?«Dr. KM. Gupta who has stated that he examined inj dries of Laxxnan. As far as accused Sadhu is concerned, it is established from the clear, cogent and A . WV _\ § \\i\ legal evidence that he a ackedi the deceased with Kadri g XI—HC—7~8 WW3: 6 m E ,3 g7 @ Now, coming to the nature of crime committed by accused Ronu i9) Ram, Shri Jha argued the establish that accuged‘tE intention With Sadhu Ram t ‘He glrew attention of th€ C01 m Whicki it has baen m€nti011 gried to attack the. d€caase snatched, ‘he went insidE t? attack€d Lachchu with Kat caught hoid of Lachchu t assaults, deceased Lachchu Even thereaftér accused E attacked 3—4 times on the be lungs cf the deceased. From be said that accused. Ronu V at the prosecution has failed to )nu Ram was having common ) commit murder of the deceased. .rt towards ELR. given by Laxmaxx ed that in :the first instance Sadhu 1 with trident, when trident was 1e temple, brought Kadri and he iri, at that time, accused Ronu i. 3f his hands, when he made 3 Fell down, Accused Ronu ran away. adhu continued to attack. He ck side of the body which damaged the above facts, at the most, it can was sharing intention 1115 to the extent of causing grievous injury with a sharp edged weapon i.e. knife because when initially injuries were caused, accused Ronu Ram ran away. Thereafter, he did not paiticipate in the cti'me but accused Sadhu Ram continued to attack. This shows that when he caught hold cf deceased Lachchu he was having knowledge that accused Sadhu would cause giievous injuxies with knife. Therefore, Oder}.ce under Section 326 of the I.P.C. against accused Ronu Rani jvas made out. K :m m. ui 200 3W m (W) intenhon to—éme—deadrof—EWe mercilessly With caused as many as '7 injuries on the vital part of the body. XI-HC——78 W 3a ma, WSW, @ Wm (Wig) ama w§ $ i a&ma%% $ zwmmu§aa&m wwwiwm aswm conv1ctlon and sanmnce mlposed Lder Section 302 read with Section Ftajned. iOjFcE“ {lie ’fm‘egoing masons, upon accu3ed Ronu Ram 111i 34 of tha LRC. cannot be sué 1 1) In the fault, ‘ {i} Appaal of accused SahJ b6 dismi$s€d and it is he fmd guy illegakty or iniiJ Mal Court. HOWEVEr, def yaar imposad upon accus‘ Rl. for one month. (ii) AppEél‘ of accusod l?onu Ram partly succeeds. Conviction and sentence Section 302 read with SE aside. Instead thereof, 1" imposed upon him under ction 34 of the I.P.C. are set e is convicted under Section 326 of the I,P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rl. for 3 His bail bonds an: cancelled. He is directed to years. suxmnder before ths tn'eJ sentence, It is made cldar that accused Ronn Ram off for the detention period shall b6 entitled for set during investigation and #I‘ Sdl— L.C.BHADOO Judge Ban/e Wm in 200 P1 Ram fails, same is Eable to reby dismissed, as we do not mity in the judgment of the ault sentence of RI. for one. ed Sadhu Ram is reduced to Court to undergo remaining v‘r r! Sd/- Judge 1 '