@ m m.. g (1. a1 2001 We.W WW mm (W) . W W1 20%2 mwm mm Wwm‘wfg‘irm ésafmm q .4. dacsasad) wa$ Wife of T118 a Koushalya was rasidillg ,at hm" doubtfmg fhe iidSligr of Kom f relationship with bar brofh aCC‘uSed Cams to ma paltntal from her about the imcit rslatic £i11teniion‘t0 cause (hath of i* Koushalya in order to save harf Even then, ‘me ac with knife causing griévauS in i0 Police Stafion Chalgaii and regissiering the crime, inveetiga gmd sent Koushalya for trea Chalgali Where Dr. Jaueshwa; E11 briaf, is; that Koushaiya Bai {$inca Case. of the prosccution, ppeHailt. Since 135% 10 months parental house The accueed WaS halya that she WaS having illicit :r—in-law Mrman‘, On 25.6.2000 house of Konshalya and. enquired nehip, At that time accueerl with an Loushalya attacked her with knife, ,elf etaatetl running and came outof :usecl chaeed her and attacked her jurieo, Thereafter, Koushalya went lodged the report (Ex.P[ 16y After ting ofticer took up the investigation ttment to Primary Health Center, ‘ Singh (PW~4) started treatmg her and aiso recorded her dying (,{eclaxa‘don EX.P/ 8. However, when Kouehalya was; being taken investigating officer afzer givt prepared mquest (EXP/'2) on pian {ExPfB} of the. pierce o investigating offlcer. The ace: memoraildum {ExPf 4} regar: Weapon of offence knife arrd } are. knife rmder ExPi5. 7 poetmortem> examination to C - . th€ houw. to Ambikapur, She tliecl on Way 1g notice (EXP/ 1) ’to the lDanehae, the deail body of Konehalya, Site f occurrence. was prepared by: the need while in police cue‘tody gave Ens the place where he keilt the De: lureuant to which, he. got recovered ad body of lionehaiya wag gent for 3mmunity Health Centre, Pratapggur W-HC—78 WW, §¥i HIE. , W LI . OY‘J ‘& Wm Ei200; Judge after hearing counsel for the respective paities, convicted and sentenced the. accused as aforementioned. s. Meenn Baneijee, counsel appearing on 5. We have heard M behalf of the accused/appellant and Mr. Ashish Shnkla, Govt. Advocate for the State] respondent. 4-. Learned Sessions amt m (W) WWW "cm: mmW I mm am mm wmrt ‘ é; Wm 3 undm” EXP] 10 Whsre Dr. Narayau Sing (PW~7} > conductal postmortem and prepamd T116 130$tmortam réport (EXP! 15}, in which he opined that .(Eausse of deafh was shock dué to irnla pmitoimal haemen‘hagE leading to cardio 1‘€’§;piratory arrest and ‘ u . d€ath was homicidal in :1ature. i 3. Aftar complaticm qlf i11v€Stigatiorfbharge Shea waS filéd in thE 4 Court ofJudicial Magistrate Firsst Class, Ramanujganj who in turn committal the caSE to the Sessions Judge, Ambikapur where proaecu‘tion in oxrler JO eStabliSh charge against the. accused ‘ i examined 8 witnesses at the trial. Statement of the accused was recordeti under Section 313 of the Cr.P.€. in which he denied the material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and stated that his Wife was having illicit relationship with her hrother— in—iaw Munaii and he had caught his Wife in a laseivious position. On the fateful d'ay also Munari was with her wife and on account of the matter being public Munari attacked his wife with knife and has falsely implicated hin in the crime in question. mw,m,1%mgt .. Caz“ B €69 WW mm (W) wt 2002— aléamfaa‘rw: WW; raWiEE I WWWIWW *é‘mm WWW Ll, 6. Ms. Bageljge, 112E not dissputcd the homicidal death of Keushalya Bai. Moremibr, from the ocular avidBnC€ of eyewitus$S PW-2 Dilip DaS, PW—3 ‘Vinod, and malical eviclmlce of PW—7 Dr. Narayal1 Singh, who aftm" conducting posstmortam on tlm body of KouShalya Bai opmsd ‘hat daafh was homicidal in natum, it iS establi’sEod that death of Koushalya Bai iS homicidal 1'11 oatum. 7. As; far as involvomont of the accuoeci m crimo 1'11 quostioo is concerneii, PW—l Ashok DaS, PW—2 Di‘dp Das and PW-S‘ Vinod have stated that thoy saw the accussd aitackmg Koushalya Bai with kliife. 8. Loarned counsel for tho accuoed,’ appsllant argueo. that filers is a discropancy in the avidoiloe of above Witnesses rogarding tho number of assaults madls by tho accusod, thoroforo, their evitiaico is not uuSovorthy. 9. In order to appraciate the mgument advanced by Gounod for the accusedi appellailt, we havs Scrutimzad the. 5viden€o of above witnesses. Thoy have wategoxicaliy stated in their evidence that they saw the accused attacking Koushalya Bai with knife; wheu she in order to save herself rem out of the house, even then the accuemi chaeed and att aoked‘her, therefore, there is no material contiadiction in the evii ence of these three Witnesses ahd their evidence suppotts the pi bsecution case in mateiial particulars. X1-HC—78 10. Similarly, PW—4 20.62000 Kou$ha1ya Center, Chalgali, She u racorded h€r dyiilg de‘ That her husband on ilh'cit g61ationship with In the crow—examinatic that Koushalya Bai wa. u . on account of multlp pOSition to spmk, then Evidence of this witnei knife in question was Moreovgr, tha evidanc fum‘nar stamd con'ohor‘ (PW—7) who conducted Thaimfom involvement estabh$hea and we d0 judoment of hle m& CC 11. Learned counsei that looking to the natt aSSauli was made, off beyonéi Section 304—11 judgment of the MP. Dr. Ja11eshwar Singh has stated that 011 Bai was brought at the P1ima1y Health 'as taikmg anil 011 the requeSt of police, he :iaration (EXP/8) 1’11 i‘i’hich She has stated account of sus icion that she was havjnc b her brother-hylaw attacked her with knife. 11 by counSel for the accused, he has stated a speaking slowl'r, it is incorrect to eay That Le injuries, Koushalya Bai was not iii a :fore, There is 110 evidence to disbeheve the Even the recovered at the instance of the accused. e of eyewitnesses and dying declaration ited by the medical of D1: Narayan Singh postmortem on the body of Koushaiya Bai. of the accused in cmne in question is not find an} illeoahty or nmrmrq in the uit to that ex Lent vs who is a government officer. for the accused/appellant further argued re of inj Lilies and the manner in which the :nce against the accused does not have} of the IPC.‘ She laiaced’ reiiance on the High Court in the matter Lam; (2‘ of W m CAP f3‘é‘4 W 200A Wm (W) mmw Em 31$?! 'sntW WWW ' g mmggm ‘ r ‘ ‘H-HC—78V WWW WWW 3rijm0han 8a athew V 's. $ta$e 6f Mi}. reportéd i11 199§§1y MPJR SE 3. r 12. On the o’dmr 1131' the impugnEd judgmén rECiatc: the above arguumilt 'advgmced by d/appellant, we have penmed the Widen“: ngh, who conducted postulorwm 311d mated that (i) them was a stab wmmd at tha left breast in the. saizs of 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm on the nipple of th€ breasst, a stab wound abova the nipple in the size of 1 c the size of 1 cm x l c1} nipple in the Size of '2 middle of right breast i the right side of the s1 wound on the. left side ( a result of which intes was founcl that fhere W lobe, the injuly on the l and Konshalva Bat died on account of t. His report is EX.P/ 15. The above nature 11 the injuries were inflicted on the vital pait ofwhich intestine came out, lung was also i x_dan1aged and the doc 18. 111 order t0 app counsd' for the accusE of PW-TDI”, Narayan S1 id, Mr. Shukla, GA. for the Stats supperted t of the trial Com/L nature to cause deatl: haemonhage and shod of injuries shows that a of the bodv, as a result n1 x 1 cm, a stab wound below the nipple in 1; and (ii) a stab wound on the right side. of 3 cm X C2 cm, another stab wound in the o the size of 1 cm X 1 cm, a stab wouncl on omach in. the size of 3 cm x 1 cm, a stab >f the stomach in the size of 5 cm x 2 cm, as tine came out. On internal examination it are injuries both in the superior and inferior ung was sufficient in the ordinary Course of tor has stated that the lung injury was Vb an?“ m (WW) mmw’m mam%®am 17m mam V w a!7‘“? g .Tm’m' mm? .7, g5m q . I Sufflcient in the. Grammy course. of nature t9 causg death, If Th6 1 nature of injuries causmi by the accusad/ appeliant tak€11 togsther, 1 i the (widence of the aywviulasseg suggest that sinC€t th€ accuSEd, ‘ i 1 who 1a husband of ths c" acea$6d, used to quai'i‘si with the {leceasw V}, as ha was doubting her fldeli‘ty, aS Emch decgaSed startati reSid‘mg at 1161; paremal houss, the accused went to her parental Imuse, attacked her with knife and when she in order to save herself ran A out of ”the house, he chased aml again causecl multiple. stab “on her breast, stomach and head with an intention to injunes cause her death. Therefoxe, looking to “the manner in which the assa‘ah waa made, the. yart of the body when: essault was made, the 0f offence 1 sed and the force with which the assault Weapon was made, the intem'on of the accused to cause deatn 1 0tf Koush-alya Begin unit 1e "ge. 14. However; the udgment cited by counsel for the accusedi’appellant is o no help to the accused as the same is distinguishabk on fact: because in that case, aJl nljtuies intlicted by the accused on the. d ceased were on non—vital partsof the body and few injuries were gi‘evous in nature, therefore, the High Court of MP. considering the atute of injtuies held that offence against the accused does not travel beyond Section 304—11 of the IPC Whereas in the. present as discussed above, all the injuries 1 present case, inflicted by the accuse were on vital parts of the body and as W ' . .méZ ZX%:$3jLmmmmJ ‘gi 200L WW (W) WWW WW ‘@€TW % K . QEWW auch, intsntion of the acaissd i0 Gauss death o; r kousnaya 7 1 1 Bai i$ Writ larg6. 15‘ For The foregoing TeaSons, we do not iind aily illegality 01“ infirmity in the impugned judgment of the hial Court whereby the aceusai/appelbllt has been Convicted under Seciion 302 of the IPC. . A 16‘ 111‘fhe reeult, the appea] being devoid of subetaime deeeweS to be eliemiesed and is hereby dissmiseed. Sdl— l L.C.BHADOO Judge x«v ‘ GRPRJ ~ FS/246 2/2007 ee 56.935; Q;