^r D»_Ti®HIGHJJQUBT^ ^HHATII3a<mH__AT^B%4S^U^ Crirainal App^l No«^:'^_/2001 T5T?a3I)' Devnath Gond, S/o Dasru Gond, aged about 40 y^irs^ B/o Sorna? Manipur, P»S* Majjapur Bistrict- aaipur(C'garh)' w Versus - ^^2^®^2 s State of Chhatfcisgarh Through? S'.H.O. B»S«Kalnpu^ ( Baipur)!» GBIMBML .iPPEAL ^UNDIBSSCTIO® 37^(2) OF CB.P^C. XI-HC-22 W^T^T f^ra'^n^r t^^rf?( $h^|ch<HT^T /^' TST^n^TR^T, yiTfl^^Ko, Rldiy^< (f5rai NI^K-TT^KT^ ^T45«ch , ;:.A.^;..^./^ »*••»•• •S •"• •• te§: 200 3T1^T ^cnTW ^cT DIVISION BERUHT HON'BLE MR. L.C. BHADOO & HON'BLE MR.V.K.SHRIVASTAV^, JJ 9.10.2008 Mr. K.K. Singh, Advocate fi Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Dy. Gove Oral judgment dictated on trthe appellant. ilnment Advocate for the State. Iffais. Per L.C. Bhadoo, J; This appea! is directed ag< of sentence dated 28 March Raipur in Sessions Triai No.292/^ hoiding the accused/appeliant namely Tiio Bai, convicted hin( sentenced to undergo imprisonm( The prosecution case, in b( noon during the day the with a ciub. Mother of accused n4 and aiso snatched the ciub, eve{| and continued to assault Tilo B4 namely Umraon Singh (PW-1). Bai the vjllagers assembied mformed them that she is not pr^ her and nobody should interfer^ wound of the head of Ti)o Bai oifi she fei! unconscious. The accus| the blood, where PW-3 Govind body of Tilo Bai and on enquir^ GM^f<n^-< H\H^\\ ^ te^t <[^^d< ^)3Tf^T3T[^T accusep/appellant (inst the judgment of conviction and order 2p01 passed by learned Sessions Judge, /^9, whereby learned Sessions Judge after ^uilty for committing murder of his wife under Section 302 of the I.P.C and ht for tife. 1-ief, was that on 30.3.1999 at about 12.00 was beating his wife Tilo Bai ^mely Mangli Bai (PW-2) tried to inten/ene then the accused/appeilant did not stop Mangli Bai informed the Viilage Patei h the meantime, hearing the cries of Tiio the house of accused, the accused ^paring food for him, therefore, he wlll kii! (. There was profuse bieeding from the account of injuries sustained by her and id/appeliant took her to Nala for washing S{ngh saw the accused putting water on the the accused informed him that he has (^^i?r) n^ar XI-HC-22 3^^TPTT^R, ^Tf1<-ljl<o, Rldl<<1^< 3TT^T<T^? ^l^c-ll $h*ll<sb ••--------•-^ 200 f^^[ ^n^T^r f^t^3TI^T $b^icb^f?cf $b^|cb 3TT^?T ^cTT^K ^f??T committed murder of his wife. P\N\ (Ex.P-1) in the Police Station M^ commission of offence under Sectil investigatjng Officer Shri Santosh| occurrence and after giving notice| inquest report (Ex.P-4) of the body +l-4?d41^ W^t'^tei^ti^K ^3T^q'3:TT^T }1 Umraon Singh gave merg intimation (inpur, upon which F.I.R. (Ex.P-2) for i|3n 302 ofthe IPC was registered. The Singh (PW-14) left for the scene of (Ex.P"3) to the Panchas prepared the |of Tito Bai. He seized the iathi, weapon of offence under Ex.P-5 and dottfces of accused under Ex.P-S. Patwari namely Mungel Singh prepared the | sent for postmortem examination to| |site plan (Ex.P-8). Body of Tilo Bai was |the Community Health Centre, Mainpur under Ex.P-9, where Dr. K.C. Ura|on (PW-5) conducted the postmortem, prepared the report Ex.P-10 and ^ respiratory arrest due to intracraniai| After completion of investigat accused/appeliant in the Court| Raipur, where the prosecution in o pined that cause of death was cardio haemorrhage and death was homicidai. :ion, charge sheet was filed against the of Judiciat Magistrate 1st CIass, Gariyabandh, who in turn committ^d the case to iearned Sessions Judge, •der to estabiish the charge against the aecused/appeliant examined 14 witijiesses. Statementof accused/ appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was r^corded in which he denled the material appearing against him in the pros|^cution evidence and stated that he is innocent and has been faisely jmpliij;ated in the crime. Learned Sessions Judge a'jter hearing the arguments of iearned iearned counsel for the accused, in the manner as mentioned in para-1 Additlonal Pubiic Prosecutor an<| convicted & sentenced the accuse<| of this judgment. We have heard iearned cour^el for the parties. Learned counsei for the a^ homicidaf death of Tilo Bai. Apart ^cused/appeilant has not disputed the From that, Mangli Bai (PW-2), mother of (<^^^) XI-HC-22 3^'^raT^ra', «iTn'M<i(s, fsidi^^< 3ll^l M5icb *ll*<^ll »)*lich-"'--•;•-----^j- 200 f^^ ^ 3^1 ^T f^Tt^3TT^T 5h^ii<t) ^rf?cT 3TT^?T ^cTTW ^rfgcT Gbl^?^41-1 RTO^ff ^f tel^t <f^^l< ^3:rf^T3TT^T ^. ("~ Majigl 0)3 accused, and PW-1 Umrao SinghJ that they saw the accused/appellar iathi. Dr. K.C. Uraon (PW-5) has postmortem on the body of Tilo respiratory arrest due to intracranial homicida!. Therefore, in view of th€ the nature of death of Tiio Bai was h As far as the involvement of acc in question is concerned, PW-2 that on the fatefui day at about12.( from the forest, she saw that accus was iying in the courtyard of the hc on her body with a lathi. She snatc thereafter went to inform Village Umraon Singh (PW-1) came and tri stop, on the contrary, he said that Singh became angiy and ieft the Govind Slngh has stated that on tl going towards the Village Nala, he was lying in the Nala, blood was and accused was washing the blooc saw that there was injury on the hec bleeding from that injury. Left hanc two piaces and he saw that lady from the accused as to what he is d< has murdered his wife. PW-1 accused informed about the incide yiilage Patel, have categoricaiiy stated ^t inflicting injuries to Tiio Bai with the ttated that on 31.3.1999 he conducted IBai, the cause of death was cardio haemorrhage and nature of death was above evidence, it is established that hjomicidal. (used/appeiiant in committing the crime li Bai, mother of accused, has stated noon when she returned to her house is|ed & Tilo Bai were quarrelling, Tilo Bai |use and accused was inflicting injuries hed the lathi from her son Deonath and fpatel about the incident. Viliage Patei ^d to persuade Deonath, but he did not |he wii! kill Tilo Bai, on which Umraon Iplace. She also ieft the piace. PW-3 |ie fatefu! day about 2.00 p.m. he was Isaw the accused in the Nala, his wife out of the body of wife of accused with the water. When he went near, he (d of wife of accused, there was profuse of the wife of accused was broken at already dead. On which he enquired <)ing, then the accused disclosed that he Singh. to whom the mother of 'ht, has stated that on coming to know ocjzing w$s Urhraon (1:f^^R9^) %- XI-HC-22 3^''=?TFTRTq', «>Tfl^ll<o, fs|<ni^^< 3TT^?Tq^7 +l(*ic(ll $b*licb ---------'-^^ 200 3T1^T^)T ^i4)3TI^T St>^icb^f?cT ,. c 3:n^T ^cTTW ^f?cT <=hl^?d41Tl Hl^<rlT ^* te^ <Rl^l< ^3Tf^R'3:TT^T from the mother of accused, he wer| he was inflicting injuries on the bod| oozing out of the body of Tilo Bai, e^ not stop. He was saying that since] therefore, he wiil kill her. Thereaftel |t to the house ofaccused and saw that \/ of his wife with a lathi and btood was \en after his persuasion the accused did |TiJo Bai was not cooking food for him, 1-, he teft for his house and about 5.00 p.m. accused Deonath himself cam^ to him and said that he has murdered his wife. Therefore, in view of the aBsove ocular evidence of PW-1 Umraon Singh, PW-2 Mangli Bai, PW-3 Govi he noticed severa! injuries on the b the involvement of the accused/^ppellant in commission of crime in question i.e. committing murder of the accused has categorically supp' nd Singh and PW-5 Dr. K.C. Uraon that »dyof deceased inciuding on the head, 1io Bai is estabfished. Even mother of rted the prosecution case, therefore, to this extent we do not find any illegal^ty or irregularity in the finding of the triai court. Learned counsel for the accused/appeiiant assaulted the d| because the deceased was not cool accused to cause death of his w accused/appellant argued that the ^ceased in a fit of anger with a lathi ^ing food. There was no intention of the |fe, therefore, the offence against the accused/appeilant does not travel b^yond Section 304 Part !I ofthe IPC. On the other hand, learned £py. Government Advocate for the State supported the judgment ofthe trial c|3urt. rS in orderto appreciate the arg|ument advanced by learned counsel for the accused/appellant, we have peri| As has been mentioned in tD accused was assaulting hiswife T| Mangli Bai (PW-2) inten/ened and jsed theevidence. |e earlier part of this judgment that the |io Bai with a tathi, his mother nameiy ^henaccused did not stop, she went to (^^{^r) d^ XI-HC-22 3^ "MNKrt-il, yTfly^Ko, fc)dl^^< 3n^$Ttra'^? ^TH^TT^^TT^) ^ 200 W^T^T f^TW^n^T t^^rf?( 5hHW ^TT^cf ^—- Roshan/- ,0 ^' ^ W^T ^cTT^H: ^f^T PW-1 Umraon Singh and informe|j accused, on which Umraon Singh and persuaded him, but he did cooking food for him, he wilt kiil her and ieft the scene. Perusal of pos^n accused assaulted the deceased caused almost on ail parts of body was a iacerated wound. There wa^ region in fhe size of 3x4cm, there was a lacerated wound on the fore| forearms. Inside the skuil, bloop congested. The doctor (PW-5) ha^ cardio respiratory arrest due to \^ manner in which the accused conti to the number of injuries and that and frontal bone injuries were infl| that intention of the accused to mu| do not find any substance In th^ accused/appellant. !n the resuit, we do not fincj and sentence imposed upon the appeal faiis and same is dismisse^. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^prf^^ rn^rf^ IWt-d^RK ^ 3:rf^T 3TT^T him about the beating gjven by tne |(PW-1) came to the house of accused n{3t stop and said that since she is not On this, Umraon Singh' became angry pos1|mortem report (Ex.P-10) shows that the Inercllessly and numerous injuries were bf deceased and even on the skul! there a lacerated wound on the right parieta! 1/vas sweiting on the parietal bone, there icad and there were injuries on both the was collected and the brain was opined that Tilo Bai died cn account of ttracrania! haemorrhage. Therefore, the ihued to attack the deceased and looking loo on the vital organ i.e. head, parietal fcted, we are of the considered opinion 1-der Tiio Bai was writ iarge. As such, we argument of learned counse! for the any iitegatity or irregularity in conviction ccused/appeiiant by the tria! court, the Sd/- V.K. Shrivatava Judge (<ft^y^) \