^TT^T ?FT f<Tli<=h ^T^T 'SIT^T 5h+lict) 3:^"^|<t11^, ^xfi^1!^, fs(01'y^< ^: *<INdl 5b*<l<*».....4i..^...(6......^o...l.l.4&.....^ 2006 3^[?T XI5R? ( lj^i^<t?T) '^iTW^f^T ^T^T APPELLANT: -Velrsus- RESPQNDENT: (Criminal App^il yndef Division Bench: - Hon'bte Shri L.C. Bhadoo & Hon*bte Shri Sunil Kumar Sinhb. JJ. 11-10-2007:- Shri Abhay Tswan, counse| Smt. AnjuAhuja, Deputy Orat judgment cHctated on| Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. This app^l is directed of sentence dated 23-1-99 (Special Judge, NDPS), Raipur, has been convicted under undergo imprisonment for iife Secion anB payment <rf fine to further under^> R Brief facts are that on ^namely, Pichadu Ram (a young the house of Chandrabhan (PW-|7) cr)i1Lif<n<i1Ti 'RP^ff '^^fe^t <Pn<^i< '^sfRm^n^r Antoram Gond, S/o Pustam Gond, aged 35 yeare, R/o Viltege Seenapali. P.S. Devbhog, CMstrict Raipur. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh), Through P.S. Devbhog. Distt. Raipur, (M.P.) (now Chhattisgarh). Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C.) fortheappellant (povt. Advocate for the State/respondent. ilDais. ag^instftiejudgmerrt of cwwiction and order by the AckRtional Sessions Judge |in S.T. No.104/98 whereby the appeNant 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in ddault of U.forSmonths. 110-12-97 at about 7 a.m. the deceased |x»yaged about 15 yeare) was present in ). Theparentsofthecleceaseddied12- 31T^T ^T (<Tlich ^T^T 3?T^T 5h^l<=h 3'5^'^TFn^r, ^TQ<-i<i<o, {cxr'iKiy iWq^T th^l* .C.t.:.A-...J. "•^ 2000 3niji?r xnra? (^I^i<y£T) ^RTTW ^ri^T ^I^T cbl^(<n<flT1 ^l*1<y?l ^f^^t <p»l«^l< i?3TRpT3?n^r 13 yeare prior to the date of th was orphan, was residing in ttie e incklent, therefore, the deceased, who house of Chandratrfian, who was looking 1 after the deceased. At ttiat tin^e, accused Antoram wws also present in the house of Chandrabhan andl (PW-8) was also present in thej the wife of Chandrabhan namefy, Itli Bai house. Chandrabhan, witfi intentton to extract cow's milk, said to the d^ceased to untie the calf which was tied in a room. As soon as, the decea4ed entered the room to untie the caff, the accused all of a sudden, gave tepeated Tangia blows on the deceased. The incklent was witnessed by Itli Bai (PW-8). She raised cries, on which her husband Chandrabhan (RA/tT) also went inside the room and saw the deceased, who had died instant|ineously. The accused tried to run away vAwsh he was chs^ed by Chandrsfchan, caught by the villagers namely, Guteb /-3). When they osked the accused, the >n before ttiem. Chandrabhan went from the place of occurrence, who was also shouting and he Patel (RA/-2) and Bhanuram accused made exlra judidal to the vitlage Kotwar Bhola Rar|n (RW-1) and thereafter they went to the Police Station to todge the repor^ scene of occurrence. He prepared inquest (Ex.P/2) on accused/^)pellant into pursuance of which Tangia (v Plain soil and blood stained Ex.P/13. After recdving such infortnation, the investtgating officer left for ttie nottee (Ex.P/1) to the Panchas and body of tiie dec^sed. After taking ttie recorded his memorandum Ex.P/3, in of offence) was seized under Ex.P/4. were seized under Ex.P/5. One blood slained Lungi was seized fron| the place of occurrence under Ex.P/6. Another Lungi was also seized flrotn the accused under Ex.P/7. The dead body ofthe deceased was sent for postmortem examination to the Prhnary 37T^T^ f^'lJch 'cT^TT 'STT^T 5b+iict) 3-^cT ^IHI^, tS>rn^^|<s, (sj^K-iy ^m^{ 9h^i<sb ..Cr...^:,., "W^ 2000 3:(T^9T Ti5RF ( ^I^qcT) '^TTW ^rf^TT ^n^T <=bl^fd^1T1 ^w^S ^^St iPn^K '^3tRiH3?n^r Heatth Centre, Devbhog unde^ Ex.P/8 where Dr. K.C. Uraon (RW-6) conducted postmortem on the cjead body and prepared his report under Ex.P/9. He noticed foltowing inj^ries on the dead body of ttie deceased- (i) One chop wound on the ^ront side of tiie nedc, horizontally placed, margins were shqrf, size cm ert teft end <rf wound wound, right jugutar vein According to his opinion arrest on account of excessive the neck. After comptetjon of usual ^3 cm x5 cmx3 cm, at right end and 1 , blood stains were present around the and right carotid artery were cut, cldted blood was present, size <>f stain was 15cm x 10 cm atthe back portionof the neck, (Ji) One incised wound situat^d at left side of first injury, size was 4 cm x0.5cmx 0.5cm. cause of death was cardio respiratory t'jaemorrhe^e and shock due to injuries on investigation, chaige sheet was filed in the Court of Judtelal Magistral|&, 1st Class, Gariyabandh, who in tum cQmmitted the case to the Coui^ of Sesskms Judge, Raipur, from where case was recewed on fransfer fa|y tiie Additional Sessions Judge (Speciai Judge, NDPS), v^w conducted <he trial and conwctod and sentenced the accused as aforementioned. We have heard leamed c<|>unsel for the parties. ^ Conviction ofthe accused|is based on the testimony of PW-8 (Ui Bai supported bythe evidence of PVy-7 Chandrabhan as also on ttie evktence 3TI^^ fqiw '?T^TT ^TT^T 5h*4lcb T^ ^WW^, ^'(-l4 Ko, fs|01'M^< ^l^dl *^lcb Cry,^,,,,MA^. •^2000 3TT^?r xnra? (<4^^<<^) ^mw^f?cT-sn^r cbl^f<n<11l ^l+4<yff ^fe^ <Fai<^l< '^TStRm^lT^T of Bholaram (PW-1), RW-2 Gula(>Patel andBhanuram (R/V-3). RW-8 (Ui Bai is an eyewitn^s whereas B|holaram Q3W-1), PW-2 Gulab Patel and Bhanuram (PW-3) are the pers4>ns before whom the accused/^pellant made extrajudicial confession. Leamed counsel for ttie a4cused/a|^)eltant argues that evidence of PW-8 Wi Bai is not reliable, as s|ie has gwen unnaturaj verston. He also argu^ that extra judicial confessi| has ateo not/proved fn this case. On the other hand, learrwjd State counsel opposes the arguments and supports the judgment of coil the trial Court. We have carefuUy consid^ deposed that on the fateftit day L. iviction and order of sentence passed by >red evidence of PW-8 Itli Bai. She has she was washing utensite in her house. Pichadu Ram (deceased) was a|so present in Ihe house. Her cow was there in her room and calf of Vfye cow was kept in anottier room. Her husband Chanclrabhan, with intehtion to extract cow's milk, took utensils from her and he said to the dedeased to untie ttie calf. The deceased went inside Kotha (a place wher^ calf wa^ tied) where ttie app^lant was also present. At that time, this vipfriess heard a noise and when she saw towards Kotha, she coukt witne^ deceased witti Tangia. She assautttng Vhe dec^ised on his r| s that the appellant was assaulting the ^ias deposed that the appellant was eck and blood wascoming out from ttie neck. On hearing cries, her hust^and Chandrabhan also came over there and her son Santosh (PW-8) an<| her son-in-law Jagarmath ff^V-10) had ^also gathered on the place of oc^urrence. Seeing this, the appellant ran 3TT^T ^ f<r11<=h 'cT^T ^TT^T 5t»*li<^ -s^ss ^i^i^, ^xfi^^Ko, tsxy'i^y •^) *<l*<dl **<lcb .&...^.....!.l.^..?/. 3^?r ^ra? (^y^<ysT) "^ 2000 '^TTW^rf^T ^T^T away from the ptace of occun|ence account of recehnng injurfes fli^ deceased witn^s coukt place of occurrence itsetf. Ir^ make out a case that this was asked to her that she took ptace inside Kotha. But| Kotha was open from front skl^ the ptac^ where she was visibte from the said place. vereion and net resuft of brought on record to disbeli^ve vereton of ttiis witoiess is who has also deposed that he| spot and s?w that dead body occurrence. Hehasateo away from Ihe place of chased the appeltant and has| saying that he has kilted Pfchac|u 2 Gulab Patel and Bhanuram He has further stated that he the village. The above eviden^e ttie evidence of PW-2 Gulab the accused made extoa judteia| R/V-2 Gulab Patel has; crying to cateh Antoram sayingjthat wss running. He was being cbl^id^l'l 'Hm^ff ^f.fe^ <fa^'< ^^^FT^n^r She has specifically stated that on has instarrtaneously died at the cross-examinatlon, defence has tried to n<ss has not seen the occurrence. Question not see ttie incictent from outeide, v^iich |this witness has cat^oricalfy ^ated that and she was abte to see (he incklent from because place of incktent was deariy has denied that she is not giving correct js ttiat no material has been evMence of this witness. Moreover, by her husband PW-7 Chandrabhan (heard cri^ of his wife, he reached on ftie ^f the deceased was lying on the place of that he had seen the appellant runnNig He has further cteposed that he has |fried to cateh him and was raising cries Ram. He has further stated that he, PW- y^N-3) had caught the appellant on the way. h^s told the story to Kotwar and Sarpanch of of tiiese two witnesses is supported by fyatel and Bhanuram (PW-3) before whom lconfessfon. sitUhg SHel crosshexamination suppt?rted depo^ed occurr^nce s(ated that he heard that Chandrabhan was he has kilted ttie deceased. Antoram jchs^ed by Chandrabhan. Antoram was 31T^T ?RT f<rli<=b ^T^T 3TT^T $t)+licb t. 3:wT^TTqT^r, ^Tfl'M<l<o, (s|<7iil^y W^v\l tb^lch ..c.>:.-A.:......U.Ht.. •^ 200Q 3ff^?T '^5RR ( 4^^<^) '^TTW^rf^f 3?n^T <=t)Hf<rt<i1ri ^i+Kni '^\fe(3t <Pt^i< ^ 3TRPT 3TT^T running away from the village. |-le along with Bhanuram and many other persons of ttie village had also c|iased Antoram and they had caught him. At that tirne he was empty han<|led. He has specificatfy cteposed that at that time Antoram made exfra ju|dteial confession before ttiern that he had cut ttie deceased and for Vms r^son he was running from tiie village. The above evidence, particularty supported by the evidence of Bh^nuram (PW-3). In cross-examination of| examination <^ Bholaram (PW-1 regarding e)dra judicial confession is these vwtnesses and also in cross- ) before v^iom also the ^)pellant made extra judicial confession, defe^ce has not been aMe to bring any circumstance by which their evid|Bnce may be disbelieved. Their evidence appears to be cogent and reliabl^ on the point of extra judicial confession. Therefore, pn over all an| the prosecution, it does not retiable and reliance cannot be RA/-8 Itli Bai is fully reliable whc of her husband and also by the postmortem on the body of the upon evklence of these witn< commissjon of crime in qi evidence, ttiere is also extra ji been discussed above. tilysis of the entire evidence adduced by ^ar that ew'dence of PW-8 Ifli Bai was not ?ed on her eviden^. The evidence of evidence is supported by ttie evidence <rf the ctoctor v^io had conducted seased. The frial Court has righUy relied for convicting the accused/appellant for Moreover, as an addifional pie<» of al confession of the appeflant, as has Therefore, in the opink>i|i of this Court, the trial Court has not committed any error of law v^til^ convictir^ the accused/a^eltant on the gs^ 'S^ss ^iNi<^<4, ^ixfl^'KS, fs|0i'y^< ^, ^ WViv\\ **<|ck CV.A- -^ 2000 3nit?r T^RF (^lfl<<^) 3T^T^\ f<rl[cb ^T^H 'STT^T 5h^Jcb Barve ^TTW ^rf^T 3'TT^T r^cord basis of above evidence on counsel for the accused/app^Hant based upon retiabte, cogent| require any interference by thisj The appeal has no mei|it, same Js liabte to be dismissed and ft is accordingty cfismissed. Sd/- L.C, Bhadoo Judge <^)i<<<f<n<i1Ti ^i+i<vil ^l^st <Fai<^i< '^3^TRw3?n^T cord. The argumert advanced by tearned cannot be accepted. Conviction is and ctinching evjdence, whteh does not Court. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge