^ l } OF No. of2000 Vs. cf (now Chhattisgarh) ^ for Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ka^ ;.;;..'.:•'.>-.;<: SSW^yW^K^^^knali^M^IS (c^' HIGH COURT OF No. ^ ^- L Sunda^ Baiga, s/o BiseJra Badga, aged aboiit 45 years, resideut of Kallepaiii, Nabapai'a, P,S, Bakarkatta, Distt. Raiiiaiidgaoii, Madhya Pradesh (Now Chlxattisgarh). 2. Rajbai @ Rajbati, aged about 40 yeai's, wife of Sundai' Baiga, r/o Kallepsaii, Nabap-ajra, P,S, Bakai'katta, Distt, RaJHan.dgao, (c.a), of Madh^'a Predesh (now CIihattisgarh) Through P.S. - Salehpara, Distt. Rajnaiidgaoii (C,G) of CroP.C.j KIL NuTipejiia Bajpai, counsel for the appellaiite. Shri Raviiidre Agrawal, Pmiel La^^er, for the State. (02.0T.20071 Jo (1| fhe of convictioii order of seutence 10.2/2000 by fhe AcMi- Jud^, Kheiragarh, Division Rajnaodgaou, in Trisd No,145/1900, whereb}r tlie appellaiite were convicted u/ss 304(part-II) & 201 I.P.C. aiid sentenced to iindergo R.I. for 10 years to pay a of Rs, 100/-, ui defaiilt of payiiieut fiiie, to fdrtlier undergo RJ. for 1 month; and RJ, for 3 to pay a of Rs,50/», iii default of paymeiit of fine, to farther '^ J ^ undergo R.L for 15 daj7s; with a fartlier dii'ection to nui the seiitences concun-^nth^ ihsy have preferred appeaL (2| The brief facts m'e that 011 02.7.19a9, 4 persons namety (PoW.l of tlie deceased), Dharmu Bedga (deceasecl), Sundar Raj (accused/appeUants), had from viUage F^allepejii to village Kopro for pzirchasiiig rice the of tlie Society. IVhen fliey reached Kopro, fhe^" did not go flie Society they weut to tlie hozise ofone Brij Lal where fhey all tiquor. While leaving house, tlie more bottie of liqiior aiid kept it iii the lap ofhis Lungiand aU ofthem for retaniiiig to theii' village, The ore fliat 011 the way, when fliey "reached area of viUage Chover, the accused persons liquor froni the deceased which the deceasecl denied, oii which, fhe;7 abiised tliey quaiTeliiig after oii flie ground, accused/appellaiit no.l pressed his with. the of his (accused/appellajit no,2), which his death. When he died, they, with eii to cau.se disappeaiBiice of evidence, the dead bod}' a to tliat it a suicicleJ deatli, (3| After tlie body, a uitmiation (Ex,R2) lodged by Pa^ichaia Das (P.W.3) on 04.7.1999 at about 9.30 a.m. thereefter, (Ex, P, 1) ictcorded on 04,7,1999 at about 18,30 on the rcport ofBiidhiariu Bei (P,W,1), ofthe deceased, Duriiig tlie coiirse of iiivestigatioii, the CHI tlie body prepared 011 04.7.1999 under 'Q^ ^ \ft^^ Ex,P, 7 it sent for postoiortem. Dr. Sejijay Kavilash (P,W.5) .conducted tlie post mortem aiid prepared his report Ex.P,5 on 05,7,1999, He noticed the extemal iiyuries: 1, An on the left of neck % cm x 1/4 cm. x 1/4 cm- 2. 3 at the of the neck just me.rk, eJl aclmeasuriiig 2cm x 1/4cm x 1/4 cm at the distmice caf l/4cHi each other, 3. A:a abrasion on'flie chest just above fhe left nipple 3cm x lcm 4, ' Two abiBsions on both the elbows 2 cm x lcm, 5, An ou the left 1x1cm. 6, There a aroiind fhe ueck x^hicli of 3 cm breadfii, but there 110 elongation m. fhe neck, As per tlie repoil, all tlie above mjuries, except the ligature niark was mite-mortem tlie Ugatiire iiiark was postmortem, On tlie iiitenial examiiiation, he foTind fliat tliere a fracture of Coniu of hyoid at its left the air was Accordiiig to him, tlie death homiciclal aiid it not suicidal as no evidence of suicide found the cause of tlirottliag. After completion of tlie iisiial investigatioii, charge sheetwas u/s 302 & 201 ofI,RC, (4| The Court acqzutted the appellmite u/s 302 I.P,C., however, comdcted sentenced fhem u/ss, 304 (part- II) & 201 I,P,C. The convictioii is upon the testimony of Budhiai-m Bai (P.W.l). '^^^Mit^S'W ImuiNBr (SI Lee^iied counsel for fhe appellante that testimony of Biidhiarm Bai shozild uot been relied 011 as tlie stoiy fortliwifli the disclosiire on fh.e 3rd day ie., 04.7.1999 whereas th.e iiicident took place 011 02.7.1999. I have heard counsel for tiie parties at length perased the records ofthe case. (7| P,W,1 Bai deposed about tti^ mcident m Pej'a 3 of her evideiice, According to her, wheii the acts ofthe appeUaiits, tlireatened by them to her Ufe, therefore, left the place of occuiTcnce narratecl tlie stoiy to tlie villagers. In the. her as to what she for tlie whole of 2.7.1999 aiid tlie entire day of 03.7.1999. She has explauied on 02.7.1999, due to ia a for fhe on the next day, the story 'to Akkuta Dongra Baiga, Prcni Sarpaiich Vishal ete., the as well as recoried. Merely on her of not to the police et for the report not by iteelfclassify to be Ifsuch aa incident place the of the when her is murdered, wiU certediity under tlie shock fear iiot be to do at once. In the present case, fhe for lodging the delayed report has been ia .S^.»^t»»^w^.<^»^^^^^^ itsetf, ¥.?hich to be plausible 011 only, testoiiony of the caiinot be disbelieved. Moreover, not a questiou been iii the of tliis tlie clelay about or uni^asonable or iinpK5bable explanation rcgerding such delsy, Thc is SB. lady and ia the ciix'um.stances of case bsr testuB-oiiy caiinot be discarded on this that herself did not report the to the police prior to fhe 3rd day. There to be ISD force io. the advanced by leamed counsel for fhe appellant tiie caiinot be accepted, Except the above, no other poiB.twas before me. (8| There to be no fault iii fhe of couvictioii passed by fhe court below, The no ibe is accordtiigly Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge \^~ Rao