^ t^ //-iltotSed by the High Court lega! Services Committee'? 1: ' .f r" - gTia; Tn-^jfs STqTT^R JW-BT aritg ,3 Vo°4—./^ STFiTmit 1tR5T ER-^ ^fe ^ ^ ^ ?&, 1^rRfr-qTe%T^qTEiT I1TS8T, - tsBT TTiAWT^C^s) ———aiflTtT^'/sTi^TO ^ ^.. (^i q) I^E?'; TIK grrasr ^SfT:- inTT ?o^ ^ ^Sa STi^^T ^TTTqT^- —tjT9<t»T@T ^ST^SI y ^ ^- ??i3T K^l<@ EnTT 90^ ? ite srritw ^T?-TgTa" ^t &«?T ^ s^a TiTTff^- sHTErgiiiT 9T?^cC:R-AT% ^ m^ r trl^ afra ^i^i irrrr 3w(^) ^aTsfle ?^w yi ts9^M ir'; XI-HC-78 sn^r^rR^itb <raT3n^Ts»>*ii<t> *11+1MI aiHRi 7S[ "q|<||<fl<<, ®Tnt1i|6,fcfi-liyy ^:fi.-.).°.?.?.f.^ 200 Sii^i Mach (lictIdc"<eT) ?^TT8iT!:Bf?cI'3:n^T !ONB! HON'BLE MR. L.C. BHADOO, HON'BLE IVSR. SUNIL KU?,«,AR &,^.v s .A.yvs Shri Raiesh Jain, counsel Shri D.K. Gwalre, Dv. Gd 1 for the appei'ant. h/ernment Advocate for the State. Ora.l judament dictated oti Dais. As per L.C, Bha< This appeal is directed order of sentence dated 23/3 Rainandaaon in Sessions Trl Sessions Judge after holdina tlte of offence under Section 302 o^ Bai @ Dharmin Bai, sentenced !'**;& r'-'Si^.d f^sf fha rs'Ti^A/^s ili i^tii^y Us Li ite y^y^y^M! ?5E.int i^f ^r's^usp-rl/s^t^^iipsnt sviri ?1 ^'^^^^/^vSj^^^/^iidiBto &<E<^ri ^) day i.e. on 10/5/1998 at about the deceased and accussd, acdt of cot and assauited once on th' •s !''t'l;c^'tS'^ r<^ \ft/'^'-!;.*^l~ r^^At'n"lii p^ ?'5.'''s: ;) ti s'yS;Uil :-Ji VV'ri]{^rL L^HSi'HiiH Sf^i y oozing out of the iniun/, sh< vi!laeers and confessed before on which, Buddhuram (PW-1) On receipt of this infonnatlon, tlh of occurrence after aiving not' 'shl'i|?(1<fl-< 1]1<-lTfrf3cil'<R]t<K ^Slf^TSn^T ff i e. SINHA. J. A against the judament of conviction and t/1999 passed by the Sesslons Judge, |al No.158/1998, whereby, the learnes acclised/apDeilant gu'ltyfor commisslon !PC, for committing the murder of Sukma him to underoo imprisonmentfQr life. tion, in brief, is that Dharmin Bai was the ihe used to reside with him. On the fateful 2:00 at noon. auarrei took plsce between lused picted UD an oid long wooden beam ,e back portion cfthe head of his aunt. as iustained inlury cn the head, blood started secame unconscious.' He informed the them that he has assaulted Dharmin Bai, Informed to the Poiice Station - Mohaia. ie Station House Officer left for the scene :lce (Ex.-P/2'i to the Panchas. prepared P.T.O. t- ^ XF-HC-78 3n^rqirR-fi»b (iqr31R?Tsti11ti UO HWWI 9nWVn 3^ -<11<11<1<<, »TTl^'16, [elClltfy ^-...^.f\.-..!?.°.8lT. 200 3il^\ 4ach (vl^'1"^) ?RiTW:Hf??r3Tr^r 'z- inauest (Ex.-P/3) on She body intimation (Ex.P-4), based'on ti' registered. Ths site olan (Ex.- stained soil were taken into eosl P/5). The cloth of the accy' i ?^ '"*/-T~i^ ^.^^^^'t ^-'^."t-'^.^' ^^-.s' L/i'^1 SHEH OsBs Ws^ ^^S ii, iVi Liy; Centre, Mohaia (Ex.-P/S), w! 1^<^Cb^:;^?*,Tr^^^^.^^ .^L?*^ ^^•,'^ ^^ J'^"^./ /S-J r^7- yUSlinUi l^fj'i vli iuss1 UsjyiV Ui Ui -^.'^.'^-^^ ^ RF^-^ '^ J'^f^rf^ -^; '•/^ *^^: '^i^-^S/^ :^ UysiLi; Vyffii? i-:Ui[^ ^U^ i.'J iW^U iii. After comD'etion of thi aaainst'the accused/aDDeHant Class, Ambagarh Chowki, vl' Sessions Judgs, Rajnandaaoili t-Q.^^n:?9d ths t';3COrd. trie The prosecution in orij accused/appeilant examlned 9 witnesses. The statement df W Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which, I] and she was residina with him. of head injur accused/appeilant and ultimaN been falseiy imDiicated in the cl witnesses i.e. DW-1 - Kamle and remaid <tii<ifci41-f tiiinTffteI3'<,fa|^l< ^srf^iTsn^r fcif the deceased. Buddhuram aave mem lat, First 'nformation Reposl: (Ex.-P.'D was P/8) was prepared. PSain soi! and biood session from She place of occurrence (Ex.- sed was seized (Ex.-P/S). The body of ktmortem examination to Primarv Health here Dr. S.R. Mandavi conducted the harmin Bai and opined that the cause of lury. The postmortem report is Ex.-P,'9A. investigation, the charge sheet was fiied in the Court of Judida! Magistrate First 'ho 'n turn committed the case to the i. from where learned Sessions Judae er to establlsh the charae against the w'tnesses and cross-examined 3 defence accused/apDeilant vi'as recorded under le admitted that Dharmin Bal was his aunt He stated that she did not die on account lina questions were denied by the ly, he stated that he is innocent and has 'in*'e in guestion. He examined 3 defence 3ai. DW-2 - Suk'nuram and DW-3 ?- ©:269; XI-HC-78 sn^r^f^TR; cWTsn^Taw^ •3:st "i||<i)icl'i|, tfTflti'ie, Ri<ti*fy +11*4MI Sh*41<h .4/3.-.AOT?.C?./..^!J_ ^T 200 341^1 4d*('i=tF36'S.d') g^raTnfsa'sn^T z Learned Sesssons Judi parties and Derusal of accused/appeilsnt as a'forem^l' Ws have heard learne'l recora. Learned counsel for th| homicida! death of the deceas that on 13/5/1998, he conductl 3ai and there was a injury on| biunt object and she disd homicidal in nature. Therefore vvas .homicjdal in nafure. As Tar as invoivement o' is concerned. PW-1 ~ Bud'; Samman Singh, who are the ii the fatefu! dav, the accused Panchayat and disc'osed aboi. enquiry, he informed that in a a iona wooden beam ofcot. Ths defence has not b; crosB-examination of these w these witnssses. The extra ju. and from ths circumstantia! ev therefore. involvement ofthe a ss estabiished. «hl^r<?l41-fM|t<rlT^'fei<0 <RlWK ^srf^iTsn^T le aftsr hearing counse! for the respective •ecord convicted and sentenced the itioned. •counse! for the parties and perused the accused/appeiiant has not disputed the ^ed. Dr.S.R. Mandavi (PW-5) has siated ri the Dostmoi-tem on She bodv of Dharmin Ithe head, which was caused by hard and n account of that injurv and death was it is sstablished that death cf Dharmin Bai jf the accused/appellant in crime in auestion huram, RA?-2- Prabhuram, and Wt'-4 hdependent wimesses have stated that on Atmaram came to them. convensd a (t the death of his aunt - Dharmin Bai. On lit of anger, he assauited Dharmin Bai with ten*abte to eiicit any c'ircumstance in the ftrtesses, which discredit the evidence of liiciai confesston was wiuntary and promDt ildence, the same aopears to be true aiso: ;used in committing the crime in auestion P.T.O. ^& ?- :j— XI-HC-78 STI^T^TR-ii* (W 311^1 Shllti ^) TS? •^nqRTif, ®Tn+l'16,(sldltiy *11*1WT awi^i AA.:.}^.8jl^ 200 3<1^1 4ac»l(yi(^q^.a') g^tTWflf5tT3I1^T 1 Lsarned counsel for was aunt of the accused and s9 dav, there was some auarrel b^l accused, af! of a sudden, pick^ was ivina on the around and a] and even the assault was not I dsath of Dharmin Bal. as fhere I grievous iniuw and he had .not i] suagestive to show that the ofhis aunt. On t-he other. hand, iearil iudamera of the tria! Court. "'he arguments advance^ reason that PW-1 - confession was mads, has stat heat of passioR and on accoun] wooden beam oi cot and assault i^ IG; •';?*; isrlri"iii^".a;t"i r'.^'":!*';"^! ;i. '{'•3 sS^; aU^iiahS^U i^ys-lLiUU ssf;i.i^fid snd s^s^ijit wss n^sris ^•^•tu--vl-a^<^v[ ^ ii ^ ^ wt-^l^^U 5h W S'»? t -i iC<^^ ^,!,-:^^ i^h^'i.n/c; fh^- fhii. •'3A^^.s;ar3 hl \viii^is snuws; i.HcSi, Li'ii? ^^^/ysssu H| aunt and ss a resuit of whicl deceased. Therefore. in th' been able to estabiish that tti ^ ^^.*^,v^^s .^ty^. •^/'^ f*^^s i ^?^.*^. ^/^y '^.^-•^^v^ 1—»1 iHtSHTiOH T0 C3U3S HSf Q92ZH. I" s^fslv bs hiferred thst whl' *to'"-l*4il '^ifs 9 n/^r E E il 2 ^?1 E ^/ <w£ ff^ i^l. £• TtV l il '• wooden beam of cot. the accul iike!v to cause the death of Dh accjjsea °ni<iTci41-i tiitK-iTiT'tei^'tRi+dK ^srf^R'an^r accused/aDpel!ant argued that deceased e used to reside with him. On the fateful iween them and in a heat of passion, the d .UD a lona wooden beam of cot, which ssaulted once o" the head of deceased with fuil force with an intention to cause ,vas neither fracture of skul! bone nor any eoeated the assauit. All these factors are -ised had no intention to cause the death ied counsel for the State suDDorted the B bv Mr. Jain inerit consideration for ihe kam. before whom the extra iudicia! ted that the accused disciosed that in a of some auarrei, he picked up the long )ed his aunt - Dharmin Bai on'y o-nce. Ithat Dharmin Bai used to reside with the lonlv once and the'e is nothing on record, ilad an intention to cause death of his cwn I, no bony injury was sustained by the it baSkgrounds, the prosecution has not tHe'accused assauited his aunt with an lowever. from the above evidence.it can ^ssaulting the deceased with the iona <sed had definite knowisdae that he may ibrmin Bai, therefore, the offence against P.T.O. ?- ,.?r «E fs 6®?1 XI-HC-78 sn^rqiTf^iN; (raTsn^TgnTR; Shvna (-",/ y :^. '\^' +11*<^1 Sb^llch 3:5T'<<i'i<ifl<i,ST{lu.tis, Rcii+fy ^..Ci.A.7.J.':royJ.7, r 200 3ii^i ^ach (li?li^°<<iiiT) s?dTWHf?a'3n^T the accused under Section 302 under Section 304-!! is made out !n the result, the appeal pfertty succeeds. The conviction and sentehce imposed upon the accused/appeilant under Section 302 of IPC is I undergo R.i. for 8 vears. It is st; since 13/5/1998 ti!S date; th^ sentence, which has not been dlrected that the accused be se other casa- wih^-f tfitKiTfr'fWI'tRiwK. ^srf^iTsn^T PC would not be made out and offence erebv set aside. instead thereof, the accused is convicted under Secton 304 Part-11 of !PC and is sentenced to fted that accused/apDe!lant is in detention rebv. he has already undercone the isputed by Mr. Gwalre. Therefore, it is at Siberty forthwith, if not requlred in any Sd/- L.G. Bhndoo Judge Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge P.T.O. IL