IN THE HONOURABLE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT OFJUDICATURE AT BIIASPUR Criminal Appeal No.^^g / 2001. (Criminal Appeai U/S 374 (2) of Cr. P. C. 1973) Appellaet Versiis Respoadeet ^ .^'y ^' Jayl'al S/0 Parau Kalar, aged about 30 years, R/o Vm-age: Brehbeda, P.S. a-iliote Dongar, Dist: Jagadalpur (Bastar), Chhatdsgarh. Sfate of Clitiattisgarh through Police Station: Chliote Dongar, Dist: Bastar. Appeal agais^st thejisdgmesit dated 28.02.2001 passed by the Court of Speeial Judge/ Addl. Sessiosis Judge9 Bastar at Jagdalpisr, iis Sessions Trial Case no. 50/2000. It is most respectfully submitted on behalf of the petitioner as under: XI-HC-78 3TT^T^T^i:ch cT8T[3TT^?T$h^i<=h *11+1C1t S!1»*1[<S*» 3^ ^ii^Krt^, ^Tfl^^Ko, (®t<nw^< ^^<-nc:A.40J/^.. ^[200 3< 1^1 M3<tt> (^ciI^CK^T) ?^TTW^fN'W^T Diy?£:10NBS?NCH: HON'BLE MR. L.C.BHADOO HON'BLE MR. DHIRENDRA M|lSHRA, JJ Appellant CRIMtNAL 4PPEAL N0.403/2001 Jaylal Versus Respondent Mr. Rajnish Dubey counsel for Mr.D.K. Gwalare, JUI Dubey counselfor t|ie appellant ,i))y.< (4] Per L.C. Bhadoo. J The appellant has prefe^ 374(2) of the Code of Crimin|al conviclion and order of senten|ce Judge/Additional Sessions Judgjs, No. 50/2000 whereby he has b^en Indian Penal Code and sentencfed pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default one year. <t)l^l^41T1 WT^ff ^ffe^ <Rl<:<.!< ^3:ri^R'3T^ST State of Chhattisgarh. Shriva^tav advocate on behalf of Mr. Shailendra sel for tfie appellant. py. GA for the respondent/State. IDIGMENT 12.2006) red this Criminal Appeal under section Procedure against the judgment of dated 28.2.2001 passed by Special ?, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial convicted under Section 302 of the to undergo imprisonment for life and 4»fpayment of fine to further undergo R.l. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 w^i^rf^ri^ <T8TT3TI^T$r)^i<t) *ii*i^Ta»*ir<»» 3^ ^f-tllcl'M, ($Tn'M<|(o, fs)dl'y^< rC^A^P^n.. ^T 200 (?T q5(Ct» (^c(i^6|(^T) B^rrw ^f?cf W^T occ&sion 2. Case of the prosecution| Lachhandei, wife of the decease<| Chhotedongar to the effect that| with her husband went to the months old son to her, on the black complexioned boy to h^i accused started quarreling with black complexioned, onwhich h^r them at his resjdence on the get back. This was also not 1| attacked her husband with axe ai his head and face and succumb^d offence was registered under| accused/appellant. Investigating | conducted inquest on the body Ex. P-3. Weapon of offence i.e. and blood stained soil was tat occurrence under Ex. P-4, Ex. P-6. Body of Sukhdeo was s|ei which|she jokingly cloths chi^Fd41ri ^i^^iT^te^t<(^^d< ^3rf^TT3TT^T in brief is that on 4.10.1999 RA/-1 lodged a report Ex. P-2 in police station |on the festival of Navakhani she along (louse of Jailal where he gave his two said that why he was giving i^r which was not liked by Jailal. On this, |ier and said that why she called his son ^r husband replied that why he had called of Navakhani and asked his wife to |ked by the accused and therefore he a result of which he received injuries on to the same. Receiving this information section 302 of the IPC agajnst the IQfRcer left for the scene of occurrence, |of Sukhdeo and prepared inquest report laxe was seized under Ex. P-5. Plain soil en into possession from the place of of the accused were seized under s|ent to Primary Health Centre, Orchha for P.T.O. \r) XI-HC-78 +<1+1^1 «»+<|C»» T^F^^lcrt^/^Tn^4!^ f^^ll^y .c^^.^e^ai ^200 (?TMsi«t»(yY^c«:^T) W^r^Tf^F ^T ^)<<T^) 5^<TTW ^f?(T 3TI^T post mortem examination where post mortem examination of the mortem report Ex. P-7 in which he) injurycaused by sharp and heavy| homicidal. |Dr. R.D. Bokade R/V-4 conducted the b|ody of Sukhdeo and prepared the post opined that the death was due to head |object like axe and nature of death was 3. After comptetion of investig Court of Judicial Magistrate First the case to the Court of Special Judge/Additional Session; transfer fortriat. Sessiohs 4. Prosecution in order to accused/appellant examined accused/appellant was also Criminal Procedure in which he in the prosecution evidence implication in the case. 5. Learned Special Judge parties convicted and sentenced t^e accused ct)i^?<n41ri HTO^ff ^* te^ <Riw< ^3Tf^T3:n^ST investislation the charge sheet was fited in the plass Narainpur who in tum committed Judge, Bastar, from where learned Judge, Bastar received the same on establish the charge against the ^ix witnesses. Statement of the recoilded under section 313 of the Code of d^nied the material appearing against him arjid pleaded his innocence and false after hearing counsel for the respective as mentioned above. P.T.O. -1 XI-HC-78 3TT^T^T^i<?h cW^TI^TshHlcn 7^ *11+ldt SDHIctl 3^ '*11*11<<1*<, ^iTfl'y^Ko, (^ldl^^i m^ .«7r-^.^^^/ot^ 200 ^rq^^ 5;RTTW ^<T W^T cbi^F<n41ri WToff ^* te^ <f^<-d.i< ^3Tf^T3Tr^T 6. We have heard Mr. Rajr|ish Shrivastav advocate on behalf of Mr. Shailendra Dubey for the appelfant and Mr. D.K. Gwalare, Dy. GA for the respondent/State. 7. Mr. Shrivastava has not |disputed the homicidal nature of death of Sukhdeo. That apart, from the <|»cularevidence of R/V-1 Lachhandei, wife of the deceased who Witnesse|d the crime in question and tiie medical evidence of Dr. R. D. Bokade PW-4 in which he has stated that there were three cut wounds on the face s|nd head of Sukhdeo as a result of which frontal bone was fractured, it i homicidal in nature. 8. As far as involvement concerned, PW-1 Lachhandei, the deceased has stated that husband Sukhdeo went to the h] established that death of Sukhdeo was of the accused in crime in question is nother in law of the accused and wife of on the fateful day she along with her ouse of the accused Jailal on his invitation on the occasion Navakhani festi^al. At that time her husband was roasting maize on which accused Jailal roasting the maize and for that| was leaving the house of the| Sukhdeo and attacked him °"1 asked her husband as to why he was reason Sukhdeo got angry,«Nfwhenhe accused, accused snatehed the axe of his head for seven times. She tried to P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^v^ *IIH<<1Tff)+1|c»» '<4t'i<i<'i'i<, t?Tf1^<i(o, i^diy^< .<W;A;4:^^( ^ ^200 tl?T M5l<h (<{c|i^c|<^r) ^TT^T^rR^Jch cW3TR?T$hH|cb ?^TTW:^rf?(T3n^r intervene but the accused threafe Sukhdeo syccumbed to the injurie|s the son of the deceased has stateld the accused he went to his hous|e taking meal he returned to hi? hoi| informed him aboutthe incident tbat b^ing axe and thereafter he along with lodged the report. He has furth|er possession under Ex. P-5 on Ayatu has stated in his evidence ^hat house of accused, they consumetl Lachhandei were also there insi<tle wife of accused namely Hiro wa^ Lachhadei came out of the hoi^e Sukhdeo with axe. Thereafter, h^ lying in an injured condition Therefore, from the evidence Lachhandei PW-1 stands cof corroborated by the medical arlid cr)i^f<n41'l HT^ff ^* tec^ <p3l^<i|< ^ ^ ^Tf^q" 3TliRT Ined to kill her also as a result of which i|s sustained by him. RA/-2 Kishan who is in his evidence that on the invitation of on the festival of Navakhani but after ^se and thereafter, his mother came and the accused assaulted Sukhdeo with ITJS mother went to the police station and stated that the axe was taken into produced by aecused Jailal. PW-3 on the fateful day he also went to the liquor together;deceased Sukhdeo and the house. Daughter of Sukhdeo and also in the house and after some time and informed that accused attacked went inside and saw that Sukhdeo was blood was oozing from the injuries. of PW-3, the evidence of eyewitness roborated. Their evidence is further of Dr. R.D. Bokade PW-4 who has evidence P.T.O. 1 ^ XI-HC-78 *IIH^I a»*iic»» 3'^r ^ii^id^, ^Tfl^Koy J®«nwy . .C^.A.-^02/4>A ^[ 200 31T^T q^g? (^C|I^<S|<^T) 3TT^T^rR^ich cWCT^TsbHl^ h^ ^<TT^< ^\w stated that he conducted the posjt deceased Sukhdeo and found one| c.m. as a result of which nasal boni incised woundover the right eye in incised wound below injury No.2 the size of 3 inch x % c.m., yet another the size of 2 inch x % c.m. He has further stated that nasal bone, f^ontal bone and forehead bone were fractured; therefore, the evidende of this witness corroborates the evidence of eyewitness PW-1 La< these witnesses the defence has discredits the evidence of the ^ therefore, therewas no reason to iPC do not suffer from any illegality 9. In the result, the appeal beii be dismissed.It is accordingly dismfssed. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge cbl^fo41Tl WT^ff ^ te^l' <f^<^l< ^^rf^T3T1^T mortem examination on the body of ncised wound in the size of 6 inch x % and chief bone was fractured, another ^hhandei. In the cross examination of |iot been able to elicit anything which roseeution witnesses. Moreover, the accused is the son in law of tt|ie deceased and PW-1 Lachhandei, tnplicate him in a false case, moreover the body ofthe deceased was founjd near the house ofthe accused and in these drcumstances, we are of th|e considered opinton that the findings recorded by the trial Court convictin|g the accused under section 302 of the |or infirmity. i|ig devoid of any substance is liable to Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge F.l.U. i