mw,m,§ww )n in brief is that Jamnna Bai was d who married her in a bangle marriage. The accuscd left the arvica from the colliery and started lesiding in his in-laws village '.e., Girhulpali. About 4-5 months ; prior to the date of incidentvon account of diit'erences between the used deserted the deceased. On @?.12.2m0 Jamuna Bai was coking meal at her residence and she Was about to serve ttge 00d to her mother, at that time 1111a Bai to accompany him. ‘- Hdwever, Ja‘muna refused to ccompany the accused; on which, away. The merg intimation Ex.P.1 3 of the incident was given by Dadu Ram (P.W.1) in the police smiion, Baramkela. After registering the offence u/s 302 IPC, the inves ' aiing ohicer left for the scene of occurrence and after giving no e EX.P.4 to the Panchas, pmpamd inquest Ex.P.5 on the body of amuna Bai. He seized the clothes ’ ’ of the deceased. under Ex.P.3. The site plan Ex.P.6 was prepamd ee. Under Ex.P.7 he seized the blood stained soil, plain soil a also the bmken pieces of bangles. One Rin Pustika, one stamp in he name of accused, and the bunch of keys, one razor, alongwith P stic bag left by the accused at the place of occurrence were also eized under Ex.P.7. The body of deceased was sent for postmo em examination to the Assistant Surgeon, Baremkela Where P.W.7 Dr. Kamleshwar Maravi c “\cginducted the autopsy on the ’\ (2) The case of the pmsecuii‘ the second Wife of the acc He also gave the First. Information Report mmkela. ‘ accused and the deceased the accused came and asked . } the accused attacked Ja with an Axe on her neck and " f committed her mtmier and by him on the place of occ K» EX.P.2 in the police station y ofJamnna Bai. He opined that u a , , c m n u _ CAKAk 1.1. m m W 200} anéwm (W) mmm WWW WWW mmffwm éia‘FcmW WW,WW CA-h‘ H37 Wm aizom mm (13W) WWW Wamiiwm %5ai1%m&1é¥I emsive causr y hemorrhage, bony’injmy and injury on the spinal cowl. The ‘death was homicidal in natu He prepared. pos1mortem report 1Ex.P.9. ‘ Based on the mem um Ex.P.10 given by accused 1 Puniram, the weapon of offenc i.e., Axe was seized under Ex.P. 11. 3’l‘he clothes of the accused' ere seized under EXP. 12. After i completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed in the Court turn committed the case to the § Sessions Judge, Raigarh, frotm here the leaned m Addl. Sessions Judge, Ieceived the case on tra sfer for trial, {(3) The prosecution in order to establish the charges against the accused, examined 8 witnesse . The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 r.P.C., in which. he denied the material appearing against and stated that the deceased was his second Wife, to Whom he d in a bangle marriage and - about six months prior to the date of incident she was divorced under a written agreement, he s innocent and has been imfilicated in a false case. ‘the cause o cat was to s 0c 3&fJ.M.F.C;, sarangarh, wiio (4) The lealned Addl. Sessi for the parties respective, co victed and sentenced the accused appellant as aforesaid. (5) We have heard Shri Y.V. aman Rao', learned counsel for the ' appellant and Shn' U.K.S.Ch del, learned Panel Lawyer, for the a G! Ye r . o d ) ‘e 3am, m,W ‘ ‘ MAH’D) manta; (W) WWW ‘ Wm €€ém am'ménéa WW‘ a1 200] (6) Learned counsel for the accused appellanfhas mot d'isputed the homicidal death of Jamuna Bai. Moreover, Dr. Kamleshwar Maxavi (RWY) has statsd on 7.12.2000 he conducted the » postmortem on the body ofJ una Bai, there was a bruise wound 1 on the middle part of the left arm. Thom wasan incised wound on the left side of the neck in ize of 2’ x V2” x 2"; another incised k in size of 3" x V2” 1V2”, Clottnd vein and artety was cut. Cervical bone was also cut. The uinéx one of the 1e& arm was fractured. The cause o£death was shock hemorrhage and injury to the neck Wand spinalcord. The death W homicidal in namre. Apart fmm _, 1 that, the medical evidence is c mhorated'by the ocular evidence of ’ P.W.2 ’l‘iharin Bai, who has s ted that the accused attacked the deceased with the Axe. There 1e, in View of the above ocular and medical evidence it is esta d that the death of Jamuna Bai was homicidal in nature. wound on the left side of the u 1‘ \ (7) As far as the involvemen of the accused in crime in quesiion is concerned, learned counsel or the appellant argued that in this a, case, the prosecution has ed to examineé the Investigating odicer, therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal. He also argued that the independent nesses have not been examined in this case, only close relatives f the deceased namely 'I‘iharin Bai (P.W.2), Dadu Ram(P.W.l.) an Udal (P.W.6) have been examined and their evidence does not in pire coniidence and in the absence of independent witnesses, iance cannot be placed on the evidence of‘these relative witne sses. ‘ ~\ ,' t . , b ' e 't l f (8) On the other hand, le d State Counsel supported the judgment of the ti'ial court. (9) Having heatd counsel d for the parn'es, in onder to appreciate the arguments advnced by learned counsel for the appellant, we have scmtinjZed. evidence. P.W. 1 Dadu Ram has stated that on 7‘11 December, h was in his thrashing add and was *Jhrashing the paddy. Sahbo ca u and informed him that Jamuna (since deceased) and Pun' \ ;\gccused) were quarrelling. He went to the spot, saw that Jamuha as lying on the ground, them was cut injury 6n her neck and b . . o was oozing out of the injury. near the hody. He enquired from t ’I‘iharin Bai was weeping sittin Tihan'n Bai as to who has attac‘ ed, on which she replied Puni Ram has attacked on the neck of .I una Bai with Axe and ran away. Thereafter, search was made hu whereabouts of the accused could not be known. Themfore, he and lodged the report Ex.P.1. accused divorced Jamuna Ba incident through a written letr. The deceased was his cousin sister. He informed about t e incident to, the Sarpanch and Upsarpanch of the village also; P.W.2 ’l‘iharin Bai, mother of the deceased has stated that th Jamuna Bai, deceased was he daughter. The accused married e. On the fateful day at about 10— ' 1 1 a.m., the accused came to t eir residence, at. that time, Jamuna and her daughter-in-law Usha i were at the residence. Jamuna was cooking meal and she w s sitting in the court yard. The a I". .l"I05B'iJl.ll II’I! "" wilhanaxe, asa t to the police station Baramkela ln para 4 he has stated that the 2-3 months prior to the'date of accused is her son—in-law and Jamuna Bai in a bangle max-Ii a .e a: e e w n i a 5 W W MAM? Vi 200] anew m (aims) sew-waste madam mesam mmtwm assesses ‘ injuly. The accusedms cries on which Sahabo, enquired fmm her about him also. Hira Bai has towards her also; themfom, she raised dal and Dadmam came. Dadu Ram : incident, therefote, she disclosed to examined as P.W.3 who is said to fhavc wimessed thc incide t, but her evidence is “improved for the mson that in her police c es diary statement EXJ’. 1 , she has not stated that she witnessed incident Therefote, her evidence is of no help to the prosecuti P.W.6 Udal has stated that on the fa§eii11 day he was thra L the paddy crop in. the thrashing held, at that time‘Usha Bai and informed him that the accused“ has attacked. the decease. with axe on her neck, thcteadm; he reached to the spot Whele amnua was lying, the blood was oozing out of the injury. He saw that the accused was running away from the place canying axe in his hand. He alongwvith other villagers chased the accused but they'could not catch him. (10) Now coming to the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the Investigating Ohic'er has not been examined, in fact the LO. has not been examined hut merely on this ground the case of the prosecution cafnot he thmwn out and the same has to he decided based on the evidence available on record. Unless it is shown that non-examinatic‘m of the LO., is fatal to the prosecution case or the same has cans d. prejudice to the accused because on account. of his non examin tion, he has not been able to elicit the relevant facts, which c011 have been ascertained only from the l.0., it cannot he said tha non examination of 1.0. is fatal to the “f"“pmsec . . . “not‘heerr’exannnedWatned c ,n J w h " i J t o . s ' c e 3aW, Wm, WCAAHTI \ W w 200 I New m (13W) maxim am seem mattem mmee—am % KimW i tesult of which, she fell. d ‘ 7 and blood started oozing out of the ’ XI‘HC—78 counsel for the appellant has not raised any point that how non ‘ examination of the 1.0. is same has caused pmjudioe {ind any substance in the appellant. / (11) As far as the Wit ‘ l deceased are concerned, fatal to pmsecution case or how the to the appellant. Thetefore, we do not arguments of learned counsel for the , u i deceased and P,W.1 is evidence of the relative wi : merely on the ground of evidence has to be scrutini in cider to ascertain the is also a distant relative. O Witnesses, it. shows that P. eye Witness to the incident incident, she was sitting in ses who ale close relatives of the is true that P.W.2 is mother of the sin brother,of the deceased. The esses cannot be out—tightly mjected ative Witnesses. In such a case, the .ed with gem. care and citcumspection hfulness of their version. P.W.6 Udal the scrutiny of the evidence of these 3 .2 ’l‘iharin has claimed herselfto he an and she has stated that at the time of the house Whereas Jamuna was busy in cooking the meals, at that time accused came with an :axe and attacked the deceased, theireaiter he rushed towards her also, on which she raised cries and at that time Sahaho, Uda] and Dadn also came. Dadu has been examined as P.W. 1 who has stated that when he came to know about the incident from Sahabo, he reached on the spot and saw the injured Jamuna, ’l‘iharin was weeping and. sitting there and there Wasan injury on the neck of Jamuna, on enquity, ’l‘iharin disclosed that the accused has attacked with the Axe. Sim ilarly P.W.6 Udal stated that Usha Bai, daughter—in-law of 'I‘iharltm (P.W.2) informed him about. the \ incident, he also came on the scene. He has further stated that he s u l t C)» A H'S‘J WW aim; mwm ammm WWW mm fzém $31mm stated that when he reached,h‘e saw .the accused running away holding the axe in his hand. In the \, cross examination of these (l witnesses, the defence has not been able to elicit any circumsmnce which materially discredit the evidence of these 3 witnesses. The pmsence of 'l‘iharin Bai P.W.2 at her residence at thc 11'me _ saw Jamna lying in an injlred cohdition and, he saw the accused : running away carrying axe im hi3 hand. He along-With the villagem chased him but they could not catch him, therefore, the evidence 2 'l‘eluin Bai has been corroborated. in ‘ of eye witness namely P.W. ess within l V2 hours corroborates the fact of complicity of accused in crime in question whereas ‘ P.W.6 Udal has categorically incident that is about. l l a.ni. in the morning was hut natural. S e is an old lady of62 years of age. Mmeover, the evide (12) of ’I‘iharinbai is also cormboiated by the medical evidence of P. .7 Dr.Kamleshwar Maiavi, who has stated that on 7. 12.2000 he conducted the postmortem on body of Jamuna and there were two incised wounds on the left side of the neck, as a result of which further stated, that as a res t of the injury, jugular vein, artery as . and ‘l‘iharin has also stated that the on the neck, therefote, in View of the above evidence, the prosecu ‘ou has been able to esmblish beyond. reasonable doubt that the Y‘_‘—n ques ‘on. also the cervical bone wen: accused attacked with the w cused was the author of the crime in WW,W,W anew-m (13W) material particulars by the e two witnesses because as per the evidence of P.W.1 Dadu w En he reached the spot, ’l‘iharin has ; disclosed that the accused ttacked the deceased. Moreover, the 1 V. ¥ F.I.R. Ex.P.2 lodged by this ere was excessive bleeding. He has f t n \ e t ‘m 3a W, gamma g; _ (13) As far as the non exar witnesses is concerned, the p the crime against the accu 'I‘iharin, P.W.1 Daduram as P. .6 Udal and their evidence inspires the coujidence of the Courtz, has been discussed. cal-Her in Older to reach the conclusion whe er the prosecution has been able to $€stablish the crime beyond re sonahle doubt or not, the quality of the eVidence is to be seen no and cimumstances, looking to non examination of other citerl fatal to the prosecut‘on. nination of Sahabo and other cihed secution has been able to estahlish based on the evidence of P.W. 2, (14) For the foregoing reasow as, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the nial Court. The same is based on legal, clinching and admissible of merit, the same is liable dismissed Sdl- L.C.BHADOO Judge the quantity, themfore, in. the facts the material available on record,‘ the witnesses by the prosecution is not evidence. The appeal being devoid to he dismissed and it is hereby Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinl'a Judge W..A ' ... W ...... .................. 1T1 20m anew m (W) 'mwfzaim wmm wafer 31m We ultra? iwWK a? mum