-HC—78 Sf^ ^SV R;-f[°h j w sn^i *tii+ 2-^S^-^^ t-^^-S^^'-^-w^s'f, 3^ •^wicft-tf, tSTfiwW, {s|?)l<H^< ^.A,..30.S.Jf.2^^ sn^r iraw (ijcii^iisT^ twrer'Hfta 3D^r Criminal Abneal No.903 of 2002 APPELLANT |Komal @ Kamalnarayan s/o [Chhabilal Dhruva, aged about 29 [years, r/o village Rajpur, P.S. [Magarload, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G) IVersus RESPONDENT |State of Chhattisgarh, Police Station |Magarioad Distt. Dhamtari (C.G) Appeal u/s374(2) pffche Code ofCriminaI Procedure Appearance: Shri Ratindra MishraJ Shri D.K. Gwalre, Go^t DB: Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Shri ^nf^Th 'ITR^f ^fe^t 'i.Pii^K ^T siRiif SII^T counsel forthe appellant. L Advocate, for the State. L.C. Bhadoo Ss Sunil Kuinar Sinha, J,J, ORAL JUDGMENT J27.7.2007) L.C.Bhadoo, J, Heard. (1) This appeal is direct^d against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence d4ted 26.6.2002 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, [in Sessions Trial No.46/2001 whereby the learned Addl. Sessiorjs Judge, after holding the accused appellant guilty for comm(ssion of offence u/s 302 I.P.C., for committing murder of hi^ uncle Chhabilal,. sentenced him to XI-HC—78 3^T "111*11^, ^Tfl'y'tcs, Ritfii'My &.X-A • N0' ff?03 WE, 200-Z- STI^I ?iT ft-fi.'* I ^SJT 3?T^T ^Ht<^ '^ss^ ,,-snSjs sn^r 'w ^arw^cTsn^f -a- undergo iraprisonment for lij default of payment of fine to ( Fe and to pay a fme of Rs.1000/-, in. [urther undergo R.I. foryear. (2) The case of the prosec^ition in brief is that on 04.9.2000 at about 10.30 a.in. in villag]i paternal uncle of the accuj accused was suspecting that| with his mother Hathiarin B^i, therefore, he picked up a piece of wood (fuel wood) and assaf Chhabilal, as a result of whij parts, the brain matter spontaneously. The matter] Police Station Magarload undj investigating officer left for giving notice Ex.P.3, prepaij Chhabilal. The site plan Exj officer seized the weapon of o Health Center, Magarloalod due to excessive hemorrhage <+!^4i't 'RT^rf '^,fe^ <[^f-^K ^STTOT 311^1 Rajpur, the deceased Chhabilal, ^ed, was sitting in the house. The Chhabilal was having illicit relations dlted 10-12 times on the head of ;h the skull bone was fractured into came out and Chhabilal died was reported ,by Govind (P.W.9) to •r merg intimation ExP.12. Based on that, the Pirst Informadon ipeport Ex.P.13 was registered. The the scene of occurrence and after ed inquest Ex.P.4 on the body of P.1 was prepared by Halka Patwari. Ex.P.2 was prepared by the I^ivestigating Officer. The investigating 'fence i.e., the fuel wood under Ex.P- 6. The body of Chhabilal •c|?as sent for Postmorteni to Primary vide Ex.P.14 where Dr.K.K. Som . (P.W.8) conducted postmortejm. He gave the report Ex.P-9 and opined that the cause of deatfi was coma as a result of head injury 1 from Maningiece, blood vessels and capillary. The nature of deat|h was homicidal. After completion of investigation, charge sheet gwas filed in the Court of Judicial 3^cT ^i^io^ ^v'ie, fiv^wy. *11M^I *»4|cti .(^-.A:.....oi.c1.^.. Wl 2- aff^yr wra; (^p^ff) SII^T.W R;-fi+ 'tnianSTi 'sw VSSt. ¥RITW;E?f??r STT^T Magistrate First Class, Dhamtar: to Sessions Judge Raipur, from Judge, received the case on trani (3) The prosecution in order accused examined 10 witnesses was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., appearing against him in the that he is innocent. tb (4) The leamed Addl. Sessiorj; the respective parties convicteip aforesaid. (5) We have heard Shri R<{ appellant and Shri D.K. Gwalre,] (6) At the outset, learned disputed the homicidal death (P.W.2), real brother of the mother of the accused have ca1 attacked with peace of wood (fq as a result of which, he| spontaneously. These witnesses| accused and in their cross able to elicit any circui-nstance] witnesses finds corroboration ^rafwft^'wRTf •?fs^t ^n^r ^siRnsn^r [, who in turn committed the case livhere, the learned Addl. Sessions ifer for trial. establish the charge against the The statement of the accused [in which he denied the raaterial ^rosecution evidence and pleaded s Judge after hearing counsel for and sentenced the accused as .tindra Mishra, counsel for the Govt. Advocate, for the State. c^unsel for the appellant has not J3f Chhabilal. Moreover, Laxman accjused and Hathiarian Bai (P.W.4), |egorically stated that the accused ;1 wood) on the head of Chhabilal, sustained injuries and died are real brother and mother of the exa4iination, the defence has not been Moreover, the evidence of these iwith raedical evidence of Dr.K.K. GRPRJ— FS/246—2/200"— 50 n"' -n-^' 3'esr •^ii.ifirtAi,, ®T{ty'i<s,Rfi^iyy __ ^ A.MO. ^GT, 'wv g^n^----------- ••••••••••—••••".^ 2001- an^W 1raw (ipf^g^ff) siii^i.^ii R-fi* WITSII^T WV ~&'NtellSi Ma TRIIWHfid Sll^l „/.ff Sora (P.W.8) who conducted were 3 lacerated wounds on thf of which the frontal, occipital and the death was homicidal in ocular and medical evidence, i| Chhabilal was homicidal in nati] pjsstmortem and stated that there head of the deceased, as a result |8s temporal bones were fractured [nature. Therefore, from the above ifc is established that the death of ire. (7) As far as the involvem; Hathiarin Bai, mother of the that the accused assaulted the the head, as a result of which above evidence of these eye medical evidence of Dr. K.K. exaraination the defence hai ^rafeNh -cm^ if^W <F^wi< ^srRnsn^r nt of the accused in crime in question is concerned, P.W.2 I|,axman, the real brother & P.W.4 kccused have categorically stated deceased with a piece of wood on Chhabilal sugtained head injuries, the skull bone was fractured artd the brain raatter came out. The yitnesses is corroborated by the oin (P.W.8) and even in the cross not been able to elicit any circumstance which may discrejdit the evidence of these witnesses, therefore, the involvement of t^ie accused in crime in question is established beyond reasonable his real brother, P.W.4 is the ntother of the accused, there was no occasion for them to implicate in connection with the murdeit the finding of the trial court r^ appellant in crime in questicj: cogent and admissible evidenc|i (1 doubt. In fact, P.W.2 Laxman, is |the accused in false case, that too, of his paternal uncle. Therefore, 'garding complicity of the accused n is established based on legal, Therefore, we do not find any GRPRJ — FS/246- N 3:5ST -^l^loiif, axfl^'lfi, |s|<4iyij< ^WW tbtilcfi' C.>L A- ^o' ^03 2^ STI^ TRq; ( 3)1^.?iT Kt-V'sh 'tWisirai '^fssf: Usl^s^^^ •s^mas^ TCIRR ^lfttl Sff^f --S- illegality or infirinity in the fir extent. (8) Shri Mishra argued that illicit relationship of deceased when Chhabilal came to their hduse, he sat there and Chhabilal 85 Laxman were talking then he th used to behave like an insane, t} came to the conclusion that insanity at the time of commiss( Laxman and P.W.4 Hathiarin Bt stated that the accused used to| he used to give beating but they| WlfeNt'T'CfPTCff^'fyzt ^7 sifgiT siT^r dings of the trial Court to that the accused was suspecting the Chhabilal with his mother and ught that they were talking about him. He picked up the fuel wcfod lying there and assaulted the deceased. He further argued Ijhat as per the evidence of P.W.2 Laxman(brother) and P.W.4 Halpiiarian Bai (mother), the accused lerefore, the trial Court incorrectly the accused was not suffering on of crime. It is true that P.W.2 li in their cross examination have behave like an insane person and are the real brother and mother of the accused and apart from th^ above evidence, there is no other independent evidence or materi^l on record, which establishes the insanity of the accused at the A.S.I., Mr. S.M. Tiwari (P.W.10 time of commission of crime. The has not been cross-examined on point was raised before the trialj this aspect that he was informeijl about the mental condition ofthe accused regarding his insanitjr. Moreover, during the trial this Court and the trial Court sent the accused for examination. On thjis, Dr. A. Qadir and D.S. Deo have stated that they had kept the] accused under obser\'ation from 20-6-2001 to 30-6-2001 and djuring that period, they found that GRPRJ — FS/246=-0^°-OB—- 3^! -^WW^, •STS\V'{'C, ^W^, ^ ^l^dl '*<41* .<::'X.~..A.:..NO.;..3.9..?.. sn^TT IRSR (ipf^siqg: ^ 200-i- sn^r.w ft;-{i«k •asnsn^i wqw ^KSs^aB'iytfe ''":'aa"l;"fui*ia! the behaviour of the accused wa; was weak. They gave Certificata evidence that he was being treat< any cogent material available on the accused was suffering from u (9) In order to take benefit o legal evidence on record to shoi from legal insanity. The benefi; after it is proved that at the tii accused was labouring under disease of the mind, as not to k^ act he was doing, or that even i^ wrong or contrary to law then t] given. The crucial point of time this section should be given or i| offence takes place. In comin^ circumstances are to be taken dangerous to adinit the deferj derived merely from the unsoundness of mind which faculties of the mind that can criminal responsibility. (10) As has been discussed in statement of the brother and n"l ^iT^fci^-l T^^ ^ ft^ Tf^37T ^ sifatr air^r normal, except that his men-iory C-l to that effect. There is no [d for insanity. Therefore, without |the record, it cannot be said that isanity. Section 84 IPC, there must be that the accused was suffering of this section is available only ^ie of coinmission of the act; the such a defect or reason, from LOW the nature and quality of the he did not know it, it was either le benefit of this section must be or deciding whether the benefit of lot, is the material tin'ie when the to that conclusion, the relevant into consideration, it would be ;e of insanity upon arguments chatacter of the crime. It is only naturally impairs the cognitive orm a ground of exemption from the present case, except the oral ither of the accused in the cross GRPRJ— FS/246 ^esi '<ii<i<i0<T, ®Tf1yi<s,(sjiyii'My U\.- f\ . N0' 'j'o ^INdl **<!<*' Wl 2- anitw 'rog? (ipf^a^ff) an^i.qff (<-fi+ WISIK^T shHI'h y:?i.s^ ;''s<8@» Rao ^lTWHfeT 3Tlt^! --7- cM*ft(n'4ll ^ff^CTT ^ f^St iFil-KK ^aifwsn^i examination, there is no materi^.1 on the record to establish that at he was suffering from insanity. he used to suspect the illicit paternal uncle Chhabilal, the examined as P.W.4 and at the disclosed her age to be 75 yea^ reason that at this age, any ladj her brother-in-law. If we look accused had mercilessly which, frontal, parietal and matter came out and he diecl intention of the accused to large. attaclted occjpital; 1, as has been discussed earlier; i|- the tiine of commission of crime; Now coming to the question that rel^tionship between his mother and Inother of the accused has been jame of her examination, she has -s. This does not sound to be a ^ will have illicit relationship with into the nature of injuries, the the deceased, as a result of 1; bones were fractured, brain spontaneously. Therefore, the caluse death of Chhabilal was writ (11) In the result, we do not f^nd any substance in this appeal. The appeal is liable to be ^ismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007 — 50.000.