WW, §§? E1 €.,W mm . gm Aff l8l _ Wm (W) mmm WW %€IW $ai1wm fry[ t .(S ~ RESPONDENT State Statio (CG) D.B .: HON’BLE SHRI St NIL KUMAR SINHA, J. ORAL §UDGMENT (22. L.C. Bhadoq, J:- Smt. Savita Tiwari, coun Shn' Akhil Mishra, Panel Heard. L€arned counsel for the the appellant is in detention s accused] appellant submitted that \\o\f single injury, therefore, it m: ince last 5 Yeme and this matter is GRPRJ <1) Fb/. \ a1 No.181 2004 f Chhattisgarh through Police Ramanujnagar, District-Sarguja 38.2007) ‘ sel for the appenant. Lawyer for the State. 1y be heard finally. HON’BLE SHRI LC. BHADOO, J. & m m.........€.?.. ?..§.}u..nuv,i.nW 200% mm (W) WWW ‘ ‘79,. r— WW WW %ai&mané¥t VShri Akhjl Mishra, Pancl Lawy6r appealing on behalf of The State has no objection. This appeal is dir€ctéd against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.1.2004, passed by the First “Additional Sessions Judge, Six Tajpur, Saiguja (C.G.) in Sessions Judge, after‘holding the accus :d/ appellant guilty for commission of oEence punishable under Section 302 of LP.C., sentenced him and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ —, in r undergo R.I. for 3 months. secution in brief is that the of the deceased-Gulal Pando. namely —Pawaro Bai was at the o and she Was pregnant. On the came to the houseof the deceased Bai to his house. In this regard between the two, on which, the axe, lying on the spot and ead once, as a result of which, he ' Pando(PW- 1) gave merg intimation mnujnagar, based on that, hrst K‘Qs‘cene of occurrence and after t registered. The S.H.O. left for the the learned Additional Sessions Txial No.446/2002, whereby to undergo imprisonment for default of payment of fine to The case of the pr accused/appellant is son-in- Wife of the accused] appellan house of ha: famer-Gulal Ran fateful day, accused] appellant (father-in—law) to take Pa there was some quarrel accusedjappellant picked up attacked Gulal Pando on his succumbed to the injury. M EXP] 1 in Police Station-Ra information report EX.P/ 2 was 7" ‘ giving notice to the Panchas (Ex. ' ' w \ e W ,W— a,i _ n ’ C?» f ((#2‘ n L \ x: * P/ 3) prepared mquest (bx P] 4) on the body of Gulal Pando. The and plain soil were taken into 3mssess1on from the place of o currence under Ex P/5 while the weapon ofoEence 1 e axe, was e1zed under EX P/6 The clothes under Ex P/7 Body of Gulal examination to Government Ex Pill Where Dr HP.Singh Hosp1ta1 RamanuJnagar und (PW 10) conducted postmorte and opmed that the cause of death was shock syncope on a count of rupture of cramal cav1ty brain matter was commg out and the death was homlcrdal m nature. He prepared postm report under EXP] 10. After completion of the estigation, charge sheet was filed e’ First Class, Surajpur, who in in the Court of Judicial Mag ' v turn, committed the case to S ssions Judge, Sarguja, from where the learned Additional Sess' ns Judge received the case on sfer for trial The prosecution 1n orde to estabhsh the charge agamst the accused examined as many s 11 Witnesses The statement of accused was recorded under ec’uon 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1n which he deme the materlal appearing agam st him stated that he 1s mnocent and in the prosecution ev1dence \_ has been falsely implicated in d crime. ug. m r o m i t e @ XI—Hc 7s WW,W€W WT W...Q?¥1 \ gg‘ “i 200$ i mm (W) ‘ .. mmwm v4_ mwxm The leam€d Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the counsel for respective parties convicted and seatenced the "' accused as aforementionedV we have heard le ‘tiie record. Leained counsel for tlge homicidal death of stated that accused] appe m Paildo. Moreover, PW—2—Nan Bai'had t attacked the deceased with the axe on his head in her presenc , as a result ofwhich, he sustained the injuly and died spontaneo sly. The above evidence f Nan Bai (eye Witness) is corroborated by the medical evidence o Dr. H.P.Singh(PW— 10), who had stated that on 15.8.2002, at abo 12.30 p.m., he conducted posunortem on the bodvhf Gulal Pand and saw that there was a large wound on the'head of the decea ed, which was caused by some sharp edged weapon, brain mat r was damaged, it was coming out of the injury and the death as homicidal in nature. Therefore, in View of the ocular as we as medical evidence, it is established that the death of Gulal P do was homicidal in nature. As far as involveme t of the accused] appellant in crime in question is concerned, PW 2- Nan Bai, who is an eye—witness, hagL stated that her house is djoining to the house of Gulal Pando. a G XI—Hc—78 W b» \\ her fathef’s house. She v Panjabi Panda, he came tc tha; accused/appellant att head. In crgss-examjnation able to elicit any Circumstz tinsA mmessm . Moreover, recovered and‘the Doctor r ‘ 7as manied to accused] appellant - t téke his Wife to his house. She saw acked the deceased with axe on his of this Witness, defence has not been Luce, which discredits the evidence of weapon of oil'ence i.e. axe was stated that there was one injury on matter was coming out of the injury, an Bai(PW—2) is coxroborated by the do(WV— 1) has also stated that on the ter came to his house and informed father’s house and accused] appellant ~Panjabi Pando has come to take his wife, in that regard, there was a quarrel between Gul Panjabi Panda attacked therefore, the evidence of medical evidence. The judgment of the medical evidence regarding; in crime in question. Learned counsel for from the facts of the case, between father—in-law and A the head of Gulal Pande b therefore, the evidence of medical evidence, Mazi P fateful day, Nan Bai, his that Pawaro Bai came to h Pando and Panjabi Panda, on which, Pando with an axe on his head, zi Pando is also corroborated by the nial Court is based on the clinching involvement of the accused] appellant the accused] appellant submitted that it appears that the quairel started inl’ son—in—law on a petty matter, as the i ‘s \_ d e a W WWAWW) m 20M Wm (W) i . mm 1W. gwm Wm (W) mwm _7_ WWWI?WW $31W311€¥I V is husband of Pawaro Bai, dz accused] appellant came to take at her father’s house. As ‘far as PW—l Mazi Pando that the dece: With. hsr husband-accused] apy in between the two and in thg §icked upan axe and attacked result of which, he sustained fa The above Version of the wi medical evidence. As there w fact mmains that the accused arm and at a spur of moment, an altercah'on took place between fatherein‘la’w and the son-i114, w regarding sending Pawaro Bai »r Lughter of the deceased and the Pawaro Bai to his house, who was the version lodged in the F.I.R. by ased was not sending Pawaro Bai ellant, therefore, a quairel ensued 1t pmcess, the accused] appellant 3111a1 Pando once on, his head, as a tal injuly and died spontaneously. sses is also corroborated by the v‘ f only one injury on the head, the ent to bring his wife Without any husband—accused. accused] appellant picked up a all of a sudden, Without any 1 heat of passion, attacked the with her therefore, case of the acct A / I‘PZC. is not made out again thereof, the above facts sugg 304 part II of I.P.C. is made ou in that / appellant, process, Ke, which was lying on the spot and )re-meditation or preparation, in a ieceased once, which proved fatal, [sat/appellant is covered under exceptionito n! Section 300 of LP. C. and offence under Section 302 of st the accused/appellant, instead est that the offence under Section t. WW,W,W 3mm (13W) WWW WWW > g‘_ Wmgg‘ww ‘ wm‘m Ifl the result, the appsal partly succeeds. The conviction the accused] appellant under Section 4 and sentence imposed upbn accused] 302 of I.P.C. are set aside. Instead thereof, he is convicted under i f‘fSection 304 part II of I.P.C. ' d sentenced to undergo RI. for 7 years. lt‘is stated that the ac used] appellant is in detention since l6.8.2002 till The ac used] appellant shall be entitled for today. the set oé‘for the above de ention period against the sentence impOsed upon the accused. ‘eM 5°” . L i ‘ sdl- _ Kumar Sinha . J1 t Llc-BHADOO Suml Judge Judge VA f GRPRJ {153/246 EEOOI—soyoo. ‘—