iiiGé'i CQiiRT OF N‘ WV§$E€§N E£€§£$Hg Caram: HON’8§.E MR.?.P.SH;XRMIK & HON’ELE MRRN£hamdmkan JJA Criminai Agnew Nai$$ cf 2%5 6n M!) abaut 22 years, student. eaaA‘r‘rawms m A? gamma? Aggeiiants ”L, Umeah Kumar, $io. Vishnu Eihari, agad 2” Bébioo (q; Vénay, $ia Narmada Prasad, (KW aged about 22 yaara Occupatianndriver. Both are residenw 0f vi§iage~Nagan Paiice Statiaraaaeikunfhpur, Sistt-K0r&a {c.G.) Versus Resgondent The State of Ghhattisgarh (CRMWAL APPEAL UN€§ER SECT‘ .f‘N 3M (2} GP ‘F‘HE (3‘0i3E (3F CWMWAL PROCEDURE, 19’73} Pre5ent:— Mr.B.P.Banjare, caunsei appears an behaif af counse! for apgeh'ant No 1 MrsHamida Siqqudue, MLAbhay Tiwari, counsei for appeiiant N02. MnSandeep ‘(adavg DyGevtAdvecate for the State. ORAL .mEGM‘ENT (Pasaed an 2’“ February, 201 1) Per T.P.sharma, J.:~ A.- . Chaiienge in ihis appeai is to the judgment 0f conviction 5% order 0f sentance dated 22.2.2905 passed by ihe Additicnai Sassions Judge, Baikunthgmr, in Sesséans Triai No.2‘i5/2OG4, whereby & whereunder £earned Additiona? Sessions Judge after hmding rhe appeiéants guiit for cammission of aifence of cu: Meniariyabai (since deceased pable homicide amcunting tc murder cf ihem under Section ) in sharing ccmmon intention convimed imprisonment for iife and 3§2l34 to pay of fine ihe of i.P.C. F33.1Ci0f2!-, and sentenced in derauii to of nay/merit undergo of fine to runner undergo Ri . forihree monrns. :A a: . conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being any iota of evidence, the ma! Court has canvicted & sentenced the appai§ant5 as aforementioned and thereby cammitted iiiegeiity. . As per case of the prosecution, on the fateful day of 63.2%4 at about to pm“ at night, present eppeiiants came nee: ihe heuse of Venehre} S§ngh (PW-1), they were threatening and abusing himi deer was dosee from inside, the appeiients tried t0 brake the deer, at that time unfertunaie woman Mentoriyabei came near the house ef Venshrej Singh (F’W~i, ehe objected the activity of the appeiients, then the appeiiante eeeauited tier by stick, fists end iegsl they took her to eome distance and throWn near Mahuwa tree where she died. Venehraj Singh (PW~1) went to the Poitee Stettoh and iodged the FJR. vide Ex.Pl1A. Merg was recorded vide ExPi'ie. investtgettng officer proceeded for scene of oecurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide EXP/2, inquest over body of ivientoriyahai was prepared vide EXP/3. Spot map was prepared by investigating officer 'ide Ex.P/4. Patwari eiso prepared spot map vide cxPiE. r‘ l Bioodstained and piain soii were recovered form the spot vide Ex.Pi6. One stick with pointed iron was seized from the spot 'ide Ex.P/7. Broken pieces of hangies of the deceased were seized from then spot vide EXP/8. Broken pieces or" tiies of house of Vanshraj Singh (PW-t) were seized vide EXP/'9. Dead body was sent for autopsy to District Hospitai, Baikunthpur where Dr.Ashok Kumar (PW-1 2) conducted autopsy yide ExPi'i Q and found foiiowing injuries:- i} One abrasion of t crn. x1 cm. over left etbowjoint. {ii} Contusion near right eyebrow of 1 .5 cm‘ x 1 cmr (iii) Lacerated wound with sweiling over right temporal region 0f _1 cm. x .5 cm. Fracture of temporal bone and extra- durai/sub-durei haemotoma was found inoise the brain. Cause of death was depressed of vitai function as a result of shock due to trauma of head. . Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 1st of the Cr.P.C. and after compietion of investigation, charge sheet was fiied before the Court of Chief Judiciai Magistrate, haikunthpor, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Ambikapur. \ f i / . g: in order to prove the gum 0f the aGcused/‘appeiiants, the prosecutéan has examined as many as tweive witnesses. tatements (3f the accusedr’appeiiants were recorded under Seciion 313 of the Cr.P.C. where they denied the circumstances appearing against rhem and pieaded innocence and false implicatien in the crime in quesiicn. After previding oepcriuniiy of hearing te the pertiee, ieemed Aa‘diiionei Seseiens Judge, Baikunihpur convicted a: sentenced the appeilants as aforementioned. ?. We have heard Mr.B.P.3anjae, counsel for appeiiant No.1 d Mr.Abhay Tiweri, ccuneei icr appeiiani No.2 and Mr.8endeep Yedav, Deputy (Em/eminent Advacate fer ihe State, perused the judgment impugned and reeerd er’ the irial Court" a. Mr.B.P.Eanjare and MrAiohay Tiwari, teamed counsei for the appeiiants eubmit ihet as per evidence cf Vanehraj Singh (PW-1), Sulochani Bai {PW-5), Devnerayan Singh (PW-8) and Adhin Singh (PW-9), sen of Vanshrej Singh, initiaiiy ihe appeiiants came near the house of Vanshraj Sing'n fer causing eamages or injuries to Vanshraj Singh who was inside ihe heuse, they tried to damage ihe house of Venshrej Singh, at the same time unfortunate woman Mentoriya‘oai came near the piece of incident, when she tried to intervene the incident and objected the activity of the appeiiants, then on sudden provocation they aeeeuited her by hands and fists but no fatei injury has been caused by the appeiients, therefore, evidence of the aforesaid witnesses is considered as gospei true, then even the act of the appeiiants does not travei beyond the scope of Section 304 Part-ii of the i.P.C. Learned oounsei further submit that deceased Mentoriyabai was aged about 65 years and she died on account of simpie injury on the ground of her oio‘ age. The appelianis have not caused any injury with intent to cause her death. On the other hand, iearned State counsel supported the judgment impugned and submits that white causing muitipie injuries to Mantoi'iyabai aged about 6S years the appeiiants were having knowledge that by their act the deceased wiil diet After appreciating the evidence avaiiabie onrecord, iearnedAdditionai Sessions Judge, Eaikunthpur has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. a‘:' LLL, «5w 1am arder to appreciate the arguments advanced an beha§f af‘ the games, we have examined the evidenee avaiiabie on record. 1min €he present case, homicide: deaih as a resuit of injury found over the body of deceased Mentoriyabai has nai been disputed on behaif of the eppeiiente, an the other hand, eieo estebiiehed by the evidense of DnAenok Kumer (PW-1 2) and autapsy teport EXP/19 which reveeie that death washomicidat in nature. 12~As regards the compiicity cfthe accused/appeiients in crime in question, eithough homicidat death caused by the appeiients has not been substantieiiy disputed on behatf of the appetients, even otherwise etso estabtished by the evidence of Vanshraj Singh (PW-1), Suiocheni Bet (PW-5), Devnarayan $ingh (PW-6) and Adhin Singh (PW-9) whese evidences are sufficient for drawing inference that the present appeiiants have caused injury to Mantoriyabai resutting into her death. 13.As regards the question of motive, in case of direct evidence motive losses its importance, even otherwise, motive onty aids in criminaiity and can be interred on the bests of nature of injury, kind of weapon deed, part of the body effected and other similar circumstances. Min the present case, as per evidence of the aforesaid witnesses the appeitants were threatening and abusing to Vanshraj Singh (PW-1) and not to hiantoriyaoai, when iviantoriyabai came near the piece of incident and tried to intervene the activity of the appeiiants, then aii of sudden the appeiiants assauited her by iegs and nets and caused the aforesaid three injuries noticed vide Ex.Pl1g. Except one injury, two injuries were trifie in nature. EXPI‘iQ reveals that only three injuries have been caused which were trifie in size. As per evidence of prosecution witnesses they were hciding sticks but they have not caused tatai injury by stick shows that they have not caused homicidal death with intent to cause death of Mentoriya‘cai, but whiie causing such injuries to Mantoriyabai aged about 55 years they were having knowiedge that by their act she may die. *5.The aforesaid evidence are sufficient for drawing inference that the present appeiiants have not caused homicidal death amounting to murder cf ‘the deceased, therefore, i'neir act does net travei beycnd the scope 0f Section 3G4 Part-H 0f the LRC. 13Whiie convicting the appeiiants under section 302/34 sf the i.P.C. the triai Caurt has net ccnsidemd t‘ne aforeseie aspect and ihere'ey comm§tted iiiegaiity. 17.Forthe feregoing reasons, the appeai is partiy aiiowed. Conviction of the appeilants under Section 30254 of the LP‘C. is aitered te Sectron 3G4 Part-ii of ‘rhe LRC. Considering the nature of iniury, the appeiiante ere hereby sentenced to the custodial period i.e., since 8.3.2004 tili today for about six years and nine months and fine of Rs.’IOG0/—, in defeuit of payment of fine they sheii further undergo RI. for three months. _ i 41% f/LL Sd/~ 7' / " ”mesmMA/ i RnN. Chandrakar Judge Judge Bi- i"‘£\s