.^••f^. ^*' 'M XII-TSifiJiH) C,;\ ^IL» MW ..*''-'. • •"• t.fc.A ^•^•'i'-" .•^iaoac a? > s'-t.s: rn^; .—-1->L-^^^ ^^S.^'T ^"^' ^, •"^i' ^^^^^)^ef-'7/7^^?rvn?<sy^ Rcsideace y^ - v ^ _ . Aae ~?B r- '. / ' " ' x^^ ' i^TVnjyj^iy^— nv — 'se<af^ (^•fy}/ rii ^tieaseHced S.u cnTTpm^-'^.) oa ^Sr-S' 1790 > iUnder snti^^JS0^^^^^ •WS7^V-^^.W%^^5^^^ v-3-«'s; SSS^.' ' ^?'-»'J W^!o'y»ys~^fe^^QW>s»ye's-feyy itis expltiaedto'As orisoneT that if he ttates or wisltet to be represented'l^'legail laaditionw the Appdiate Coart will iiot procecd with the base fbr sev^ days naless tbe feei pfactitionerappeaTs. Ifthe legal practittoner does not appea^»41iiasevea daysheniaynoE hcardataU . Ifthe prisoner states ibaS.he does not •^f&fQ^ nted by 1%«1 practitioner the court may proceed at once with Ae^ase airi'D beoi>t(geAtagi»sahe»Fiagtffaaytegalpractitioaerwlioshouldai^>ey. ^^, '•--! ^ Datc ofAp^licatioa &»Ecoj>y ofJa4gemeat Cate oF'whlcli crpy Rcdwd Datc oa wiiidi Appeal sent ^J^C&^ ~S23~ ^f^-J9?6 ^- t>-<7-^ ^isdicrtbepnsoaerwMlicstobs represeiitedor not-Yes f No . Mo» ^-?^6. NanK Continued jm__^&^2 '\.' • _ /: wl~5T~~ Jail =S"^-<'/4 ^—<^^'^/.y -gfl 'ST^32 <~sflT _^S 1 Nc. eS-r//A<?^/»vi?liDated 5^ft/^z>_I9S___^ il-<^^ t»teCl^J90fetti^ASiSTftATE^^3;lPfe.W^^ TTxAi ^^ ^) 3-c-y '-Hi-^itifTf ^iye>/ff^^ fii guEier whiAa copy af ordcr passed inthe casefor favour of tFansmissionto Sie Saperintendent ©atcof reoeqit in C. J. M 's office^ Malte oficoeipt r<t»fdto aoconipany, jE^anoofAppeatpftlie Appeliatecourt i No ' _;._:__Dated_ PonsaTded ta-die ^4t. ^'.'.t.v ^ ^~ HJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIL^PUR Cr.Appeal No.990/1990 Budhram -Versus- State of Chhattisearh Judgmeut for consideration i i -:, • Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Hon'ble Shri Justice Fakhruddia 5_ Fakhruddin le Postfor ^_,Q8.2Qa5_- Sd/- JUDGE .08,2005 ^5') •^'ry HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (^.ApBeaI N0.99^/1990 Budlu-ara -Versus- State of Chhatdsgarh CORAM: HOH'BLE SHRI FAKHRUDDIN AND H^irBLESHRI DiypRAOSAHBB^BSHMUIffiL«y AppeUant by SmtNisha Chatmvedi, Advocate. State by Shri AUul Mishra, P.L. JUDGMBNT (Delivered on l£.08.2005) Per DiUp Rapsaheb Deslunukh, J. This appeal is directed agaiust fhe judgiaent dated 25 August 1990 deUvered by Shri Dinesh Chaadra Dubey, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in. sessions trial No.5/89 whereby the appeUaat was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. for coTnmiitting inurder of Budhju Bai on 30.08.1988 in vfflage Kodopara aad was sentenced to iiadei^o iBiprisoiunent for Ufe. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution stoiy is that KhuyuTaai had gone to Punjab for eanung his livelihood. On 29.8.1988 tus parents had given a dinner to celebrate bis retura froni Punjab. Appellant Budhram. was also iavited. Liquor was consumed alongwith food. In the eveniag at 4.00 P.M, the appellant Budhrain iavited eveiybody for party. Budhni Bai, inother of Khuyuram also went to fhe house of the appeUaat. After the pariy, Aiiganuram, Kariyo Bai and Santosh alongwith the appeUant and Khuyuram were <?^ -s- retunung hoine. During talks wifh Khuyuraai, fhe appeUant got aaaoyed and he dealt 2-3 fist blows to Khuyuram. There was a scufEle iu which Khuyurani feUed fhe appeUant on fhe grouiid. Vijay aad Aagaau separated fhe appeUant and Khuym-am. aad locked fhe appellaat inside the house of one Budhna Uraon. However, after soinetim.e the appeUaut soiuehow inanaged to break open fhe door and picking aa axe froni fhe house of Budhna chased Khuyuram but Khuyuram. ran away. Fiuding Budlmi Bai, mother of Khuyuram, aloae, fhe appeUant strucls: twice with the 'Taagia over the back of occipital region aad fhe back of neck of Budhni Bai as a result of which she died on fhe spot. After somettme, the appeUaut went to Santosh aad asked him fhe whereabouts of Khuyuram. When Santosh asked the appeUant to retum.to his honie, fhe appe11ant dealt a Tangia blow on fhe neck of Santosh who feU down and succunibed to the iujury soon after. 3. Khu3TUTam. lodged F.I.R. iu Police Station Saiuia vide Ex.P.17. Panchnaniaofthe dead bodyofBudhiu Baiwas prepared vide Ex, P.6 by Assistaat Sub-Inspector S. S. Dhruv P.W.16. Dr. P.L.Gupta, Block Medical OfScer, P.W.12 conducted the autopsy and found one iacised wound over back of occipital region mid Ime 3" x 1" x Ya" with big blood clots inside the wound. Mat^ilis were regular. Undemeath the occipital bone was fi-actured into pieces. Another incised woiuid over back of neck just half in.ch below ttie above wound size 3W x Va" x Vi' with mar^ins regiilar. AU subeutaaeous tissue aad inuscles undenieath these wounds were cut. Big blood clots were present aild niaigias were regular. He opined fhat aU these iujuries were aip 'pliBq jaipo 3tp UQ 'O'd'I KOE Tioi^oas -lapttn lT[B[[3d& 3lp jo ^TRlS aqi siaoq Suuq i.oa saop pTCB a^qBliai ^oa si sassaiqTAi JBplOO JO AlOTUtl.Sa^ 3Tp l.Bq^ pTm.ojS ai.p uo ^piieui i.iteiisdds wy. jo uoitaiAUoo STR pairessB saq ^aeiiaddB aip aoj psTmoo patiieyi •9 •Teg taqpng jo -tap.rmii 8Tic4TConi03 JQJ fOEQaddiB atp pa^oiAnoo ET 'M'd ^dnO ^ •d ••IQ jo ^aonissa^ STR pxre /,-A'd •mBjniRar 'g'M'd RBt°BAATA 'S'A'd iitE-mAnipi jo AaouTpea^ 3x0 uo Sin-i^ai aSpTip ^Biq sqj, 'aoTiapTAs ou pai ptte aouajsp ai aoTtaoouni p3pB3[d 'fBiif. p3Ttrre[o -fwa^adSB aqj, "O'd'I g0£ uoTi.oag .lapTm. pa^noasojd SEA ^TEB[[3ddB 3Ip 'UOpBSpSSATtl JO UORS[dui03 J3y/ "S •paiimua^ap aq ^on p]noo TiiSuo Jiaq^ pue pa^B-iSa^uisip aq o^ punoj 3J3A sappje asatp uo surB^spooiq 3Tp 'J3A3AOH •UOpEUnitBX3 JOJ BIpUI jo ^u3TiitU3AOo jo jautuiyxg {eopiiaqO pttE ^siSoio-iag o^ ^uas OS{B ajaA sapp.re asaqj, •^TtETjaddB aip jo saipop aq^ uo SB ^[3M SB BlStIEJ, 3Tp TIO poo^q punoj 6T"d'x3 1-iodai apiA oqA jaunilExg ^oTmaqo 310 o^ aopBuiiuexa IBOTai3T[3 JOJ ^ttSS 3J3A SSpT^JG 3S3T[j^ 'yiEyadSja 3Tp uio-g pazias 3J3M siltB^s 35[ti pooiq TOUA. iSnn^ auo pire SUTKI.S 35[ii pooiq TpIA (^S3A) TCBTtIBg OpnBg 3UO '.latsa^od Ausns^ auo gT'd •xg apTA •^ireiiaddB SIR vaoj} ird'xg apiA paziss SBAI BiSinsj. STIO 'oi'd"xa umpTre.ioniaui spi jo sis^q atp ao 'uopBSpsaAiii STIUTIQ -^. •ain^BU ui ]BppTaioq SBA pUB sdoOTliCs O^ SuipBSl 5[ooqs piie 3§Bq.uoui3Bq o^ anp paenso SBM TpBap 'noTOido siq a; 'noi^BLiiuiBxa jo s-inoq gfr TITCRTA ^oafqo Awsq pixe dieqs B jtq pasnBO 3J3A pTce ^snoaue^Tietsui ip^sp asuBo o^ ^uapggns pue TIIS^IOTII a^Tie 'arrqBn ui snoAsuS -£- ^ -tf- Govemment Advocate has supported the judgiaent of the trial Court. 7. We have considered the rival conteations and also perused the record of fhe lower Court. Khuyuram P.W.5 is the son of deceased Budhni Bai. He has deposed fhat on his retum froio. Punjab he had gone with fhe appeUant to his house where the appeUaat had ofFered liquor to him. After consumiag liquor while they were retuming, fhie appeUaat suddenly got annoyed and hit him. thrice wifh fists. At fhis juncture, his inofher Budhni Bai was going ahead of fheiu. There was a scuflle iu which Khuyuram and Budhram both feU down. Jethu Lohar and Budhna separated the appetlaat aad locked TiiTn in. fhe house of Budhna. While Khuyuram P.W.5 and his inother were proceeding towards house, the appeUant suddenly emerged froin the house of Budhna with an axe whereupon Aaagaau asked Khuyuram to run away. Botti the brothers started ninnmg in separate directions. It was then that the appellant struck Budhiu Bai by fhe Taugia on the neck from fhe back whereupon Budhni feU down and died on the spot So far as the assault by the appeUant by axe on Budhni Bai is concemed, the testiinony of Khuyuraru is whoUy unrebutted in cross- examiaation. Khuyiiram P.W.5 had also inentioned the abovementioned facts in the F.I.R. Ex.P.17 lodged on 31.08.1998. Leamed counsel for the appeUaat has contended that Khuyuram is fhe son of the deceased, and therefore, aa iaterested witaess and his testimony caiuiot be relied on. It is fairly weU scttied iu law that the evidence of a witness related either to fh.e deceased or the iajlired is not to be autoinaticaUy rejected notwifhstandiag the fact w -5- that it is cogent, credible and trustworthy. Applying fhis priiiciple laid down by fhe Apex Court ia R. Prakash v. Staie of Kamataka, reported in A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 1812, we find fhat the testimony of Khuyuram. inspires confidence, his presence at fhe place of occurrence is natural siace he was retuniiug with the appeUant after consumiag Uquor at his house. Therefore, fh.e credible testiinony of Khuyuram. P.W.5 cannot be rejected xaerely on fhe ground fhat he is aa inteiested witness. 8. Viviyamati P.W.6 has also deposed fhat seeing fhe appeUaat running with the axe she got frightened and hid inside her house aad after soine titne she saw fhat Budhni Bai was lying dead near fhe Imli trce. This suggestion has coine totaUy froin fhe defence ia her cross-examiuation. Jethuram. P.W.7 has also deposed fhat KhuyT.train aad Budhram were iatoxicated aad there was a scuBle between theni. He along wifh Budhna separated fhe appeUailt and locked hita iaside fhe house of Budhna. After sonie time, he found fhat fhe dead body of Budlmi Bai was lyiag at a distaace ITOIU his house with uijury at the back of head aad blood oo2ang froin the iujuiy. SaKharaia P.W.8 has also deposed thaf Viviyamati, daughter of MarhuTam. had told him that Budhram had kUled Budhni Bai by assaulting her by a Taagia. The facts narrated above have not been rebutted ia cross-examination of these witnesses. 9. Bhola Prasad Gupta P.W.13 has also deposed that he saw fhe accused coinuig with aa axe aad abusuig ffltttily. The accused came to his shop and sat on fhe board and banged fhe Taagia -r- twice or thrice on fhe board in utter aruioyance. After sonie time the accused weat towards his house. 10. The testimony of Dr. P.L.Gupta P.W.12 establishes beyond doubt that the deceased Budlmi Bai had sustained one incised wound over back of occipital region mid luie 3" x l" x Va" with big blood clots inside the wound. Marguis were regular. Undemeafh the occipital bone was fractured tato pieces. Another incised wouad over back ofneckjust halfinch below fhe above wound size 3%" X Ya" X y2" with luargins regular. AU subcutaaeous tissue and niuscles uiidemeafh fhese wounds were cut. Big blood clots were present and Diargins were regular. He opined fhat atl these injuries were grievous ia nature, ante inorteni and sufficient to cause death instantaneously and were caused by a sharp aad heavy object within 48 hours of exaEiunation. In his opinion, death was caused due to haeinoiThage and shock leading to syncope and was hoinicidal in nature. This testimony establishes beyond doubt that Budhni Bai had died a homicidal death. 11. Sub-Inspector K.N.Tiwari P.W.15 has proved the seizure of Tangia from. the appeUant vide Ex. P.11 on the basis of the ineinorandLun ofthe appeUant Ex. P.10. The report ofthe Forensic Science Laboratoiy Ex. P.10 estabUshes that blood stains were found on the Tangia. 12. Considering the prosecution evidence in its totality, we find fhat it has been estabUshed beyond the shadow of doubt that the appeUant-BudhTam. had coininitted niurder of Budhrd Bai by ineaus of Tangia. True, fbat it has eniei^ed in evidence that the appeUaut was iatoxicated but there is nothiag on record to show •s- that Iiquor had been adm.inistered to the appeUant agauist his will so as to give hiTn benefit of Section 85 I.P.C. The evidence also clearly shows tliat the appeUaiit was capable of Isnowing the nature of his act. No explanation has been ofifered by fhe accused for tus brutal act in coinnuttmg niurder of Biidhni Bai who ui no way provoked him. The evidence led by the prosecution shows that the accused appeUaat was ia a inurderous rage to kiU Khuyurani aiid .not fiiiding 1~mn he did not have the sUghtest hesitatiou ia eliminatiag Budhni Bai. 13. Thus, after caFeful consideration of fhe evidence led by the prosecution, we are of the considered opiiiion that the prosecution has brought horue the guilt of the appeUaat under Section 302 I.P.C. for r'oTnmitting niurder ofBudhni Bai beyond aU reasonable doubt. We therefore afHnn fhe conviction of fhe appeBant under Section 302 I.P.C. and also sentence awarded fhereunder. 14. Consequently, fhe appeal is disinissed. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge Sdl- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge