XI—HC-22 v Per L.C. Bhadoo J: - By this a§peal, the appeHant questioned legaiity and correctne/ss of judgment dated 12‘".July, 1994. pa sed by the AdditionatSessions Judge, _ Kanker, in Sessions Trial No.298/92 whereby, learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appe lant guilty for committing the murder of‘ his father Sukhram Gond & mother mt Bat @ Revati Bai,’ convicted him under Section 302 ofthe l.P.C. and {entenced to undergo imprisonment for life. . Case of the prosecution, in ef, is that in the night of 21-3-92 at about 9 p.m. accused/appellant Jo arlal attacked his father Sukhram» & mother Ratai Bai with a bamboo club on head Sand parietal region as a result of which blood started oozing out of e injuries. The matter was reported by Kotwar Mohan Ram in Police Stati n: Narharpur. Receiving this report, Head Constable Mohanial Pandey eft for village: Chawar, recorded the statement of witnesses, saw injur Sukhram, and his wife Ratai Bai 4w Division Bench: - Hon’ble Mr. L.C. Bhadoo and 'Hon’ble/Mr. Dhirendra Mishra, JJ. 7-2-2006 ‘ Mr. CR. Sahu, counsel for the appenant. Mr. U;N.S. Dec, Additional Pubiic Prosecutor with Mr. Sachin Singh Rajput, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Statelrespondent.‘ \ Oral judgment dictated on Dais v0 informed that her husband asked the ccused as to why he is not working on : ’ which the accused assaulted her and her husband withlclub. Dehati Naiishi [View h s a i W m CwA U72 3f . W 'Wm ‘ mm rmia'éfrvrwitwm aaafvananéw mmmm ~3— The above evidence of oral dymg declaration has been corr berated by Daya Ram (PW-2) who also went to the place of occurrence on earmg about the Incrdent and to whom deceased Ratar Bar made same stat ment which she made before Pati Ram (PW-1). Mohan Ram (PW-4), Arjun PAN-5) and Kalu Ram (PW-8) have also corroborated the evidence regardin dying declaration made by Ratai Bai beiore Pati Ram (PW-1) &'Daya m (PW-2). ,Tl'he evidence of these witnesses inspires confidence for th reason that Pati Ram (PW-1) is brother of deceased Sukhram & uncle of e accused, and other witneSSes' are villagers. ore these witnesses to implicate the. accused in a case involving the de th of his mother and father. As far as invbivement of the accusedlappeilant in the crime in question ‘s concemed Pat: Ram (PW 1} who Is uncle of the accused & brother of deceased Sukhram has stated thattm the fatefui night he was his house and Informed that some one sleepmg m his house Balram camet has murdered his brother on whtc he went to the house of his brother Sukhram and saw that Sukhram wa tying onthe ground and hts wrfe was from Ratai Bai, she disclosed that her sonJoharlal has assautted them. T ere was injury on the head of Ratai Bai and they took Ratai Bai & 8ukhram o the hospitai also lying on the ground. On enqu i There was no reason ln crossp examination of these witnesses, “def nce has not been able to elicit any fact, which makes the evidence of thes witnesses unreliable or untrustworthy. Apart from that, Daya Ram (PW-2) Siya Ram (PW-3) have stated that on enquiry the accused made extra jud ial confession before them that he had assaulted his father & mother. Therefore in view of the d declaration made by Ratai Bar and extra ludicral confessron made by t e accused before Daya Ram (PW-2) & , [Wis ates @ a f yl g )Q—HC—ZZ Siya Ram (PW-3), involvement of the murder 0f his father Sukhram and mot not find any illegaiity and infirmity in th1 Learned oounsei for the appel! that the 'accused/appellant assaulted and there was no intention of cau ing death of his father and mother. ’ Moreover, the incident was’ of the ni .. died on 23rd March, 1992 at 10.30 March, 1992 at 5.45 a.m. ’ Having perused mediCai evidence, post-modem report and evidenée of eyewitnesses, we are not convinced evidence, it has come that even the Ratai Bai, which was removed by'the doctor. Dr. G.S. Sahu (PW-7) has s ted that he conducted post-mortem of . Ratai Bai and found that there was. a ong incised stitched wound in the size of 9 x 1 cms. on frontai region and o her injury was on left hand, parietal & frontal bones were found fractured an the fractured bone pierced into brain as a result of which bran’was ruptured. Dr. S.K. Rajoriya (PW-10) has stated ortem on the body of Sukhram and :‘accused/appellant in committing the we'r Ratai Bai is estabtished and we do ajudgment of the triat Court. ant argued that from facts, it appears the deceased persons with club oniy ht of 215‘ March, 1992 and Ratar Bar p.m. whereas Sukhram died on 24‘“ by the argument advanced by iearned counsei for the appellant. From the wooden piankwas stuck in the head that on 24-3-92 he conducted post- found that left parietal bone was factured, subdural haemorrhage was present in parietal & occipital regions rid the wound Was stitched. Cause of death was excessive bleedingand he d injury. Therefore, the manner in whic the accuésed assaulted both mother & father on vital organ, of the body i.e head, it is evident that the accused assaulted both of them with intention o cause death. ln the circumstances, . [View ‘ dismissed and it is hereb dismissed. Sd/- ‘ N 5 sw- \ L.C.B'HAD00 /\ 5 mmmNDRA Mismm Judge ’/ _#4»—gW t_._ <§$1i ‘ XI-Hc-22 ,W 31lq$l W mmCwAU72(% man WVW wi m ‘ War ' v mmmm ' -5‘“ , ,m‘wuiwm agam'tranéw x we do not find any substance in the argument of 'learned cgunsei for the ' appeilant. 7g” . In the...result, the appeal is devoid of merit, same is Iiable to be.