WW,W§,W ;.& $3az;%— Wm an 200[ mm (W) mmm ammm WWW mma‘wm %3fl=cm€m%¥1 ' Das Panika, Aged 38 years, Occupation - Agriculture, Rio Village Lola Damha Toli. P.S. Bagicha, District Jashpur Nagar. - Versus - State of Chhattisgarh, Through ln- charge Police Station Bagicha. RESPONDENT: {2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure) (Appeal under Section 374 Hon’ble Sh 'i L C Bhadoo & Division Bench: - Hon’ble Sh 'i Dhirendra Mishra JJ. 18-6-2007:- Shri Abhay Tiwari, counsel for the appellant. Shri U.N.S. Dec, Addi onal Public Prosecutor for the State/ respondent. Oral judgment dictated o Dais. L.C. Bhadoo, J. This appeal is directed a inst the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8-6-2001 pas ed by the 2"“ Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpurnagar (Fast Track Cou ) in S.T. No.141/2000 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge afte holding the accused/appellant guilty for commission of offence under ection 302 of the l.P.C., for committing murder of Paras Das, sentence him to undergo imprisonment for life & to l pay a tine of Rs.5,000/—, in def ult of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 5 months. ’ ‘u i‘ XI—HC—78 WW,W,W 1n 200 WW (W) ammm I ww ‘wm WWW am‘faum Case of the nrasacuti; ' ‘ ' ' ‘, ife of deceased Paras Das, gave merg intimation Ex.-P/8 in the Police Station 'Bagicha to the effect that at bout 9 p.m. in the night of 16—4-2000 she along with her husband Paras as was sleeping in the Parchi after taking their dinner whereas, her brat er—in-law Mithiia Das and his wife Kuiesari Bai were sieeping in the east rn side room. At about 10.30 p.m. in the night, ail of a sudden, Mithi Das came with axe and attacked her husband on the head and nec , as a result of which she woke up. She saw that the accused ran aw injuries were on the left side of the neck and back side of the neck. BI od was oozing out of the injuries. When she raised screams, her brot er—in-law Rameshwar, sister-in-law Phooi Sai Bai, mother-in-Iaw and ot ers came. Receiving this report, Station House Officer, P.S. Bagicha, r gistered First Information Report Ex.-P/7 and left for scene of occurre ce. The investigating Officer prepared inquest Ex.-,P/9 on the body of by Halka Patwari. memorandum Ex.-Pl3 regarding axe, weapon of offence, in pursuance of that, under Ex.-P/4 axe was seized. Lungi of the accused was seized under Ex.-P/5. The body of Paras Das was sent for postmortem examination to the C.H.C., Bagicha under Ex.-P/10 where Dr. CD. Bakhla (PW-6) conducted postmortem, prepared postmortem report Ex.-P/16 and opined that cause of death was neurogenic and haemorrhagic shock due to injuries to vital organ. Nature of death is homicidal. Axe in question was sent to the doctor for examination under Ex.-P/13, based on that, l doctor gave his opinion under Ex.-P/1 8. ras Das. Site plan Ex.—P/2 was prepared While in the police custody, the accused gave i a . a ‘ XI-HC—78 1:1 200 mm (W) WWW ammm WW$§QTWR mmm agaim‘wéw After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was flied in the Court of Chief Judicial Magist e, Jashpurnagar, who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Jud , Raigarh, from where teamed Additional Sessions Judge received the ca e on transfer for triaL The prosecution in orde to estabiish charge against the accused examined 7 witnesses. State ent of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which h denied material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and s ted that witnesses have deposed against him on account of land dispute. Learned Additional Sess ons Judge after hearing learned counsel for the respective parties co victed and sentenced the accused as aforementioned. We have heard Shri Abh y Tiwari, learned counsel for the accused/ appellant and Shri U.N.S. Deo, respondent. Shri Abhay Tiwari has n t disputed homicidal death of Paras Das. Moreover, Dr. CD. Bakhla 6) has stated that on 17-4-2000 he conducted postmortem on the ody of Paras Das. He noticed following Injuries:- dditional Public Prosecutor for the State/ (l) lncised wound in the size of 1O x 4 x 6 cm in the orbital area over left ear, on a count of that injury orbital bone was fractured. r t g ( - XLHC—78 12=L 200 mm (W) WWW Hmmm mmwm WWifs‘ém amimm (ii) lncised wound in the size of 13 x 2 x 4 cm on the fivst cervical bone on occipital area. Cervicai bone was fractured. (iii) Light incised wound n the size of 7 x ‘/z cm on the scapular region. Cause of death was injury to vitai organ, neurogenic and haemorrhagic shock. Death s homicidal in nature. He has further stated that he examined weapo of offence i.e. axe. After examination, he reached to the conclusion that i was possible to cause injuries with axe in question found on the body oft e deceased. PW-7 Sanantri Bai has also stated that the accused attack d the deceased with axe. Therefore, in View of the ocular and medical vidence, it is established that death of the deceased was homicidal in natu e. As far asrinvolvement f the accused/appellant in the crime in question is concerned, Shri hay Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that on acc unt of darkness of the night it was not possible for Sanantri Bai to identify the person who attacked the deceased, therefore, the prose ution has not been able to establish that the accused was author of the crime in question. He also argued that Sanantri Bai has stated that th accused attacked only once whereas, 3 injuries were found on the bod of the deceased. Therefore, on account of this fact also evidence of S nantri Bai cannot be relied upon being a single witness. On the other hand, Shri .N.S. Deo, Additional Public Prosecutor, wported the judgment of the trtial Court. a b XI-HC—78 WW Hi 200 mm (W) WWW mw§‘wm mafmm ammm $a1‘mm In order to appreciate arg uments advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties, we have perused record. PW-7 Sanantri Bai, wife of the deceased, has stated that in the night at about 10 p.m. she along with her husband was sleeping on the ground in Parchi, at that time, the accused, all of a sudden, came and attacked with axe on the parietal region and neck, as a result of which her husband sustained injuries on the neck and above left ear. There was cut injury on account of attack made by the accused. There was deep wound. The accused after making assault with axe on her husband, ran away. The accused is brother-in-Iaw. She raised cries. Hearing her cries, her another brother- in-law Rameshwar, mother-in-law Suda Bai, Tilo, Jhunu, Parsan, Phuleshwari, Dhanmetbai, Ra neshwari came on. the scene. She disclosed to all of them that Mithila Das ran away after attacking the deceased. She lodged the repc rt Ex.-P/8, based on that hrst information report Ex.-P/7 was registered. On account of land dispute the accused attacked her husband. in cross xamination, she has stated that she saw the accused while running awa . It is incorrect to say that she ran away after seeing injuries on the bo y of her husband. In fact, she raised screams. She has further deni d that on that day the accused had gone to his in-laws’ house. ln fact, sh along with her husband was sleeping in the Parchi whereas, the accus , his wife and children were sleeping in the room. She lodged the repo' in the same night. It is incorrect to say that she lodged the report in der to implicate the accused in a false case. In cross-examination oft is witness, defence has not been able to elicit any circumstance which s ggest that this witness was not able to identify the accused. In cross- xamination, she has categorically stated :\\that the accused sleeping in thie same house in a separate room. The \ \ \ ‘ XI-Hc—78 W m .................................................‘.....W..i 200 WW,WW,W WW (W) amwgg mmm - mmfgm .30'p.m. in the night and report was lodged incident took place at about 1 at about 1.10 am. in the sam night i.e. about within 2 hours 40 minutes, as per the first information re ort, police station is at a distance of 2 km Therefore, in View of this fact, FIR was \ from the piace of occurren in that FIR, the name of the accused has lodged with all promptness. been categorically mentioned PW-2 Govind Das ha stated that in the fateful night i.e. Sunday at his residence, at that time the accused came running towards their use and said that Dai go to the house as thief is taking buffalo. Thisf t corroborates the evidence of Sanantri Bai that the accused came from his house after attack and gave misleading information to Govind Das nd others. Apart from that, the accused himself has admitted in his s tement under section 313 Cr.P.C. that land dispute Was going on betw en the deceased and the accused being brothers. PW-7 Sanantri Bai has also stated that there was land dispute between the deceased and t e accused. PW-1 Rameshwar Das, who is the brother of the accused, h s stated that on account of land dispute the accused attacked his broth r Paras Das. Hence, in the tirst instance, there was animosity among e accused and the deceased on account of land dispute, therefore, ther was motive behind attack. Sanantri Bai was sleeping with her husband hen the accused made attack. She has categorically stated that sh saw the accused running away from that place. From the evidence PW-2 Govind Das, it is established that at the time of incident the acc sed went towards their house and informed Dai to go to the house as t ief is taking buffalo. Apart from that axe in night at about 10 p.m. he w \question ‘\ was seized at the i :stance of the accused, same was sent to the c . . o « "‘ XIaHC—78 WW,W,W W m in 200 mm (W) WWW ammm WW WIW§R %Wa11%¥t WWW doctor for examination. The docto'r after examination gave report Ex.-P/18 in which he has stated that it was possible to cause injuries with axe which were found on the body oi the deceased. Cumulative effect of the aforesaid evidenee establishes invoivement of the accused in the crime in question. As far as second argl ment of Shri Tiwari is concerned, Sanantri Bal has not disputemn her e‘ idence that only once the accused attacked the deceased. She has slmp stated that the accused after attacking with axe ran away. The doctor ha stated that it was possible to cause injuries with axe which were found o the body of the deceased, therefore, we do not tind any substance in this rgument. For the foregoing rea ons, we are of the considered opinion that invoivement of the accused i the crime in question is established. As per the evidence of prosecution the accused attacked the deceased on account of land dispute that oo with axe on vital organ of the body i.e. parietal region, on account that cervical bone and orbital bone were fractured and the deceased ied instantaneously. Therefore, intention of the accused to cause death o his own brother was writ large. In the result, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court The ap eal bein devoid of‘merit, is liable to be g dismissed and It is hereby dis Issed V Sd/. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra l l L.C. BHADOO Judge Judge l