}f HW,WJ§W @ ....‘o.. m 200 Wm<W> ‘ maarm WW%WW éawm WW BHADOO & maxwm MGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR L C HON'BLE MR. DHERENDRA MISFRA JJ CRIMINAL Af'PEAL No.697/2oo1 Mr. K‘K. Singh, Advocate for fhe Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addi'rional F Panel Lawyer for The respondent- ORAL Pet- L.C. Bhadoo 3" This appeal is direcfed agt of senfences ddfed 22'” June, sarguja, Ambikapur in S.T. No‘ 2 affer holding 'rhe accused/appelic Section 302 of The IPC for comr appellant ’ubllc Prosecufor wi‘lh Mr. Akhil Mishr'a S'l'a‘l'e. r JUDéMENT (25$ Apr-ii, 20073 lins‘l' fhe judgmenf of convicfion and order 2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, 51/2000 whereby learned Sessions Judge inf guili‘y for commission of offence under nif'l'ing rrurder of Chho’fan, sen'renced him P.T.O. APPELLANT Shankor Nagesiya, soh of Kisna Nngesiya, ' ‘ aged 25 years, residenf of ViHage Juargeem, ' P.S‘ Shankargarh, Disfriéf Sarguja (C.G.) VS RE5PUNDENT ‘ 51‘a1'e ’of Chha‘H‘isgarh, fhr‘ough S.H.O. P.S. ‘ 5h ankdrgar'h, Di\s1'ric+ Sarguja (€93. Present: XI—HC—78 3am,®¥f1m,%lmgx mmo‘o ...~.~.~.~... 0‘... 1H 200 WW(W) WWW WWW WWEWW mma§am %31%mn%w V’ f0 undergo RI. for life. The accusediappellan‘r has also been convicfed ynder Section 325 of IPC for causing grievous injuries 1‘0 Ja‘ini Bai and Senfenced To undergo R.I. for ‘i'wo years. The case of The prosecufi n, in brief, is fha1' four hens & one cock of Chhofon (since deceased) d i v d and he was doubfing +ha+ accused Shankar has given poison fo his h s él cock on accoun‘i‘ of which fhey have died. Therefore, on 17.6.2000 a1- abou’i 10.00 pm in +he nigh‘i‘ Chhofan sfar‘l‘ed abusing The accused, on w ich +he accused come wi'l’h 1‘he ia‘i‘hi and i 4 affacked Chho‘i‘an wifh 1-he ia‘rhi on his head as a resuh‘ of which he succumbed 1'0 fhe injuries. When The mo‘rher of Chhofan nameiy Ja‘i'ni Bai Tried +0 infervene’, The accused ssaui‘fed her also wifh The iafhi on her hand as a resuH’ of which she su ained fracture injury. The maf‘i‘er was reporfed in +he Police Sfa‘rion Sh nkargarh by Bhikuram (PW—1) on which F.I.R. (Ex.P—2) was regisfered. I jury of Jafni Bai was examined by Dr. MC. Jain (PW-3). Dead body o Chho‘l'an was sen'i' 1-0 Primary Heai’rh Cen'ire, Shankargarh fo'r posfmo fem examina‘rion where Dr. (Sink) J. Kujur (PW-5) conducfed fhe p sfmor‘rem on fhe body of deceased, prepared “the report Ex.P—5 and pined that cause of death was shock di haemorrhage due to head injury. I quest (ExP-ll) on the body of deceased Chhotan was prepared by the Inve tigating Officer. ' After completion of inve igation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrat , Ambikapur, who in turn committed the case to learned Sessions Judge, A bikapur where the prosecution in order P.T.O. XI-HC-78 HW,W,W§I WW Hi 200 WW(W> ‘ WWW 1 mmm WW WW mmwm 5’}- §KWW To esfablish the char-gas again fhe accused/appellant examined six dli‘l'nesses. Sfmemenf of accused appellan‘r was recorded under Secfion 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied e mafer'ial appearing againsf him in fhe prosecu'rion evidence and sfmed haf he is innocenf and has been falsely implicai-ed in The crime, Accused/ ppeilan‘r examined Sonsai (DW-l), Sukhu (DWeZ) & Vishwanafh (DW—3) as d fence wifnesses. Learned sessions Judge a fer hearing The argumen‘rs of learned couns$el for fhe respec‘l‘ive p rfies, convicfed and senfenced the accused/appellant, as aforemen‘iio ed. We have heard Mr. K.K Si 9h, Advocafe for. fhe appellanf and Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addifional Public P asecufor wifh Mr. Akhil Mishra, P.L. for fhe respandenf/Sfafe. Mr. Singh has nof dispured fhe homicidal deafh of Chhofan. Moreoven Jafni Bai (PW-2), an inJured wifness 6i moi-her of deceased, has cafegorically sfafed fhaf the accused/appellant assaulfed The deceased wifh fhe lafhi and fo fha‘r exfenf The above evidence of Jafni Bai has been corroborafed by fhe fa‘fher of accused namely Kishna Nagesiya (PW-4). PW—5 Dr. Kqjur has sfafed Tha‘l‘ she conducfed pos‘l'morfem on The body of Chhofon and noficed Thaf fhere were fwo injuries, skull bone was fracfured, fronfal & parie’ral bones were also fracfured, membrane of brain was rupfured, fhe cause of deafh was shock 6i haemorrhoge and fhe deafh was homicidal in nafure. P.T.O. XI—HC-78 @ RW,W,%W Wm .....o.o.o.o..o.o.... H1 200 WW<W> WWW WWW WWEWW wwwm -v‘, éamm Therefore, in View of The above ocuiar and medical evidence, if is ésfablish ed fhaf fhe dea'rh of Chho'ran was homicide! in nafure. As for as fhe involvemenf of accused/appelianf in The crime in onesfion is concerned, Jai'ni Boi (PW-2), moi‘her of deceased, has cofegorically si'ai'ed fhaf on +he( foi‘eful nigh‘i the oceused affocked Chhgfan on his head wi1'h The iaThi. When she Tried To inTervene, accused ossouiTed her giso on accounT of iwhich she susTained injury. On ThaT day The deceased was saying ThaT since accused has given poison To his hens & cockfTherefore‘They died. TheraofTer, The accused came wiTh IaThi and aTTacked The deceased. PW-4 Kishen Nagesiyo, who is faTher of The accused, has sTaTe’d‘ThoT on The 'iaTefu‘i day The deceased was abusing his V . son: Therefore, his son iefT house and ThereafTer he heard The commoTion from The side of The ouse of ChhoTan on accounT of quarreiing beTween ChhoTan & Shankar, he i mediaTely rushed Towards ThaT side and he broughT Shankar back To his h use. Therefore, from'The ab ve evidence iT is esTablished ThaT The accusedlappeilan‘r aTTacked The deceased wiTh The IaThi as a resuIT of which he susTained faTaI injurie on his head and his fronTaI <5; parietal bones were also fracTured, which has been esTabIished by The evidence of docTor (PW-5) who has sTaTed Th T posTmorTem was conducTed by her and she noTiced ThaT fronTai & parieT I bones of ChhoTan were fractured. Even in ThaT process The accused saulTed JaTni Bai (PW-2) moTher of deceased, also when she Tried To i Tervene and as a resuiT of which she aiso ‘J P.T.O. f T e s XI—HC—78 WW,W,W Wm ..... o o.o... 00.0 ‘...‘ H? 200 WW<W> WW§WW mwm %3T%H311%3T ._.§// susfained fracture injury of The radius bone of her hand, which has been ce of PW—3 Dr. MC‘ Jain & PW—5 Dr. Kujur, who examined fhe injuries Ja‘fni Bai. Therefore, The invoivemenf ofl‘l-he accused/appellanf in co rniffing The murder of Chhofan and inflicfing grievous injury 1‘o Jami (PW-Z) is esfnbiished. i u corroborafed by +he medical avi N i iearned counsel for 1' accused/appeiiam argued Tha‘i‘ fhe pro‘secufion‘has _no'f been abie f establish fha‘i' the accused/appellan‘l‘ aftacked fhe deceased wifh an infen'i‘ion 1‘0 cause his dearh, as fhe dedeasesd was doubfing fhai' his he s & cock died due +0 poison given by +he acc‘u’sed, ‘iherefore, he was abus fhe accused/appeilani' and on hearing +he abuses +he accus’ed/appeiionf arne ou'i from The house and assauifed Chh‘o‘ran wiTh The iaThi. On The oTher hand. lear AddiTional Public Prosecufor for The STaTe suppor’red The judgmem‘ of T e Trial court Having heard learned coun el for The respecrive parTies, we have considered The evidence. IT has c me on The record ThaT as The deceased was doubTing Thar his hens and co k died on accounT of poison given by The accused and ThaT is why on The f Tefui nighT he was abusing The accused and hearing The abuses by The d ceased, The accused wenT Towards The deceased and aTTacked him wiTh T e lai-hi as a resuiT of which he susTained faTal injuries on his head and died Therefore, from The above facTs iT is esTablished ThaT The deceased wa abusing The accused and ThaT is why he came and aTi-acked him. There naThing on record To show ThaT The PTO. l }. l i r h s’ r _ i d n h i n i l% XI—HC—78 ,/ 3E! W, Wm, W3? Wm o....o.. o ...~.~..~ 00. 1H 200 WW(W> WW§WW www§am ‘ é:a%ww%w accused affacked fhe deceased wi‘lth fhe infem‘ion 1-0 cause his death, buf i‘l' ,cdn safely be inferred Thaf while affacking fhe deceased, fhe accused had definH-e knowledge Thaf he may Iikely f0 cause The deafh of deceased, K; Therefore, offence under Secfion 304 Parf II of The IPC is esfab’lished againsf ‘rhe accused/appeHanf. In The resuH', fhe appeal fi ed by accused/appellanf par-fly succeeds and his convictio‘n under Secfion 302 of IPC and senfence imposed upon him under fhaf sec‘rion are hereby sef aside and he is acquii'fed of The said chargef InsTead Thereof, he is convicTed under SecTion 304 ParT II of The IPjC and senTenced‘ To undergo RI. for 10vyears. The convicTion of The accused/appellanT under SecTion V325 of"The IPC and senTenced imposed upion him under ThaT secTion are mainTained. IT is sfaTed ThaT The accused/appellanT is in deTenTion :iince 20.6.2000 Till Today, Therefore, he shall be enTiTled for seT-off for The above deTenTion period againsT The senTence impgsed upon him a Li , V - ’1’: Sdl- Sdl- L.c.BHADoo DmRENDRA msHRA‘]: Judge Judge i Roshan/— P.T.O.