XI-wr ~3^3[ ^Wt<?W, ^>T{t^<l<S, [sf<?il'H^< Ni^dl *<4Jeb .G^..:..6.:.....^..L •^ 200/ 31?^?T '^^ ( l^f^^ ) ^n^r^R^cb 'cr^T^IR^T ^Htcfi iTcfi^RTr^T ^3^r cbl<lf<rt<fl<1 'WT^Tf ^ fe^ Tf^[x?R i?'spRw'srr^r HIGHCQURT OFCttHATTISGARHBILASPUR CRIMINAL APP: DIVISIOWBENCH APPELLAST Hor HON' NO.j4810F200l 8HRI L.C. BHADOO, 8& SHRI DHIRBNDRA MI8HRA. JJ 4 Sohrai Raia Rautia, S/o Shri Sitaram Rautia, aged about 30 years, R/o. ViUage—Dugdugia^ Kurikuri, P.8.- Kunkuri, Distt<; Jashpur Nagar (C.G.) ^ ..^l': V^rsys RE8PONDENT Present: Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, counsel for the accused/ appellant. Ijanel Lawyer for the State/respondetit, ORAL Per L.C. Bhadflio, J State of Chhattisgarh, Through The PoUce Static Kurikuri, Distt. Jashpumagar^ (C.G.) .."€ ;s^. ^-1 UDGMENT N,^- "~v^ (26th ^Tune 2007) This appeal is directed a^aiast the judgmcnt of conviction and order of seatence dated 16th [May 2001 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Jashpu^nagar m. Sessions Trial No. 93/2000 whereby learned Additional [Sessions Judge after holding the accused/ appeUant guilty for coi^iniission of the offence under Sectlon 302 of fhe ladian Penal Code, se|itenced him to undergo ixnprisonm.ent GRPRJ— FS/: XI-HC—78 -STI^T ?n ^i.ch TT^TT '^TR^T st)^l^ l^. -.... /' %i^ Tc^ "L11^10^, ^>T0^4|($, fsf<^ty^< "25) wmr^iw~-<7x-'-A':-AB-/- "^ 200/ wi?r ^^K (^rf^s^r) ^'^TTW^f^T ^Ti^T for lifc, pay a fii ^-Rs -^- r9( further undergo imprisonmenjt for five months. 2. Case of fhe prosecutiotL; the night o^-18.2.2000 near Sohrai Rani asked Jivatbhaja iiiforniation to fhe excise aad slapped deceased Jiyatb^ iaterv'ened ia the niatter, sen( respective houses. Jiyatbhjsu accused Sohrai Ram also accused Sohrai Ram saying officers?? started toeatbig hiia nose, as a result ofwhich nose. Jivatbhan becaoie 19.2.2000 when he was fhc wav. The niattCT was rerto Police Station Kunkuri, o4 registered. Thereaftcr, Pirstj by Sudhbal (PW-4) and off^ registered under crime investigating officer left for inquest (Ex.P/ 3) on fhe body) < plain soU were takea iato undei' Ex. P/ 4. Dead body | the Govt. Hospital, Kunkuri conducted postniortem an.dj det)arfatnent e^- CM^f^(^'rl ^i+K^l* ^IT^ <F3<^I< ^/3ff?PT3TT^T td m defaiilt of pa^ rf fine to in. brief, is that at about 9.30 p.m. m ^he house of Hariram. Choudhary accused (siace deceased) fhat 'you are givmg regarding his lUicit distUlation" Lb^ian two-fhree tmies. Hariraai Choudhaiy i{fc the accused aiid deceased t^ge to their went to his house as^l foUowiag him t'eached fhe house of Jivatbhaa where piat <<Vou get tfae Uquor seized by excise [with fists and chappal on his moufh aad started ooziag out froni his niouth and s^eechless aad his face was swoUen. On taken to Kunkuri Hospital, he died on by Sudhbal (PW-4) on 19.2.2000 at which inerg intunation (Ex.P/6) was Inforiaation Report (Ex.P/5) was lodged ^nce under Section 302 of fhe IPC was 15/2000. Receivmg fhis report scene of occurrence and prepared fhe of deceased Jiyatbhaa. Bloodstaiaed aad >ossession froia the place of occurren.cc [of Jiyatbhan was sent for postmortetn to |under Ex.P/ 10 where Dr. S. Toppo (PW-5) Iprepared fhe postcaiortem report Ex.P/7. bldod bd4g rertorted J^o, tlhe XI-HC—78 Tc:5T -q|^|(?'><q, ^)Tn'y<l<o, Isf^l'M^ ^^ ^T f<Tli<=h TT^T '2R^T $^^i<=b ...^^t^ ^y^ ^l^ldl (b^lcb ..Ca:...-..a.-......^...<a./.. 3TT^?r 'q^? (li^lfl<<^) '^ 200/ -3- '^TR[R ^ftU ^?T He opiaed fhat cause of deafh skull bone and death was homil' Is hem.orrhagic shock due to fracture of cidal in nature. 3. After comLpletion of inve^i fhe accused/ appeUaiit ia th^ Jashpurnagar who ia turn Sessions Judge, Raigarh froic| Judge, received fhe case on trab-sfer 4. Prosecution in order to e^ exatnined 7 witnesses. StaterGteat Section 313 ofthe Cr.P.C. in^ agauist him in the prosecutionj and has been falsely implicat{ed Nehruram, DW-2 Sharfuddm, his defeace. 5. Learned Additional Sessi<| respective parties convicted a4d aforemeationed. Rakeih 6. We have heard Mr. of thc accused/ appeUaat and State/respondent. 9. Mr. Rakesh Pandey, ha? Jiyatbhaii. Moreover, ia view^ Bai, wife of the deceased, w chl^r<n<flr1 TTTH^f ^ft^t ^^K ^^tRRSTT^T tigation charge sheet was filed agaiast Court of Chief Judicial Magistorate, ^oinmitted the case to fhe Court of where learned II Additional Sessions for trial. ^tabUsh fhe charge against the accused of fhe accused was recorded under rhich he denied the material appeartag jevidence and stated that he is mnoceat ia fhe crime. He exaaiiiied DW-1 IDW-3 Etwaram and DW-4 MurarUal in >ns Judge, after heariag counsel for fhe sentenced the accused/appeUaat as Paadey, counsd appearing on behalf ]|flr. Sudhir Bajpai, Panel Lawyer for the not disputed the homicidal deafh of |of the ocular euidence of FW-1 Surpati ^ho has categoricaUy stated that fhe XI-HC—78 ^^r^rFTT^T, ^>TO'M4i<o,, fs<0i^^< ^\ Nl^dl sh^lleb ^ 200 W§t5T 'q^F ( li^flc<^ ) ^n^r ?n f^'iich TT^T -3Tr^T *^li<=b ^ccused attacked licr husbaiid wri|li fists aud. \3rujippul ajid. tlic lucd.ical ^vidence of Dr. S.Toppo (PW-5), ]3ody of deceased Jiyatbhaa an<^ opiaed ftiat cause of deafh was (lexnorrhagic shock due to fractu|re of skull bone and fhe deafh was lioniicidal m nature. In view of |tliis evidence, it is estabUshed fhat {leath ofJiyatbhaa was hoinicidal|ia nature. p. As far as uivolvcxnent of |the accused/appellao.t ia criaie ui ^uestion is concemed, Mr, Paade^ has not disputed even iavolyement (^f fhe accused/appellaat ia ftie < ^ife of the deceased, has categori|cally stated fhat in the fatefal night t^hen she along wifh. her husban|d was sittiag ia fhe house, accused ^amie there and started beating h^r husbaad wifh fists aad dzappal as '^nw^f^r ^sn^r <=hi^(<n<fli ^i^<;ii* ^f^^i' <rai^i< '^stRFT^TT^T who conducted postmLortexa on tiie rime. Moreover, PW-1 Surpati Bai, ^ result of which he sustamed |b.e was beiag taken to fhe hospi ^njuries, Thereafter, she took him ^nside the house, iaforaied fhe vfll^ers and when next day moming al he succunibed to fhe injuries on (the way. In fh.e cross-exaDiiaatioiji offhis witness, the defence has not peen. able to elicit aay circuinsta4ces which discredits fhe evidence of 1 Surpati Bai is corroborated by the (PW-5) who conducted postmortem N±dswitaess. The evidence of PW\ ^Eiedical evidence of Dr, S, Topp^ |3n fhe face, abrasion on fhe knee jon tiie body of deceased Jiyati^haii aad noticed swellmg on the forehead ia the size of35?x 2W, j5n^cture offinontal parietal bone, bruise and opined that cause of death was [hieDiorrhagic shock due to firactu|re of skaU bone aad the deafh was Ih.omicidal m nature. Thereforel ia view of fhe above ociilar and jaiedical evidence, mvolvement oJ| fhe accused/appellaat in cnme m [^uestion is estabUshed. 3^ET -^ii^!<^^, ^T{i'yj!<o, isi0!'My ^JTO^T ,.(^c..:.a..:....^.^../. "^ 200 / (^^^) ^rit¥L'^T^^ ^T ^,. i i^WHJN^^r »0^^^^-->Mb^^£Maclcv^l<a^im<acj COIITI fhe evideiice on record, it caa not haviag aay iaten.tion to offence agaiast the accused the IPC. s^fely be iEiferred fhat the accused was cjause death of Jiyatbhan., fherdfore, not travel beyond Section 304-11 of dods 10. On the other haad, Mr.| supported the impugaed judgm^ ; impugaedjudgme|it oftrial )eU4iii Sur^ati It. la order to appreciate counsel for fhe accused/app< avaUable on rccord. PW-1 incident, has stated that the with fists aad chappal, thereaft^r; next day niormiig when. Jiyatbh^n died on fhe way. Thcrc is attacked the deceased wifh that the deceascd is informer information regai'diag his iUicit to fhe marmer in which ttie fact fhat the deceased sunriv^d treatmeat, it canaot be said Jiyatbhan with an. inteation to considered opinion that fhe beyond Section 304-H ofthe IPC\ offedice ^f^f^^FT ^Wff ^ 'fe^ Tf^^T? '^3t^rs?i^i £l_jbrt^c* ^Y)T)<:?l^n^ nrcni^^l th^t froaxi Bajpai, learned P.L. for the State Court. ^he argument advanced by learned l^nt, we have scrutmized ffae evideace ^ati Bai, who is the eyewitaess to the 4ccused attacked deceased Jiyatbhaa :, she took him inside fhe house and was bdbig taken to fhe hospital, he elvidence on record that the accused aad chappal as he was suspectlag the excise dqparfcmeat aad is giviag tllstUlation of Uquor, therefore, lookiag attacked the deceased aad fhe for fhe whole rdght witfaout aay fchat the accused attacked deceased [cause his death. ThuSy we are of fhe agaiast the accused does not travel fistls 0|t acbused GRPR m ~3:S3[ ^ll-qi^-q, ^>Tl1^jl<$, fc|C?'>W^< ^ TO^rr ^t^"......<^.'..^..'..-^"<%.^....."......"^ 200 / 3?T^?T "^^ (^fgsi^) ^T^T^T'^i^F ^T^ ^j^r sb^l<=h ip%" ^a^- -6 ^^R ^ft^ ^¥[ 12. Ia the result, thc appea] fhereon, arc set aside. lastead 304-11 of the IPC and sentencedl ^prf^ft^ TnT^if ^ 'fet^ <r^^i< ^^tf^H^n^T partiy succeeds. Conviction of the accused/appeUaatunder Sectioi|i 302 ofthe IPC and sentence ioiposed stated that the accused is in. d^teation suice 19.2.2000 aad as such, he has already conipleted the J4U seatence iniposed upon hmi. It is^ fherefore, directed that the acc required in. any ofher case. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge fchereof, he is convicted under Section to undergo R.I. for seven years. It is ised be set at Uberty forfhwifh if not Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007— 50,000.