-HC—78 3I]^T W ftt-fi'sh ^sff STT^T'g^rfq? 75Sf ^l^v'i-ii^ W<S\W\6, [^vftWy ^INdl **<!* •W^ 200 an^?r 'VISK (4<<('l«<<«i) ^IIW^lfetOT^T HIGHCOURT OF CHriATTISSARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR.DHIRENDRA MISHRA HON1BLE MR.T.P.SHARMA, JJ CRIIWINAd. APPEAL NO.S25B002 APPELLANT (!njail) RESPONDENT Vs Shyajn Lal, son of Koshma Ram, aged 25 years, Occu|;ation-Photcgrapher, resident of Village Sami|dra, P.S, Kansabel, District Jashpur (C.G.) Stat^ Distril Present: Mr. Shravan Agarwai & Mr. B. Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Pane! fl). Lav('yer ORA JUDGMENT (23 Per Dhirenctra Mishra. J: This appeal is directed of sentence dated 30'" Aprill Sessions Judge (FTC), Jashp) Additional Sessions Judge causing homicidai death of Le|iru the IPC and sentenced to unpergo pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, ir| additional S.l. for 3 months. Case of the prosecuti<jn namely Suraj Kumar (PW-1)| ti^erein that today i.e. on 25.2.3 ctii<L)I^l<ftTf NiHdf '^\f^rl' <F<li^$l< ^ 3tf?PT3TT^| of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Kansabel, :tJashpur(C.G.) Badgaiyan, Advocates for the appsllant. for the resoondent-State. IS January, 2008) tgainst the judgment of conviction and order 2002 passed by learned 2"d Additiona! lir in S.T. No.201/2001 whereby Isarned 2nd holding the accused/appellant guitty of has convicted him under Section 302 rigorous imprisonment forlife and to default of payment of time to undergo after i, in brief, is that son of deceased Lehru gave merg intimation (Ex.P-1) mentionin( !001 at about 4.30 p.m. his father was goinc ">. •<'b,: SfKsa-sf- s^q' srraTOT, t<>Tf1+ili<o, Ri^iyy ^Wvi\ **<|cb •^ 200 •ffl^r.qii R-fi'b WT3ITOF sb1i+ s'lt'r Traq; (ipfgsiqii) to cal! SuKhrstTi, howev&i. 01 by Dauli due to suspteion ths theft. !t was also informed recording merg intimation, F.1 During investigation in prepared in the presence o1 clothing of the appellant was basis of memorandum (Ex.P^ taken into possession vide appareis of the deceased sei| vide Ex.P-6. Blood stained from the place of occurrenc^ from the Halka Patwari videl sent for aiitopsy to the Go1 Postmortem report of Ex.P-1' Ashok Kumar Sanyal (PW-10J After completion of u; the Court of Judteial Magisf committed the case to learrl was received by iearned 2 ( tria!. During trial, the pros^ thereafter, statement of acc|i 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he ( the prosecution case and p| tilltil'Ill 111c?(tffei3t <(«ltdl< '^siRnan^i the way ai.<p<lt!diit Shyamlal assaulted htm (t the deceasect complains about his timber that his father Lehru is already dead. Aftsr ijR. of Ex.D-1 was also recorded. inhuest over the dead body of deceased was the witnesses vide Ex.P-4. Blood stained |taken into possession vide Ex.P-4A. On the \7} of the appeltant blood stained Dauli was px.P-5. Sea!ed packet containing wearing ^t by the hospita! was taken into possession t>i! and plajn soi! was taken into possession vide Ex.P-9. Spot map was got prepared |Ex.P-11. Dead body of the deceased was rernment Hospital, Kansabe! vide Ex.P-12. of the deceased Lehru was prepared by Dr. .ual investigation, charge sheet was fiied in ;rate 1st Ciass, Jashpurnagar, who in turn 8d Sessions Judgs, Raigarh and the same Additiona! Sessions Judge on transfer for cution examined 10 witnesses m ail and ised/appeltant was recorded under Section lenied the materia! appearing against him in iaded innocence and fatse imptication. He ^V^ ^T^ ^ufT^, —FS/59— 8/2007 —30,000. 3:esr ^nq'rt.pT, e>Ttl^'ie, Rl^iyy 311^1^1 R-ljtb W1T3IKW WITO ^ww g,^^"-- .......................................... 200 antwii'ra; (Tpfg^ii) aiso took a defence that thi Anandram also wanted to ma been falseiy implicated in the Learned Additiona! Se; leamed counsel for the respi accused/appeilant, as aforemi Homicidal death of Leh statement of eyewitnesses also from the statement of conducted the postmortem postmortem report of Ex.P-1' size 6"x %"x2%" on th®left sj the mandible to left side bac| cardio respiratory failure due| is homicidal in nature, it is| homicidal in nature. Learned counsel for 9 not dispute involvement of th| submits that the incident ot premeditation while the app^ The deceased sustained onU the offence and theceforej circumstances the offence --•g'-to 'Nt-r qiFlfepfrT'WRJf i[ ft^ •^fRTC i? sifin an^i iady with whom he has married, son of i|ry her and because of this animosity he has trime. (sfons Judge after hearing the arguments of ^ctive parties, convicted and sentenced the intioned. ru is not in dispute. Even otherwise, from the thunsai (PW-2) & Detari Yadav (PW-3) as 5r. Ashok Kumar Sanyal (PW-1Q) who has |ver the person of the deceased, gave the in which he noticed oblique incised injury of ^le of neck directing from the ieft side below of head and opined that cause of death is ito shock and excessive bleeding and death established that the death of Lehru was ie accused/appel!ant submits that he does appellant in crime in question, however, he xurred in a spur of moment without any lant and the deceased were going together. one injury, there is no motive for committing taking into consideration the totality of ^ommitted by the appeltent does not travet r, tl-'l-IK'lld —FS/59— 8/2007 —30.000. .jL^.—— —-. 2-T^ 3:"r •WTT:??r, oxTwito, fsf<?ii<iy 3TI^T.?iT K-ii* nisn^i isw WfRff (h^tcb "•""""•"•••••••••••••••••••--•••"••--•• ^ 200 anSgr 'VISR ('pfg^w) beyond Section 304 Part-1 o| justified in convicting the app^ On the other hand, impugned judgment argued) appellant with a sharp edged) over the vital part of the bod<| sustained 6" long and 2%" submits that there is suspected that the decease(l reflected from the F!R as ay' of the deceased and thus, t| can be inferred. evidehce We have heard tearn the material availabie on reci The intention is to be record. Suraj Kumar (PW/-1),| the basis of which report of| report that the appellant susj timber theft. Though this wi'1 the cross-exammation by Vr^ there was a quarrel bet^ connection with the seizur^ animosity between them, O^ •;-'?T^T ^(t^ ^- qil'lffci<fll 'RH^ff ^f f^3f <r3i4yi<' ^'aifaHan^r Part-2 ofthe IPC and the trial court was not Wlant under Section 302 ofthe !PC. ^arned counse! for the State supporting the that murderous assault was made by the |weapon of 35/6 cm fitted in a wooden handle i.e. neck, as a result of whrch the deceased incised wound over the neck. He further available on record that the appellant complains about his timber theft, which is o the statement of Suraj Kumar (PW-1), son le intention of the appellant to cause murder 3d counsel for the parties. We have perused ^rd including the impugned judgment. fnferred on the basis of evicience availabte on who gave the merg jntimation of Ex.P-1 on ;x.D-1 was registered, has mentioned in his )ected that fhe deceased complains regarding ness has been declared hostile, however, in prosecution this witness has admitted that reen the appellant and the deceased in of timber and because of this there was further cross-examination by the defence he r, (ra-IK'lld —Fs/3-)— 8/2007 —30,000. 75ET •^l«ltf?T,®TTl'M'IS,Rlrtiuy *<1*<^1 *MI* ^ 200 SlT^I.^TlR'IW ?!8!T3nt?[ WRW Rosh? aii^sr Tiaq; Cpf^a^ff) abin has clarified that his earlier v< d.eceased and the appeitant it Learned counsel for Detari Yadav [PW-3] argued on the date of incident at abo| somewhere along with his frk well and both of them were by him from his own and ther^ Even if we consider t( while the deceased was goin^ thereafter they started quarr^! the accused has to be inferr^d ofthe body over which injuryl made. In the instant case sharp edge of size 35 cm| deceased over his neck and neck which extended from iof Thus, considering the mani(s weapon on tiie neck, the convicting and sentencing th^ !n the resutt, the aprt< dismissed and it is according <»l«(I<n<ill'qFRlf^ fvS <^yi< ^sifin sii^i •rsion that there was a dispute between the relation to seizure oftimber is correct. flie appellant referring to the statement of <hat this witness has categorically stated that |jt 4.15 to 4.30 p.m. the deceased was going jnd, the deceased met the appellant near the j|)ing talking together and this was witnessed ^after both of them were engaged in quarrel. he statement of this witnesses, we find that with his friend, ttie appellant went there and iing and it is settied law that the intention of jd on the basis of the nature of injury, portion is caused -and force with which the assault is ^he appellant with a deadly weapon hawng fitted in a wooden handte assauited the caused injury of size 6"x 1/S"x 2%° over hls tver portion of jaw up to the back of the neck. (er in which the assault is made by !ethal |rial court did not commit any mistake in appe!!ant under Section 302 of IPC. (ea! has no merit, the same is liable to be y dismissed. Sd/. T-p-_Sbarma Judge -ffa'f t'BFT ;li:.«lldi|, IRHKTOI —FS/S9— 8/2007 —36.B5»-.~ \-ti'