^T^fT ??T f^ri^T WT STT^T 5b^i<=b •-^ 7SST ^|<410^, ^xfl'M^Ko, fc|01-H^< _...CS)..:.A......!^ •WT^IT ^WN; •-—--•l-""-" 3^?r tisra? (4<=(f^<^) ^^..9.0\...... \& ^ 200- '^iTWHf^r^n^r APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: Present: Mr. Abhay Tiwari, counsel for Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Additionai Pilblic he appeliant. Prosecutor for the State/respondent. Division Bench: Hon'ble ft» Hon'bleN L.C. BHADOO. J. 1. This appeal is directed ag^ sentence dated 24 Junt Raigarh in Sessions Tria! l^ after holding the accused| under Section 302 of Imprisonmentfor life. chi^t<n<i1i *ii*i<;il ^fe^ Tf^R^ ^3?iRm3q^r Kudha, S/o Samaru Khadiya, Aged about 30 years, R/o Bangaon, P.S. Bagbahar, District Raigarh (M.P.) (now C.G.) - Versus - State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh), Through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Biiaspur (M.P.) (nowC.G.) r. L.C. Bhadoo and r. Dhirendra Mishra. JJ. OrtAL JUDGMENT (Deiiver^d on 16th April, 2007) linst the judgment of conviction and order of ^909 passed by the Sessions Judge, |!o. 156/98, whereby leamed Sessions Judge ^appeltant guilty for commission of offence |the i.P.C., sentenced him to undergo XI-HC—78 ^n^T ^TT f^-lich 'cT^T 3TT^T $h^ic^ ^isi*~ ^ •3:ss( ^ii^i^, ^Tfi^4i<s, fsi^i'y^ ^TPTPTT *^l|ch^....&..:A.JI..^/^ l^ "2oe- 3^?T V^K (sic<^<t?T) ^<W(W ^ftcT ^TT^T 2. Case ofthe prosecution, in first information report Ex.F^ that Pan/ati Bai, wife of committed the murder of h< He has been murdered on / doubting the JIIicit relations this report, merg intimati^ thereafter, the first informatjon poiice custody, the accuse(p Babool stickand in pursuan|ce Ex.P-7. From the piace of of the accused, plain soi! Ex.P-8. The body of Budhi| to Community Health Centr^, (R/V-7) conducted post-mot| comma due to compressio|i haemorrhage due to head He prepared the report Ex.| inquest (Ex.P-12) on the investigating Officer* 3. After completion of investigs Judicial Magistrate, First C!; the case to the Sessionsl examined eight witnesses ^ Statement of the accused/aj the Cr.P.C. in which he de^ cM<if<n<I1i 'HPraf ^fe(^t <RI^I< ^^iRpT^n^T pnef, is that Manbudhan (RA/-1) lodged the •1 in Police Station: Bagbahar to the effect Pudhram, informed him that Kudha has sr husband in the court yard of his house. ^he ground that the accused/appeKant was ^etween Budhram and his wife. Receiving »n No.4 was reduced into writing and report Ex.P-1 was registered. While in gave memorandum Ex.P-6 regarding the of that, he got recovered the stick under loccurrence i.e. the court yard of the house land bloodstained soil were seized under i|am was sent for post-mortem examination ^, Lailunga where Dr. Shaiiendra Upadhyay tem and opined that the cause of death is of brain due to subdurai and intradura! pnjury, the death was homicidai in nature. .P-10. After giving notice to the Panchas, |body of Budhram was prepared by the ition, charge sheet was filed in the Court of iss, Dharamj'aigarh, who in turn, committed Judge, Raigarh, where the prosecution t the trial in order to estabiish the charge. )pellant was recorded under Section 313 of lied the material appearing against him in XI-HC—78 ^T^T?PT f^Tli<=h WT ^TT^T^Rn? ^-^-cl ^WW^, ^^[^, lcl^t^y _......Cr?.......A..-...(..§..^/l' -wrw IE^N? •-"•^.-'...•...^...'...•.......^.<...^.^...^ -2^, 3^?T '<?3T5F (^cjf^^) th6 prossuulioii evidyiiuu di falseiy impiicated in the crim 4. Learned Sessions Judge af convicted and sentenced th< 5. We have heard Mr. Abhay and Mr. D.K. Gwalre, learne the State/respondent. 6. Mr. Abhay Tiwari has not Moreover, from the evidenc accused made extra judicia Dr. Shailendra Upadhyay 0 body of Budhram has statec occipital bones, the death haemorrhage and the deatll that the death of Budhram v^ i|d stated that he 13 innoccnt, ho hao been 7. As far as involvement ofthel is concemed, accused Kucf Manbudhan (PW-1). stated in his evidence thatl that he has attacked the d^ too in his house. Thereaftel' saw Budhram lying dead in| The above extra judicial cc|t witness stands corrobort ct)i^f<n<fli *iw^ ^f^zt T^R^R ^" 3iRw 3?ii^r |er hearing counsel for respective parties, I accused/appellant as aforementioned. ITiwari, learned counsel for the appellant Additional Pubiic Prosecutor on behaif of isputed the homtdda! death of Budhram. of Manbudhan (R/V-1) before whom the confession, as also from the evidence of |fW-7) who conducted post-mortem on the that there was fracture on right parietel & ^as on account of subdural & intradurai was homicidal in nature, it is estabiished as homicida! in nature. [accused/appeljant in thecrime in question (ha made extra judicial confession before Mantludhan (PW-1) is Village Kotwar. He has |the accused came to his house and said ^ceased as a result of which he dled, that he went to the house of the accused and the court yard of the house of the accused. ifession made by the accused before this ated by the fact that the body of r~ XI.HC—78 75ST ^|<410A|, y»Tf1^'|^, [c|01^^< Nl^dl *Nlcb .(h..:...h^[^^ "^286- ^TT^T ^T f^Tli<=h ^T^ 'STI^T 5t»*ll<=t) -^ 3TT^!T 'q^R (4c<l^<yr) '^iTW^f^T 3TI^T Budhram was found in th^ no explanation for that ha^ deceased sustained injuri^s accused made extra judi which was voiuntary and ti body of the deceased w; CM<if<n<ili ^TTTOf "^f^fe^ <Pn<^i< ^ ^FiRm 3TT^r court yard of the house of theaccused and ^ been offered by the accused that how the in his house and died on accountofthat. 8, Therefore, from the abovje circumstances, it is established that the |;iai confession before Manbudhan (R/V-1) |ue, same is corroborated by the fact that the ^s found in the house of the accused, no explanation has been off^red by the accused that how the deceased sustained injuries in his house. !n the circumstances, as far as involvement of the accus^d in the crime in question Is concerned, we do not find any illegality orjinfirmity in the judgment of the tria! Court. 9. Learned counsel for the aj been able to establish tha1 death of Budhram. 11 .In order to appreciate the| From the evidence of M^ ^pellant argued that the prosecution has not the intention of the accused is to cause the 10.0n the other hand, Iearne<|i Additional Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the trial CourtJ arguments, we have perused the evidence. nbudhan (PW-1), it is established that the body of the deceased wa^ lying in the house of accused Kudha and the accused was suspecti^g iilicit relations between the deceased and hls wife. The accused at|tacked the deceased with fists. Therefore, from the above facts, it c^nnot be inferred that the accused attacked the deceased with intentic n to cause his death. However, iooking to the nature of injuries sL<steined by the deceased viz., occipitai & r~ XI-HC—78 '3:n^¥T?FT f<Tl[<=h 'WT 3TI^T 5b^ic») <-> Som^ 3^" ^) |^|0q, ^Tti'y1 l<^,':?st<^W^< ^INdl tb^lch .Q?...'..M.s.^../.^ -200^ 3TT^?T ^ra? ( 4<3|?^<}ST) ^RTTW^Tf^T 3^T parietal bones were fractpred, jt can safeiy be inferred that while the attacking the deceased offence against the accus ofthel.P.C. 12.1n the result, the appeai <=M^(<n<fli *iM<nt ^t l^st <Pt^i< "^ 3iRm 3?n^r on his vital organs, the accused had knowledge that he may lil<|e!y to cause his death. !n the circumstances, ^d does not travel beyond Section 304 Part-1 >f the appeilant is partly aliowed. Conviction and sentence imposed u|3on the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. are set aside, he is|acquitted ofthe said charge, instead thereof, he is convicted under Set;tion 304 Part-11 ofthe i.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.l. for eight) years. It is stated that the accused is in detention slnce 11-7-199p, thereby he is in detention for about more than eight years eight m|onths. Therefore, the accused has already undergone the sentenee), as such, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not required \r\ Sd/- L.C, Bhadoo Judge any other casr Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^ ,?