Sa-BC—78 37T^?r??T fqii^ WT 37T^?T 5T)^i<=t) 3^sr ^11^10^, ?$Tfl-MJt<o, fsi^i^^; t||<4dl sk*(i<!b •••"••""—•"""—•••••—-^ 200 3H^T XRp^ (<ic<^<^) ^WI^R ^f^a 3TT^T ApPBLLANT Narad Prasat vulag4 Rajnajadgapn RBSPONDENT D.B. State Geiids Hon'bie Shri ij Hon^ble Shri Dlhii-endra Mishraj J-J. 24-4-2007 Ku. Nirupmia Ba]pai, Shri D.K.S. Gwalre, respondent/ State. Arguinents heard. Oral judginent dictat< ^dvocate for the appellaa.t. Additional PubUc Prosecutor for tlie QRM' Per L.C.Bhadoo, J. : This appeal is direct| aiid order of sentence dateil Judge, Ra]nao.dgaon in S.' Addl. Sessions Judge aftej comniission of offence und< for committmg murder of| undergo iniprisonment for default of payment of fine, <=M<jt<n<fli *ii*inl ^fe^ <f^i^i< ^r 3iRFT ^n^r Prasad Dubey, son of Radhika Dubey, aged about 40 years, R/o. aiid Tehsil Gendatola, District ;(C..G.) Versiis of Chhattisgarh, fhrough lola, Distt Rajuandgaon (C.G,) C. Bhadoo aad P.S. non. Dais, JUDGMENT ^d agamst the judgnient of conviction 24-4-2007 passed by Addl, Sessions [. No, 146/2000, whercby the leanied holdmg accused/appellant guilty for ^jr Section 302 of tlie indiaa Penal Cod^ |Bhawaai Shankar, sentenced him to Ipfe, to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, aad ui t|? further undergo one years R.I. y frt' hi^ XI.HC—78 T^T ^WW^, ^W\<s, fsj^l'yy,; .2 inWff tb*(|cb "W^ 200 31Ti(?T XT5^ ( <icl^y«*^) 3TI^T ?FT ^Jch ^T^T 'STI^T 9t)+licb '^TTW^lf^T ^TT^T Case of the prosecution ] about 5-5.30 p.m, ui fhe eve^ the deceased went to fetch v^ater / fatjher, accused was attackmg his fhe accused is attackiag his her brofher P.W, 1 Anin Kuni^r on ftie scene. By the tim.e/ accused fled Uie scene of Arun Kiunar (P.W. 1) went to report, based on that, Fu's|i registered, Investigatiag office|r after giving notice Ex. P-2, pre^ Bhawaiii Shaakar. Blood staiol possession iinder Ex, P-5. Th^ iato possession under Ex. P- Body of Bhawam Shaakar wa^ to Priinary HealUi Centre, Ahuja, conducted post mortei^i Ex. P-20. He opined that caus( parietal bone arid mjiuies of homicidal iii nature. After was fiiled ia tlie court oi Rajnandgaon who ia tuni fAther tilie occlun-ence cfti<<i<n<iii 'Wl^f ^'fe1^ <Fn<$i< ^^iRiH^n^r |in brief is that on 10th May 2000 at liag, P,W\ 7 Ashwia Bai, daughter of from tube well, She saw that atjher, therefore, she raised cries that with a club. Hearing her cri.es, aad Diother Laxmui Bai also caiae fhree reached to her fafh.er, the canynig club ia his haad. poUce Station Gendatola aad lodged Inforaiation Report Ex. P-1 was left for the scene of occurrence, t>aj-ed iaquest Ex, P-3 on fhe body of ^d soU and plaia soU was taken uito weapon of offence, club was taken -^, site plaa Ex, P-7 was prepared^ sent for post mortem exanuiiation mider Ex. P-19 where Dr. S.K. aiid prepared post mortem report of deafii is coina due to fracfure of L|ie braiii tissues, nature of nijuiy is of investigation, charge sheet Judicial Magistrate First Class, colaiimtted the case to tiie Sessions ChhJLiriya conifcletion XI.HC—78 3^T1^T ??T'f^IW 'OTT'sn^r iFRNr |»N»r 3:^cT ^i^i^, ^TQ-M^KO, fci^i'y^ 3 •WRTT ^Wt^ ••••""••--"•"•"••""•"""""-""•""""•^200 3Tli{?T'TO^ (y^<t?T) ^<nw^n Judge, from where learaed Ad4i case on transfer for trial. The prosecution exainiaet ' - ^ ^ - .' to estabUsh the charge against| under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wt material appearing agaiast hirji stated that he is ianocent, he cnoie, Leamed Addl. Sessions J tlie respective pardes, convid aforenientioned. We have heard Ku. Ban Shri Gwalre on behalfoffhe Statte Ku. Baipai has not disput Shaakar. Moreover, eye-witaess Ashwin Bai, son and daughter| stated that Uiey saw fhe accus< The above ocular evidence of tJ by niedical evidence of Dr. S. K. on 11-5-2000 he was workiag a Centre, Chhuriya where on Uie <he conducted post niortein on noticed 4 lacerated wounds fractured aad braia was cm ^l^id^'l i<WdT'ff'fec2t <nnt$i< 'sfr^iRiH^n^r itional Sessions Judge received the 13 witnesses at the trial ia order fhe accused. Statenient ofaccused is recorded, ia which he denied the in ttie prosecution evidence aad has been falsely unpiicated ip. tlie udge after hearmg tlie counsel for ?d aiid sentenced fhe accused as |ai on behalf of the appeUant aad |ed fhe hoiaicidal deaUi of Bhawani ;s P.W. 1 Arun Kumar and P.W. 7 jof fhe deceased have categorically td attacking fheir fafher with club. lese two witaesses is corroborated lAhuja (P.W, 5) who has stated that i^ Medical Officer ui Primaiy Health ^equest of poUce station Gendatola, the bodv of Bhawaai Shaakar. He 4 abra.sions, parietal bone was L^hed, beneafh the above mjuiy, arld XF-H&—78 3?TT^T ??T ^i^h 'OTT 3TR??T fl>)+ll<=ti T^T ^||<4|<?!><4, ^Tn'M^Ko, is<01^y,| 4 -cnwff ^wN? "•••"•"-—•""""""•••• •-"•""""•^ 200 3HiST ^^^ (^qI^qqcT) ^<nw^n colma Asht^m raaridible bone was fractaredl aiid fhe case of death was ttie deafli was hoinicidal iii nj / is established fhat deafh. ofl nature, As far as iiivolvemei coinBiittbig murder of Bha^ Arun Kuinar aiid P.W, 7 deceased. They have categori^ assaultuig Uietr father aad accused fled from fhe scene haad, Evidence of eve-witnel P.W. 8 Dr. Lalit Kumar Jaml workuig ixi his ctmic, Anin Narad has attacked his fathej iiijuries, th.erefore he should he went to the place of occi deceased was sitting fhere ke< Ku. Bajpai has argued durmg day time and it has c< nuniber of persons have witn< been exajniiied. On fhe other haad, Shri of fhe torial Court. chl^id^l'1 HH<?iI^fe^ <R»I^K ^^ifiiH^n^r ui]uries were aiite mortein ia nature as a result of scuU bone fracture, iture. In view offhe above evidence, it Bhawaiii Shaiikar was homicidal ia it of fhe accused -appeUaat iii aiii Shaiikar is conceraed, P.W. 1 Bai are son aiid daughter of the laUv stated that fhev saw the accused |?hen they reached near their father, (foccun'ence canyiag fhe club m his sses is corroborated by evidence of who has stated mat when he was |<uniar caaie running and said fhat with club, blood is oozuig out offhe jcoine aad treat his father, on which Irrence aad saw that inother of the ;|3uig deceased ra her lap. that the mcident is saicl to be of Jme ui tlie prosecution evidence that |ssed flie uicident, but fhey have not Gwalre has supported tlie judgment XI-HC—78 3^5T ^14|^,'^<-141<$, fs«r'>l<-1^ ^ ^l<4d( sb^llcb WI, 200 3Hit?T-q^F (^^^T) 37T^T^ f^'ljch ^T^T 'STI^T 5h^icr» '^TTW^f^T^T^T tiltne In this case, P.W. 10 Kam|a |P.W, 12 Vijay Kumar Tripafhi h^ Itmiied hostile. It is true tha|t / |supported fhe prosecution case IKuniar aad P.W. 7 Ashwui Bai N iAshwra Bai has stated that at tti bube well to fetch water, at thaf lattackiiig his father wifh club reached to fhe scene hearfng cr^( ^vent to bring Uie doctor, who canJK jShaakar ui injured aild dead c< iAniii Kuniar caaie to him aiid dj |iis father, moreover, tlie docume] ^\run Kuinar regarduig power oi favour of his fafher Bhawani Bessions Court aad S.D.0. rc phagwan.tia Bai, the adoptive ino |the accused, From perusal of Uiej lost the case evervwhere aad he ^L the revenue record, beuig frus1 Therefore, fhere was motive beJ ^ccused, nioreover the evidence 1 ^nspirc confidence and fhere is fliscredit their version. Therefore, <=M<<t<y1<fll 'RPI^f'?? fel^t <f^1<$l< ^^ffim^n^T al Narayan, P.W. 11 Jairam and ve been exammed but they have no uidependent witaess has >ut the evidence of P.W. 1 Arun trust worthv for the reason that le tmie of incident, she went to she saw that the accused was and iaiiiiediately Arun KuBiar ^s of his sister. He im.mediately on the scene and saw Bhawaiii kidition. Doctor has stated that Isclosed fhat Narad has attacked ^.ts have been produced by P,W. 1 attomey of Bhagwaatia Bai m. phmikar aiid judgnient of the Igardiag laiid dispute between ther of Bhawaoi Shaakar as also judgments it reveals tiiat Narad ^as not able to iaclude his nanie tated, he assaiilted fhe deceased. tihid fhe assault made bv the 4>f Arun Kumar aiid Ashwia Bai tiofhiag ni cross-exainination to jwe are oftlie considercd opinion '".^.wss-s.^SSI.S^^-^^^te^ la-^^.sa-.a-..-.^,^.^..^.-.^^^ yi-H^—78 371^T?FT ^ich 'cCT W^T ^niN? ^*^^ -3'^T^TPTT^^ ^WI^, R^i-My? 6 ® ^l^dl sb^lcb "^ 200 an^T xi^? (y^y^) ^mW 1RftU ^TT^T that the fmding of fhe trial| comraission of murder is based For the foregoiag reasoi^ / tih.at there is no illegality or itt Court. This appeal is Uable dismissed. Court couvictmg fhe accused for on legal evidence. |s, we are of the considered opiiiion, iE}ij5rmity HI the judginent of tlie trial Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge to be dismissed and it is herebv Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^riid^l'l ^i*iaf^ft^ <R>itSr'< ^^rRR^n^r