IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JfiBftLPUR CRIMINftL APPEfiL N0. \%'3- /2000. (ftPPEfiL UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 1973.) fiPPELLfiNTSs (In jail) REsPOIlDENTs 1. Resh.ain Singh alias Manraffl- ;-S/o Dhan^-ram Binj hiy^ ' ssie'd sbout &5-s^r^-5r;a.. 2. Yuvraj Singh ^lias Rsshaa Sirsgh Binjhl;'a,aged about 17 years, Bbth R-/o Dharsiwa Pa 1 i ce Statior'—Bilaigarh , Distnct,R.aipur (MP)» / /vsrsu's/ / STATE OF HfiBHYfi Through- F'olice Stati.on' Bilaigarh,, Distt.Rai'c.ur .;i"P). ^) M-HC-22 SD^T^T K.-tt'h S^! ?tiHicr> •Mfe^ 13-^ -^WM-f, only'is, fadwy 3n^r 1I5R? 111<tl sh*iich 2000 I^N' sn^r^'RnwHfer DIVISiON BENCH:. HON'BLE MR. L.C. BHADOOAND HON'BLE MR. V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, JJ. 6-12-2005 Idirjg Mr. Abhay Tiwari, Mr. G.K. Beriwal^, Additiohai Panei Lawyer for the State/respo|ndent Miss Sharmila Singhai, ^ the complainant. Ora! judgment. Thls appeal has been dif^cted sentence dated 6-9-2000 pas^ Baloda Bazaar, in Sessions T|r Sessions Judge after hol commission of offence under murderof Ghasiya, senteneed for iife and pay a fine of Rs,5j undergo R.l. forone month. The case of the prosecLjt about 12 mid night when Ramj husband wsnt to watch video fii woke up and saw that the horn Resham Singh @ Moriram 'va^ on which shecaiied her husb^ and fhey separated both the m^ Resham Singh @ Moriram als4 Adv6ca|Eeforthe appeilants. Additiohai Public Prosecutor with Mr. Akhii Mishra, qinfCT^It 'RH^lf^ t^sl' <r3|'(^.l< '^'aiPaHsff^l 4dvocate with Miss Samta Jain, Advocate for against the judgment of convictton and >ed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, rial No.500/97; whereby iearned Additional the accused/appeilants guiity for the iection 302 of the I.P.C. for committing the ach of the aocused to undergo imprisonment )Q/-, in defauit of payment of fine to further tion, in brief, is that in the night of 7-8-97 at ihiia Bai was sieeping in hsr house and her |m, she hsard the low of hsr mate buffalo, she of the male buffalo of accused/appellant No.1 stuck in the iron chain of their mate buffalo, and Ghasiya who came along with Sukhdev ie buffalos. On this accused/ appeliant No.1 came. Ghasiya asked Moriram ttat why are ''c^.-SfWe^ ^^^i •^.r i":^: uoipag jspun suosjed pasnooe p lustua)^' ieuoB!ppv paujesi 'pUBtj J9'4}o sui UQ 's^s ./pesnooB syi }SU|BSB sousyo SLB SAOjdol •jBi4 Wi js^euejt uo seeo SLJ} gl. paujBS| 'sfeij* tuojj 'jndiey 'eBpnf su(>isse9 uin} ui oq» 'jeezeg epojBg 'etB4Sj6e|ftj ynoo sq^ ui oe^ se»laeus aBjeqo 'uoiiBpjtssAU! uiejioui psjedejd pue eAiseyo jo Apoq eij} uo jB4ij8ijg BJpueqo 'JQ 'tTd'x3 JSPU" s|eiu ©L|I6ui,<i jo^ }UBSU) uiBtjo uoji eqj^ io uodeeM ey} pejeAOoej to8 osfe sq uihpuBjotueui e eneS OS|B qBuis ueyse^ jepun 'qnio 'aousyo ^o uodesA 941 ui pus OS.-CJ'XB zs-8-8 uo lunpuejouisiu Qlt uejd sits sifl psjedsjd SH "VZ-d'xa yjeS o} lusijioui-tsod jo^ tues SWA eAiseqQ.p sq} JQ GuieuijouBd sq} psjedajd sq 'SBLI^I jeyy •®3usjJn33op eueos sin JO^ ya| pue| jsoijjo esnoH uo({B(9 siff ajai|A pa8po|B|!i|suiey -peip peij eAiseifo »eiit uodn 'sjeijt eAiseyo y8| suosjsd pssnooel •p tjnssJ e se IIBBI Lft[» eAiseiiQ Buginesj /pssnooe 'yBuig fejAn^ 'Aieiueu !LUBJUO|^| j4 OS|B eAiseiio 'ujn} ui pue UIILJ iiiim BuiAjje^ Bujiinesse pep^s weiuoyi '3141 UQ •A|jsdc|jd I^IIO hU-Jto l^ >l5»to]\p.9] h JUhlb ]-|l>l->;bllb ?)^s 841 papjoaai eBpnf suoissss s0ssau;!AAfj. pauiujsxs s^ueiisdde jepjo ui uo»nossojd syi P^AISOSJ sSpnp suoissag |euoi}ippv sq? o} seeo 94} psBiiuuioo jBioipnf leiijo leuoi}ippv p epjtssAU! y> uousjduioo jayy 'Z-d'x3yod8j wepoLU-tsod eij} ?}|ioui-!sod psjonpuoo (g-Md) isied oiui U3)|ei SBA sojeynq •Sl,'d'x3 -ispun 'qnjo '&oueyo ej^i jo eouensjnd ui pue ei.-dl'xg, efci pssnooe ^g-8-8 "O 't-l-d'xa »oB sq 'ieqt 10 souensjnd ^eB yBuig fejAnA •ss.-d'xs Jspun |!e|ig 'sflueo 4l|ee|-j Ajeuud 341 S4i 'Z-d'X3 eAiSBqo ^o Apoq d>ued gqj 0} l.-d'xg 80i}ou BuiAiB |6-d'x3 -^spun sseo ey^ pais^sifiej :uo!}B}9 93!)0cj }B yodaj aqi ppno^ pue suiBo sjeBeiiiA 941 LJOI^M Isyi pue UMOp iis; eAiseqo qoiyw ;e psyets 'Ujsjsq g-oN }UBi|sddB uos 341 'siifl uo "iu!4 psiinessB seM eq 43tt|M 'iiBe) qij/A eAiseqo oieynq 3|eui jnoA BuiAi ^ou noA uelisssssod .te^ pSJ9|\OOSJ Art°c) 'qjBBl^ig .ft>'»y 000; ttolhUS lUhlh ^^•:-ycy--- <*>Kh 1^1 pa]» ikilhiti It^lto ifell-bj Itl^lK ^H.lUbj '°>i,K.(p.e 'Milhlbi te£. ZZ-3H-K 1;1 XI-HC-22 sn^i^ir h-i'M sn^r gh^i-^ yf^ff 'ysi'^SFVvPf, ^WW, hwwy. SIT^T TR^ ^ ii*<CTia>Hi°n""'""""""'" Y""W^ 20° fq^CT"""""""""" ""'"" an^r ^giw'Hft^T --il- bton |the prosecution evidence appearing against impiicated in a faise cass, Ghasiya died >ived pn account of crushing by the bufhlo. 1'at Ram was examined. Judge after hearing the arguments of counsat for the accused convicted and pjarsons under Section 302 pf the I.P.C. as Sessfons ahd part of ttfis judgment. Abh^y le^rned La1fl/ye cbl<4i<'i41'1 •HHtnl' "^ 'fe1^ if^I^K ^T 3IPOT 311^1 Tiwari, learned counset for the accused/ Additional Public Prosecutor with Mr. ^er on behalf of the State/respondent and with Miss Samta Jain, tearned counse! for 313 of the Cr.P.0., they dsnied| them and said that they have on account of crush injuries rec^i One defencewitness namelyBaf Learned Addltional Additional Public Prosecutor sentenced both the accused mBntioned in the eariier We have heard Mr. appeilants, Mr. G.K. Bemral, Akhil Mishra, iearned Pane! SVIiss Sharmila Shighai, Advocst^ the complainant. Learhed counsei for the of Ghasiya as homicidal in na|ture. namely, Bharatlal (PW-1), Ram (PW-9) and the medicai evidenf She effect that he examfned Gha|i six injuries, viz., abrasions, sv^el scapuiar region and on the !eft| found thatthe skull bone ofthe in nature and died on gccourrtof post-mortem report is Ex.P-7, it homicidal in nature. • Now, comlng to the itivolvement of fte accused/appeliante in committing the murder of Ghas|ya, Sukhdev (PW-8) has stated that in the ^ccused/appeilante did not dispute the deaft a|ture. From the evidence of eyewitnesses (<umar (PW-2), Sukhdev (PW-8)& Ramshila if;e of Dr. Chandra Shekhar Pate! (PW-S) to ajsiya's dead body and found that there were Iting, bruises and sweiling on right side |hand, further that on opening the body, he ideceased was fracturedwhich was grievous shock as a result of the head injury, whose fs established that the death of Ghasiya vras sWe N !/)( XI-HC-22 311^'W R-li'* 311^1 ?t?*iit:ti •tifed 7=T "i||.i|ld''<, ai'al'y'ie, (qcii'yy WqcfT thllch 31T^?T 'q'^T ^...^.£S.JSS./.. 5 d^ "^ 2000 ft^T' sDi^t'roirar trftci f} tt> Sindh fatefui night hs aiong with Ghasiy^ aboui 12 mid niflht thev heard th< / she was saying that Sheir male buff left for the residence and. saw that chain, soms how they managsd buffatos of Ghasiya & Resham Rgsham Singh was teking out tiis wooden ciub three times and.'n ths first Ghasiya assauited thrice witi^ corroborated the above evidence, Singh assauited her husband on Resham Singh aiso assaulted her| which she raised cries and villad< thsrefors, she iodged the repori.l cfarroborated by Bharatla! (PW-1) & | From the evidence ofabovel buffalo of Ghasiya was stuck in help on which her husband separated the male buffalo of accused'appellant No.1, in that assautted Resham Singh with the raised cries and the son of Reshaiti with wooden club and assaulted fe!l down and received fracture irfji Thsrefore, it isestabiished thatthel ofthe assauit made by Yuvraj Singit tlhe Ghas|iya CM'iiT<rt^Ti ~sfff^i ^ fs^ <P>I<^K ' '^ aipgiTan^r went to watch video ln the viUage, at cries of Ramshiia, ihe wife of Ghasiya, falo has stuok, on hearing the cries they the male buflalo was stuckin the iron cut the rope, and separated the mate on which Resham Singh came. When Ibuffalo, Ghasiya assaulted Resham with lit.procsss, Resham & Ghasiya grappied, ihe ciub. RamsKSIa (PW-9) hasaiso |but she has siated that accused Yuvraj |the head with wooden c'ub repeatediy, hus&and .with club and they lefi, upon iers came, however her husband died, The above evidence has aiso been Ram Kymar (PW-2). witnesses it is established that the male iron chain, Ramshila raised voice for along with Sukhdev came and t'ney Qhasiya as well as of Resham Singh, ^rocess in the first instance, Ghasiya Iwooden club upon which Resham Singh Singh, co-accused Yuvraj Singh, came 3)tiasiya dn his head as a resu!t ofwhichhe irfjury in the head and died on the spot. Ideath of Ghasiya was caused on account & Resham Singh. >haiti Gltiasiyi H-HC-22 '^st "i|l<1lc1'4, 8>fll<i'is, facll^y 3TT^?T 'q?ra? ..&..&..CE.S iraciiw^i<ft 1^5W 200(0 3J^WI R-ii.'ti sn^r %tiw?lftt( 311^1'S^ItWgfttT -^l '*i<if<'i<ii-t iiH7ir'it'ftIzt<fa«;i< ^? srtSgiT sn^r Learnsd coynsei for the instanca, whsn Ghasiya assauited| Resham Singh, Yuvraj Sirigh cam^ intention to commit hi5 murder and] Slngh assauitec! Ghasiya. Therefor^, the right of private defence and does| thei.P.C. Ori the othsr hand, Isamed respondent and tearned counaei for of the tria! Court. !n order toappreciate the af the parties, ifwescan the evidence| male buffalos of Ghasiya and accusetl some how, the male bufiaio of Gh4s which the maie buffaio of Resham Ghasiya started lowing on which Ghasiya & Sukhdev came and became angry. When Resham Sinjh buffalo, Ghasiya assaulted Resham Singh, the son of Resham Singh, Yuvraj Singh) assauited Ghasiya the deceased received fatal injury ancj !n the above facts, it cannot assauited Ghasiya with the intention| pian or pre-meditation. This is a defence. When Ghasiya assaulted acc4sed/appeil acc4sed/appeilants argued thai in the first Resham Singh;in ordsr to protect and assaulted Ghasiya without any in the right of private defence Yuvraj j, in any case* it is a case of exceeding Inottravel beyond Section 304 Part-11 of Aclditionai Public Prosscutor for the State/ t|ie complainant supported the judgment ^ irg4nents advanced by ieamed counse! for Iwhich has been mentioned eariier, the Resham Singh were tied in one room, i^siya was stuck iri the iron chain with $ingh was tied and the male birifaio of called her husband, herhusband the mate buffalo, and Ghasiya came and vfas taking back his male ^ingh with wooden clubon which Yuvraj and both of them (Resham Singh & the wooden ciub as a resuit of which died on the spot. be said that the accused/appellants to cause hss death, that Soo after pre- ;ase of exceeding the right of private [Resham Singh with wooden club in a Rartishila sepjarated caFne with XI-HC-22 311^1 ^l? p<-li?b 311^1 st>4i'*i •Ulid 'Svf ^Wlv\^y»^\WIS, hvfW^f. .Q^^.,m^i.. KIKdl *<4i<*""""""""""""""~"/""WI, " (c|<)<yT""""""" heat of passion, ali of a sudden, irj Singh cams with wooden ciub ahd fc proved fatai, and Ghasiya died. Th^ appeliants does not travel beyond circumstances, the conviction and 4 Sessions Judge under Section 302 oji in the, result, the appeal is| sentsnce under SectiQn 302 of the accused/appellants are held guiltyl Section 304 Part-!l ofthe !.P.C..and| Section 304 Part-lt of the t.P.C. !n the during investigatjon, trial and pentie the above sentence. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge .cbl''<fcl4'111PR]}'? 'fezt <(»]<$!< i? aif^OT 3ir^i order to proteci Resham Singh, Yuvraj ssaulted Ghasiya with the same, which refore, the offence asainst the accused/ entence awarded by iearned Additionai 'the I.P.C. c-annot be sustained. partly aiiowed. The conviction and LP.C. are set aside, instead thereof, the for the commission of offsnce under |each ofthemare sentenced to unde.rgo imprisonment for six years. Deteitstion period of the accused/appeiiants ^cy of the appea! shai! be set-oir against Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge w—'l