846 mnmggggggul/Ilglll/I ..‘.. XI-HC-22 ~2-2006 Shn B D Badganya, ca n39} far iha appeilant Shn UNS Dec A ona! Public Prosecutor with $hn Akml Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the marespandant Ora! 1udgment dmtated on Dats. PER L3. BHADQQJ By the instant appei. accused/appellant Bigan ® Jarmi has/ que$tioned the legality of judgment of'convictlon and order of- .sentenoe dated 13~1 0-95 pased by leamed Sessions Judge Ambikapur Jn S.T. No.67/95 whereby amed Sasslons Judge after ho§dmg the aécused/appeilant guiuy und t Section 302 of the_l.P.C. for commission of murder of his wife S dhani Bai sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The raee of the p ion, in brief, is that on 15—m-94 PW-8 ,Ramnath Yadav gave a me g intimation (Ex.-PI6) to the 'poiice sta§on Rajpur to theeffect that y \ rday Le. on 14-10-94, during the mid day, accused Bigan was quarrelli grwith his wife, therefore. his wife left his residence. When she was oingrtowards ’Soogaka'ta river, the accused chased her and/attacked her ith iists and kicks. as a rasuit of which she had died. The body is iying n the spot The biood is caming out of nose and there are injuries on v us parts of the body Based on this merg intimation, S.H.O, regist FIR Ex -P/5 Ieft for the scene of [View d m e r - v t e a XI-HC-22 311w m bf&¢1\‘b )QD"\ § Hm Hm blkapur where in order to establish the charge the prosecution exami ed 6 witnesses Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied prosecution ewdence. After h ring Publio Prosecutor and counsei tor- the'accused, learned Sessio s Judge convicted. ”accused as mentioned in pam We have heard teamed ounsel for the parties. The homicidal death of eceased sudhani Bai is not in dispute. As far as involvement. of the accused in crime in question is concerned PW-1 Bechan ha witnessed the crime in question and has stated that he saw the accu d was assaulting his wife with fists and kicks He mtervened on whch me accused said that he would not assault. his Wife. On enqu aceused made‘vextra’ judicial ‘ in the cross-examination this Bar used to oonsume liquor PW 3 Ramjaien has else corroborated the evmlence of PW 1 and has stated that the accused occurrence and prepared Panchaname Ex -Pi8 of the dead body of ‘ Sudhani Bai The dead body 3f Sudham Bar was examination to the Community Health Centre Ashutosh man (PW-4) sen ‘ Sudham Ba: and prepared V Aher completion of‘the i veetigetion, charge sheet was filed in the Court‘of Chief Judicial Magie te‘Ambikapur who in turn cemmitted the caSe to the sessions Judge, ted the postmortem nem repon Ex .Pl3 of this judgment. sent for postmortem Rajpur whete Dr on the dead body of and sentenced the Panchayat was convened In which the fession that he has murdered his wife; ness has stated that deceased Sudheni madeextm judicial We sfee mmmw ' mmdf—Qim —02’__ emm - d c o l , n 't m XI~HC~22 W oyPrm VP‘UgS“ .. Wm Learned counsei for the accused/appellant argued that there was no intention of the accused to cause death of his wife Moreover the ,accused has not used any dea ly weapon m assaumng Sudham Bai On " , a petty quartel when Sudham an Ieft the reSldence the accused chased her and in a heat of passion in a sudden quarrel Without any pre-_ Sudham Bar with hes and kicks as ruptured and she died Tiwari has sated that he co ucted postmortem on the aead body of deceased Sudhani Bai and he found that there were abraston’s on the body of Sudham' Bai; 0n i l examination. it was found that right kidney was ruptured and urinal bladder was also ruptured. ln View of the above evidence, it is estahlis ed that the accused was author of the crime in question, therefore, we do not find any itlegality or inhrmity in the judgment ofthe trial Court rega ding involvement of the accused in crime in question. meditation, the accused assau result of which her right kidney in order to appreciate th argument advanced by leamed‘ counsel for the acoueedfappeilant we h ve perused the medical evidence of PW- 4 Dr Ashutosh Trwarr and t ,evrdenoe of eyewm'ress PW-1 Bechan. From theabove evrdenoe. it established that the accused assaulted his wife with fists and kicks a no deadly weapon of offence was used. From the facts nd evidence, appears that the accused assauited his wife in a heat of passion, in a udden quarrel, when deceased Sddhani Bat lenjheltouse. Therefore, cannotbe saidthat the accused had any ’ [View W n a a s l h r n ‘ W r 31mm W am ‘ WW mmm%%a ”3~ WWW F'QWWR % amm confession in the Panchayat. The evidence of these witnesees stands supported by the medica! evi nce of PW—4 Dr. Ashutosh Tiwari. Dr. XI~HC—22 intention to cause death cuf his wife; But from the ,evidence, it can defmiteiy beinferred that accused had knowtedge white assaumng ’ Sudhani Bai with nsts‘ an kicks on vita! part of the organ that by assaulting with tists 'and/ ki ks, she may receive any injuty which may tikely to cause her death. efore. intention on the part of the accused , to commit murder of his is missing in this case. as such oftance against tha accused punis abie under Section 3044i of‘the l.P.C. is maderout. in the result, the a peal is partly aiiowed. The cenviczion and / sentence imposed on the ccused/appeiiant‘under Section 302 of the i.P.C. are set'aside. instead thereof, he is convicted under Section 304-“ of the i.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RJ. for 1O years. The accused is Vin custody since 1994‘ ther by he has undergone the sentence awarded. , ' it is, therefore, directed that accused he set at iiberty forthwith unless required Sd/- to be detained \ in any . other case. i Sdl— i i L.C. BHADOO . i Dhirendra Mishra'; ”’/ i ” \"g Judge Ban Judge /'/ i . {new e r e e