Cl^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) CRIMINAL APPEAL No. ^ <S 3 Of 2006 ig?" Nsncs APP: RESPONDENT CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTIQN 374 fZ] OF TjIE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. Itwar Singh S/o Sukhram Agariya, Aged about 32 years, Occupation- Labour, R/o Village- Baraod, Dafai .);,at.e Para, Thana- Gharghora, district- Raigarh (C.G.) f..^' VERSUS : - State of Chhattisgarh, through P. S. Gharghora, District- Raigarh (C.G.) CONVICTIOM _tS ® HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 683 of 2006. APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Itwar Singh s/o Sukhram Agariya State of Chhattisgarh. Shri Santosh Tiwari, counsel for appellant. Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for respondenVState. CRIIVIINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (22.03.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.8.2006 passed byAdditional Sessions Judge, (FTC) Raigarh.in Sessions Trial No. 61/2006 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304-11 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay fine of Rs. 200, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on the basis of merg intimation dated 31.3.2006 (Ex. P-1) lodged by Rambati (PW-1) - wife of the deceased, FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered on the same day. It is alleged that accused/appellant who is the brother of the deceased had called him and there was some quarrel between them on account of some paddy having been eaten by the animals. Firstly, the accused/appellant chased his wife saying that as to why she had not protected the paddy. Thereafter, he said the same thing to the deceased also and assaulted him with club on his head and as result ofthe injuries sustained by him he died. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 18 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code ^t_Crjminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled ^a^BMiO Ja>|uiiud -/PS •speeoons Aiyed snqi leeddy '8 •ynoo |eu} aqi Aq pesodLui se sjeaA U9A3S p peois ui sjeaA 9Ay JQ^ lueujuosudui! snojoBu 0} paonpej si lueiiedde/pasnooe a\^ uo pesodLui eoueiuas \\ef' •pauietuieiu si iueLu6pnf peu6ndLui eqt jo tjed UOIIOIAUOQ 'p9MO||e Aiped si leedde 94) 'SSBO sq} p seoueisLunojp pue s)oe^ 041 ui •^ •JOJ p9||E3 si t! 41!/>A Aouaiuei ou pue pjooej uo siqeiieAB eouepiAe sqi L|}!M 33UBpJ033E Ul Sl }jnOQ \BU} 34} Aq iue||3dde/p8sno3B eqi uo pseoduji eousiues eqt teq^ sfiiuqns uoiioafqo snouas siq eujsiej steis 341 jo^ |asunoo 'siqi 01 'iuiq Aq suo6j9pun Apesj]B poued 9L|t 0}peonpaj si LUIL; uo pasodLui eoue^ues 3iQK eoitsnfjo isejatui sqi ui eq p|noM l! pue |ief 0} LUIL| Buipues ui paAjes aq p|noM esodjnd |npsn ou 'paseaoep SLJ} }o B^IM aq} Buipnioui AIILUB^ sjifue SIL| p ejeo e>|Bi 0} seq OLJM }ue||adde sqi si }i }BU^ pue sAep AtueM^ pue sq^uoLu u9Ae|9 'sjeeA 93jq} JQJ ]ie[ ui peuieLuej Apeajie seq iue||8ddB/pssnooe ei4t ieqi 'sjeqiojq aqi ueaMfsq e^ndsip IBIAUI aujos p tunoooe uo 9002 -leeA SL|( uj eoeid ue^e} pey tuapioui 941 }eqi 'e6e p sjeeA Zg p ueuj 6unoA e si iue||9dde 94) 'aiiq 0^ Buipjooov '/|uo pejeqi yed eoustues eq} 0} tuaujnBje 314 auyuoo pino/n pue )U9iu6pn[ peuBndiui eq} ^o yed UOIIOIAUOO 0} s9tB]8j }! se JB^ se |eedde siqi Buissajd }ou si sq }eq( sfiLuqns )ue]|9dde eqi JQ^ |esunoo 'g •psu6ndLui }U9Lu6pnf9qi Buipnpui pjooej uo 9|qe|!EAE leustBLU eqi pesnjod pue seitjed 34} JQJ. |esunoo pjee|-| •g •Odl 11-t'OE uoiioes jepun eousj^o QU^ jo^ }UB||8dde/p9snooe eqi psoueiuas pue pepiAuoo seq ynoo IBU} 9qi seiijed eq} euueeq jeyy 'fr •9SBO eqi ui uoiteoiidLui es|e^ pue soueoouui siq pepeeid pue uuiq tsuieBe '— ~^