£—78 3(I^[^f K.-U^l -Q^ 3TR?T »>*l|ct) 7SS( "i||<ll<7i<l, 0''cTl<Hil<o, Rfc'iKI^ "^ sn^r TRR; (1pf3^5ti) ^giw ^rfta sii^i MVISION BBMCH: HON'BLE MR.DHIt»a>IDRAW[SHRA HON'BLE * . T.fl GRIMINAli. APP&LANT CEn JoiD RESPONt)»>rr Ramu pam ©Ramesh, Age-23, S/o Bulkhu Ram Loficr, R/o Village-Lilejhar, P.5. Charoma, Oistt. >nker C.6. Vs State House Kanker. ^f Chhottisgorh, through the Station pffieer, Police Staiton-Charama, &istt. Present: Mr. Anant Bajpayee, Advocate Mr. Akhil Mishra, Dy. Sovemm ORA L (14th Per &hirendra Mishra. J: This criminal oppeal is d and order of sentence date< Specnl Judge under S.C. & Trial No.196/2001 whereby appellant under Section 302 Bai and sentenced him with lil default of payment of fine to ^l^t^fql'i TTFI^f ^f,1iT3t <^l<^,i< ^TsiRpisn^i SHARMA. JJ APPEAL N0,727/2005 for the appellant. bnt Advocate for the Statfe. JUD6MENT |February. 2008) |rected against the judgment of conviction 9 November, 2001 passed by learned ^.T. Act, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Sessions ^amed Special Judge has convicted the )f IPC for causing death of Kum. Bhumati |e imprisontnent and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in further undergo R.I. for 1 year. -^. ff Sss^SS''- '» ^«^^^?Q»« ^ '"t'SS^'./ 'K^.^ 3'^T^rpTT^r, ®Tfl+i'i<o,fsj^i^y •Vf^t WflW an^r ^aw (li«ifl«<<isf'. SII^T Vf ft-ii'sh ^fan 3TI^T sfi+iich <^i-tii^i-41Ti Trw?Tf '^.f^^ ^^i< ^;3iRt*T3II^( Coss of the prosecutior^ Bhumati, Shonti Bai (PW-2) &\ firewood, at about 11.30 p.i firewood and reached near Kar| came with axe and without her neck twice. Bhumati fell on to the viltage ond narrated abo atso disclosed about the incid) gathered on the place of incidj picked-up Shanti Bai and Shonti Bai narrated the incid< (PW-1) who lodged the report- o| in brief, is that on 2.2.2001 deceased |Kumari Poma (PW-3) had gone to collect i. while they were retuming carrying yapathar field at that time the appellant sp^aking assaulted Bhumati with the axe on ^the ground and died. Kumari Poma rushed ijjt the incident to the persons on way and snt to her brother Daulatram. Villagers snt. Shanti Bai fainted there. They also her back. After gaining consciousness, ^nt to Viltage Sarpanch Smt. Kiran ttevi »fEx.P-1 in the Pofice Station Charama. brouciht During investigation inquf prepared vide Ex.P-4. Dead-bi Health Centre, Charama wher^ postmortem and gave his reporl into possession vide Ex.P-2 & the appetlant, weapon of Ex.P-5. Blood stained wearing possession ig^6 vide Ex.P-6. examination to Assistant 5urg< j^st over the person of the deceased was (dy was sent for autopsy to Community '^ Dr. S.M. Shosatkar (PW-6) conducted of Ex.P-7. Caste certificates we.re taken px.P-3. On the memorandum (Ex.P-4) of axe was taken into pos^ssion vide cjppareis of the deceased were taken into ^A/eapon of offence axe was sent for [on, Primary Health Centre, Charama who offelice sn^i ?ff f<;-fii4< W 3D^I shtli* 3^- ^||<^|<?iA|, tjn{i+l'l(o, Rfrtiyy '3f •qmcw ^RW^? "^ an^yr IISR? (ijcif^diia ^ t^iTWdfta aii^i —'? <=bl-4ld4!'1 TTR?ff ^f^ft^ '^I^H ^siRnsn^F in the report of Ex.P-8 mentij of the deceased could be apparels of the appellont werej who after examination opined he advised for further blood vide Ex.P-10. Site plai] Ex.P-13. Station House Officel coAsed examiiliation After completing invesl oppellant herein in the Courtoff turn committed the case to Jagdalpur and the same wa^ transfer for trial. During tria] in all. Thereafter, statemenl denied the evidence appearin; pleaded innocence & false im[ three defence witnesses Nirosabai (DW-2) & Krishna (C|W However, leamed Spe learned counset for resped appellant, as mentioned in Parc >ned that injuries present over the person by the weapon in question. Wearing also sent for examination to br. Shosalkar Ithat blood like stains are visible, however, for confirmation of the presence of was got prepared by f-lalka Patwar vide also prepared spot map vide Ex.P-16. igation, charge sheet was fifed against tlie Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanker, who in |the Courl' of Sessions Judge, Bastar at received by learned Special Judge on , the prosecution examined nine witnesses of oppetlant was recorded in which he against him in the prosecution case and [^lication. The appellant has also examined Kunwar Singh (DW-1), Ramlabai aiias ^-3). nanfely ^ial Judge after hearing arguments of jve parties, convicted & sentenced i|-l of this judgment. KEB.si,^ ^ S ^SBs78% i S % ^ '" '», 't-^.^ A ~~^. ^^y'""' --•?"' '<»».."».',-'" CT^I ?n R-ii+ ^aiT a'TT^Tsft^i^ 3:5?T '^l^l^il, ®Tf1<rlil<S,Rfril'l-l^ NIMc-lT (hMlcb' •w^ an^?r tRra; (ijcil-i«i(yT^ statelnent Homicidal death of Bhumait-i from the evidence of Shanti B4i incident as also from the who conducted postmort'em and | .; noticed one incised wound on tfiel 2^" obliquely directed, injury were cut, carotid artery, vein, ^ has opined that ccuse of deat^ patient died due to excessive deoth was homicidal in nature, Bhumati was homicidat in nature. a^i Bai is not in dispute. Even otherwise (i (PW-2), who is an eyewitness of the of Dr. Subhash Ohosalkar (PW-6) gave his report of Ex.P-7 in which he |left portion of the neck of size 2" xl" x muscle deep, blood vessels and veins feterno-claido-mastroid was torn and he was injury over left portion of neck, b|leeding on account of above injury and It is established that death of Kumari WlitS ao Ofll Leamed counsel for the the prosecution has not been abU of crime. Conviction is based Kumari Poma Bai (PW-3). Shanti has admifted that because of therefore, she is not able to ide with the firewood, she was hold] Ramu has attacked, she asked that time Ramu had aiready witnessed the incident. It wasl <?»i<iI^i<ilij4i*i<nT^f rs'^1 ^f^j^K ^? siRm sii^r a(3peltant argued that in the instcint case to establish the motive for commission oi|i the testimony of Shanti Bai (PW-2) & Bai in Para-5 of her cross-examination her age she has weak eyesight ond ide^itify the object. When Bhumati Bai fell jng the girl and when Poma Bai said that (tamu as to why he did so, however, by from there and thus she has not furtiier argued that this witness has fled sn^i ?ii R-)i=h ^n 3TT^?T ^}^|ct"i 75^ -^ww^, •ST^W\S, (si^i'yy •m'EfSfr *Ni<*> "^ sn^r iiaq; (ijd^«<({«i: 'hl^frt'sil-f tIIlRTl' ^fS^S fS^K ^siRnaii^i admitted in Para-7 that she consciousness only in her homi Vitlage, who discussed the report. She did not talk to the the report and thus the re^ information given by this witness has ckiimed in her assaults with the axe, howeverl over her neck. Simitarly, Kumal incident as she herself has adi was in the front, Bhumati was Bai was foflowing her. Ramu crossed her, when Bhumati fell that she has sustained injury Thus, she is also not an fajnted matter ftort witrless. exartiination wb eyewitn^ss of On the other hand, learn^ impugned judgment argued tha1 and two eyewitnesses namely returning after collecting firew^od holding axe, crossed them fr< juncture Bhumati fell on the gr< after seeing Bhumati and regained and there found Patel (& Sarpanch of and thereafter went to lodge the ibove persons before they went to lodge was not lodged on the basis of It was further arqued that this i-in-chief that appellouit gave two the deceased sustained only one injury ri Pomaboi has olso not witnessed the nitted that at the time of incident she ilking behind her and thereafter, Sianti came from the opposite direction and Ishe turned ond looked at her ond found her neck and saw Ramu running away. the incident. dn id counset for the State supporting the there is no dispute that the deceased Shanti Bai & Kumari Poma Bai were I, at that time -the appellant, who was ^n the opposite side and only at that iund with a incised wound over her neck. ^rg^SS'Ss,. ^.af-'S^ ^y^w8 4i ''-sss- ^-y/ . "l.^" 3^er ^iiii^, ri>TTl^ll^, faoi'My 200 an^r-iRR; (ipfg.RST) ^M'^if ^f fs^ <foff^R ^aiRn 3ii^i S^V W K-U'h ^gn 3;n^r ?n+iich Incident was witnessed by Shc^ti Bai who informed the Sarpanch that appellant assaulted Bhumati by |in axe and accordin9ly FIR of Ex.P-1 was lodged by Sarpanch 5mt. Kiran|Devi. Pomabai (PW-3) is the witness of fact that just before the i^cident the appeilant crossed her and thereafter the deceased fell oji the ground ond when she turned back, she found that Bhumati had fcjllen on the ground with injury over her r1 neck ond at that time she aiso place of incident. Their version saw the appeltant running away from the iis duly corroborated from the statement of Daulatrom (PW-5), Maniram| (DW-2), ftamlabai (DW-2) and Krishna (DW-3) who have stated that -|+iey had gone to see the dead body of Bhumati and on enquiry they lea^nt that Ramu had assaulted Bhumati and Shanti Bai after regaining con^ ciousness had told in front of ali that Ramu had assaulted Bhumati witNi an ou<e. We have heard iearned c4unsel for the parties. We have perused the record as also the impugned [judgment. Conviction of the appellcu^t is based on the statement of Shdnti Bai (PW-2), Poma Bai (PW-3), Sijnt. Kiran Bai (PW-1) who has lodged the report <& Ramprasad (PW-4) wh<] auid recovery of weapon of of wearing apparels of the appel| is a witness of memorandum of Ex.P-4 Fence vide Ex.P-5 as also recovery of lant. Conviction is also ba^d on the .<-^^^ Sk: i "'cwa .<? ;«.aAa6»ys" sn^i ?ff R-fi'k ^sn ^n^r ^i^ich •3^ "i^ 1411^^1, glTflti'lto, fsidiy^ •WRW ^KW sii^r ^raw (ijqfg«Rg TOiiWHfeisn^i 1 statetnent of Daulatram (PW-5) his sister, informed him that cy( Shanti Bai (PW-2) has ^ abqut 11.00 a.m. in the mornin^ retuming from the forest afte front, Bhumati was behind he< When they reached near village Ramu was coming from opposite reaching near Bhumati, Ramu as neck as a result of which Bhui Ramu went towards river. She did not speak and went away. informed the villagers. 5he be examination she has stated she cannot see an object from she was only 4-5 feet behind Bt 'Ramu has attacked-Ramu has to why he assaulted her daugh-t had already fled from +here. Thus, from the descrip'l stands unchallenged in the cros| thdt ^Frf^R^'np^f Tf fe^ ^TStRnsn^r !who is the witness of fact that Pomabai, tellant assauited Bhumati with an axe. ^t-ated that on the date of incident at she along with Bhumati & Pomabai was collecting firewood. Pomabai was in the and she was walking behind Bhumati. |after crossing the river, they met Ramu. |direction and he was holding axe. After jsaulted her twice with the axe over her jnati fell on the ground and thereafter asked Ramu why he did so, however, he Pomabai ran towords the village and ;|came unconscious. Though in the cross- she has weak eyesight and therefore, (i distance, however, she has stated that lumati and when Bhumati fell, Poma cried a+tacked' on which she had asked Ramu as l|er Bhumati, however, by tiiat time Ramu •ion given by the above witness, which s-examination, the fact thot this witness FF'r'1 TSSS ^.wicftif^ gitfly'ie, Rf^l^-i. an^r'H% (lyt-jtit^si) sn^i ^ii Ri.)i«h WI 3IR?T ailiqi WIWR^I^ISIRSI _A 'mfep'ih '*iiti?ff 'iffs^i <l«i^i< ^sffimai^i -*. tl f- was walking behind the dece^sed at a distance of five feet is estabfished. Further ghe has ca'tegorically stated in her examination-in- diief that she saw -rfie appellarjt assaulting a'eceased and there is no suggestion to this witness that she did not witness the incident. Her version is duiy corroborated fr^m the statement of Pomabai who has seen the cppellant coming to t}ie place of incident wi'rii an oxe ond immediately ther-eafter she foun|d that deceased fell on the ground with the injury over her neck and she^ furt'her saw the appellant running away from the place of incident. Vei^sions of these two witnesses are duly corroboroted from the statemeljt Smt. Kinin (PW-1), Daulatram (PW-5) as a!so from the version of de-^nce witnesses. Apart from •the above evidence, the recove»yof biood RafflprosQd (PW-4) ond Investiga' passing the impugned judgment under Section 302 of the IPC. In -rtie resutt< the appeal the same deserves to be dismiss^d tained axe has also been duly proved by ing Officer (PW-9). On the basis of above an^lysis, we are of the considered opinion that -ttie tr'ial court has not cj)mmitt'ed any illegality or infirmity in [convicting and senteneing the uppelldnt iled by -the appeltant has no substance, and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge