asK^ •^- JB-l®^(Jai8 B^P.R. 11/94/2,000 KM • .'.:..~~';'- CF0000061549 APPEAl.. ..Division.Bench [y'lminat^^ itS--' |j!s^Mfte:... ....^^2^te\.^lK ^^...^....?i%^^N...^^^ .;.........................4.^^a?A.A:^.^??^^....^..^8^ JMma ^••<i^7"^f fflS S^^^f-v ^'"'oiRT^W B^?"<P "ff.-M'-"- '&se^r:'?7^"^y^7" "•"'"" ....... On—..yyt.i?ii./<3p7^....,.;.......„..... "* . • .. . • '. ~~'" - by ysrsr'§m''Wi'S3^^~'yvs^ '.^~[^:Kfs^^^^sf"'"^^.t^''..:'^.-' •' '''•' •' '••'.'' ;' ' " ' . ' "' ' '~ ~''/' • . . ' ''' .''• ' |Sli&iKex^S^!8,:lg^tt>e.prisoner*that ifhestatesorwishe&toberepresented^bylegal ^itioBer^heSSBpipiafate'^ourt will not proceed witlt''the base for seven days untess^ lliegaliipra.eititisnet appears < If the legal pract&ioner does not appear ^wittu.h seven IJ^may^ffotheardat all Iflhe prisoner states that hs does not wish tg be repre- |g9|1t%;legati)ra)Etiti6ner tbe^ourt maypruceed at cince with the case andwrllflpt be ||g8tf^o gwe a hearing to any legat practitioner who shouid appear . L-- rBate of Application for copy of Judgement ?Uateon which copy received ........ iDatfr on which Appeal sent........... .. ..........."^/^-S.T.. ?f%Sefliei the piisoner wishesto be represenled or not-Ygs / No . Na^......—..........%—&„.........Jail..;. •^•^N ..; Naroe ^..'^tX%F,^.fi^iT^:^^ .^TSff^w^^f^f^/^ •^- 1^.37.--...-Dated ....,.,.....;:^/&/1997........,........"..."..-,...... ../):;.; '•'^;..';- Srl^^tQthe'eiHEf^WeieiiteMAGISTR^^.^^ |;eT^;^ - .. . ,- TfTSR^-sy: .'S:SST~ .c~T!Tp^.VClH flRg7 6^% ttheTi'ivhich a eopy of judgemeht br order passed i&the case fbr fsivour of trausi' .& Sa,tQJhe prgper Appellate Cpurt. )'fl .-;"S^-AfA^, '^^T~^~ is? ^..^..:~.::\.r.:.lsat/ '•^'s^'~<>' ^wt falfoo^:.re'ceiptm......,..^.:! ;...»............. office- ;,"^:...':-./ ' ..."^. .•„••• .. :,:.''. A'.- Btsf<S|%Fe6eiptrecord^"(ia^ccoinpaoytKe ......... ',y';:^.-::;::^.. .; • "'..''";!:, -- ' •' - •1'- ::: ''•'., !|iinft,iO?Sgpe;atto the Appellate court .. .,..;.•.• tSei^. Da Bwvtaipded to fheA-.;....... ,,,.;.. ., .'.. B^'sSt 6i8|;®p3|ag@B5,<SppeflatesGciurt— •^. BSB?1: " ^aftr--*^!^ 'JWWWWl. llt,:N«s '-^; ^.IttiwGwW W^^^i—at^ ^iE.^i'Q!.^ :/ i- ^^B^ylS^i^'"^^^-^-^^?'^^£^1.s I .' 3s ^ •g s ^f_yr'_ ^jL-n^.--. ^^ ^lpfRPI, -gFgt'OTS.'fadluy 311^1 •gil WM sn§?i 'a^wafsg •fk sn^i'TOIIST's^a DivisionBench: • • . Hon'ble Mr. L.C. Bhadoo and Hon'bte Mr. Dhirendra Mishra. Lawyer for the S<^te/resp6nd6nt, Pa»s. 19^-2008 ; | Mr- Satyendra Sahu, coun( Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Addiuorlai Agrawal, Panel Oraljudgmentdictatsd on Per L.C. Bhadoo. J:- * By this appeal under Procedure, the appellants quesUoned legaiity and CGrrec!b1< ordsr of sentencs dated 21-4-91 ..Judge^ Raipur, in Sessions Tri^i Sessions Judge of offence under Section 302 of murcfsr of Gayatri Bai, senten^ imprisonmeni for life. The case of the appea! is ftat Gayatri Bai wa^ appeilants. She was mameci $o| about6-10y6are&efore eilat6| husband in Kanesar. However, sj the accusedfeppeirahts. The b< dsceagfed Qayatri Bai wasnot go^i ptece -between deceased Gayatri proseci^Eion i+Wirt^l'l 41WI"^ 'fS^t tfaK^K ^•ifriiOT.an^t J. .elfortheappeliants. ~ ; Pubiic Prosecutor witti Mr. Ravindra S^ction 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal natfiely, Rarnratan & Shyama 8ai have jes? of the judgment of canviction and passeti by the 1a .^ditional Sessions No.'lt2/95, whereby leameel Ackiifiona! forcommission ^ie indian penal Code for commjtting ihe i{;ed each of the aecused te undergo after hoiding the |accused/appeliarits guiHy necessary for the disposal of this ^ tHe daughter-'n-iaw of fte aceused/, Dukaiu, son ofttie aceusecj/appeliants, |of incident She used to rsside wift her frce last 4-5 years.she was residjngwith Ihaviour of fhe accBsecyappeitante -with On 16-11-94, sorasaitsrcationtook |Bai and-accused/appesltent Shyama Bai. ' E^tfe^ - ; otod ^ XI-HC-22 SiT^I'qiI 'feiwaii^i ?f-^ ^fl .'3^ •^[•i)|ivl4, tSfll.y'ie, fawiyp 3TT§^r xraw (Sx..A:.)..g.^/3 ii*<Mt9i-(irai fa'b<tl' <ffI^T ^TEIIWflfe rdom St(yama Aecused/appeiiant Ramratan said Racfha Bai DreDarsd somemedicirie child recently; Thereafter, Shya|na giycQside and mixing the same consumpti'on. Shyama Bai askee? whichshe consumed Water. Afted thereafter, she went inside the Accused/appsliams Ramratan & a cioth on the wooden beam in Ramratan !eft for the agricultura! eyening, he informed the "iilagers. Ramratan on 17-11-94 at 1 1.40 a.r the house,- he had_gone to villag^: svsning at about 7 p.m., his wife death of Gavatti Bai in the room Gayatri Bai. He vwnt ingicle, saw G< Receiving this merg intimatic|n, Officer, registered rowg No.31/94 Panchnama (Ex.P-3) of ihe dead bcjciy Ex.P2, he took into possession ciottl which was used for hangjng Gayafi was sent for post-mortsm examin^on where Dr. Saniav Wankhede (BW- prepared the post-mortem report (E|x. 'bl-tlMl'l') ^IiISf '?fezt <r<fl<ei^ ^TsiPnHsn^i to have scoided Gayairi Bai. pns for Rukmanj Bal 'who tiad deliversd ;.Bai after grinaing the seeds of in watef gave it to Gairatri Bai: for aayatri Bai. 2-3 tfmes to drink water on some time, she started vomi'ting and where she became unconsdous. Baj hangsd her with the Heip 6f the said room. Thereafter, accused field and when he returned in the |Merg intimation Ex.P-11 was giyen by |"i. that on 16-11-94 Gayatri Bai WaS in t: Kanesar, when he returned. in the IShyama Bai informed him aboui the thatthere is a ropson theneckof lyatri Bai and informed the villagers. ahd i, Anjt Sharma (PW-17), investigating on 17-11-94. He prepared the ofGayatri Bai 6n 18-11-94. Under ^esofthedecsasedand alsothe cioth |i Bat. The dead bpdy of Ga\@tri Bai to Primary Heaith Csntre, Chhura, W-11) conducted posl-mortem and ^.P-5) in which he opined, that "in my "pinion, prpb^fcle cause of death i|s. asphyxia whjch is due to hanging. Viscera are^preseryed- for chemi<(ai examination. Time ss'nce death ' [TTt^ ^fo^ =F XI-HC-22 SII^f^it r<;-<id) 3D^T 5t>fK^ <"tf^a ^si -SVSK^S, •^f f?, fadi'as'i -a- tii*<rtT^wra> T??T^ / .^.^..l^K./l'? ^......-.....-.....--..-.--..-^..^•^. W-. wfis possesslon ExlP the appears to be 2 to 4 days", He aiscf on the upoer part ofnsck.there another contusion mark below mj( prepared ths ste plan Ex.F'-S. LUjder tooK into possession, tfie earth fr<t vomited. He also took into aiso took into possession under soms iiquid substanc®feit from th^ into possession in a plastic botite which vrere in a tumbter. Under Exl Ramratan, five wiid herbs and fi^ possession. Based onffiepost-mot Sharma registered offenee untfer ^ Ex.P-16. Visceras ana earth whic) Inyestigating Officsr and the glyc^side examinatforr to Forensie Scieriee Ex.P-20 was received. As per Sayatri Sal of !lver, iung, Stidney, small & iarge intestine; glycQside possession from the tumbierwerejoijind -.^ AfterCompietion of investigati accussd/appeiiants in ihe Court Gariaband, v/ho in turn. commitiei Raipur, from where learned 1 received the caseon transferfortriaij "r*r:; ^PlfepfrTlTFRff^.^6 ^RZIT ^; Slfigq 311^1 noticed.that there was a ligature mark a contusion mark on the neck and pry No.1. The ihvestigating Officer Ex.P-12, fte Investigating Officer tm the place whers Gayatri Bai hari piain soi! from the same place. He 4P-13, thig earth from the placewhere nose of ths decsased. He also took brown coiour liquid anej Iwp saSds p-14, on being produced by accused ife giycoside seeds were taten into (tem report.Station Hoyse Offlcer Anii iection 302 of & I.P.C. under FJ.R. (i were taken into possesston by the sesds weresent for chemicai yaboratory, Sagar, from where report ij?ort Ex.P-20, in viscera of deeeased tpieen, heart, vaginal part, stomach, and water whteh was teken into to be giycoside pojson. t>n, charoe sheet was fited agajnst the |of .judicia! Magisirate, First Ciass, {1 the case to the Sessions Jydge. j^dditional Sessions Judge, Raipur, rej;ort sfeeds pft^^fe^ tslt»li.U.MM»,»WHfSiKiisYT1TI NlBtnteAl XI-HC-22 •^s. 'aiFiRra, ai^y'iio, '^Rirey WtRWWfTtft &..d,12^?A2_ """"^ -286- aii^t^ii K;-<i!*i SK^SS •a^WHfta +l'<!rt<il-l HWiril"'?fe^ <i<»*<]< i;3lpOTafl^[ adalnst The prosecutidn in 61-der to ] oersons examined 17 witnesses. were" recorded under Section 3131 denied-the prosecution evidenee,or ] prosecution evWence appearing Ramrateh also stated that he doe^ gone to village: Kanesar fotgiving i|iviteti the evening, hs came to know appelfant Shyama Bai also statsd not atthe residence atfte time of indident 1esablish cnarge againsi tiie accused Statements of the accusad Dersons of.,the Cr.P.C. in which they simply ]slate(3 that thsy do nofrknow about the them.- Apart Trom that, accused not know about the incident, he had ihvitetion card and when he returned in the incident. Whereas, accused' she wentto the pondand shewas abbut tftat Learnod Additional Sessiorls respeetive parties, convicted ard para 1 ofthisjytigment. Judge after bearing couhsel for Nntenced fte accused as mentioned in We have heard Mr. Satyej accussd/appellants arid Mr. U.N[ Prosecutor with Mr. Ravindra Agra»[al the otate/respondent. 'dra Sahu, teamed counsel for the S. Deo, learned Additional Publlc I, ieamed Panel Lawyer on behalfof Mr Sahu argued that ther^ evidence to corinect 1he accused/d The evidence of Moftan (PW-4) this evidence under potice thre^i he wiii not give the evidence.lhen argued thatsimilarty, the evsdence -/.'-'>. • . ' «, . inspire con^dence arid as far as he^ and there was no reason for the acc^used/appe r^ is no Segal, clinching and cogent d/abipeilants with the crime in quesiion. do^s npt jnspira confsdence, as' he gave bet^use the police threatened him that if t(e wili be roped in a crime. He furtber t?f Rukmani Sai (P^V-7) also does not levidehee, Ramratan was not in house iiants to commit the murier [^^3^ H- XI-HC-22 's^^FTRra, is-diy'i^ft'ni'My -5- ii WTai*<i<*i r TRR? ^&:.,.^:.\^l. w . . v- -2W- fq^T' sn^r^i K-u* sn^i sti^ii^ ••rifef SIT^T ^graT'afN <*l'i|Irt41-< *<|i<<'ii '^IS'A; <rat$i< ^sti^siAs of their own daughier-in-iaw. Th4 •h sstabiish motive behind the crime. prosecutiQn has nqt been abie to On the othar hand, Wr. U.I Proseeutor, supported the trial Coyrt' 4.S. Deo, tearried Additionai Public < . :" . ' ' . . ' .. . • '. judSment.- • i-laving heard learned counse| evidence avaiiabie on record and for the parties, wa havs perusedttte reNvant documente. As per tte evidence of D< conducted post-mortemon 19-11-9^ nose of Uie deceased; bljsters wer^ paie and there was a iigature mark i thc width of.2 cms. rouftd ths neck;] the purpose of hanging was on the | and ftere was mark on the ttiyroid c^ 1 cms. x 1 cms., 2 cms. below the j( & brown in colour. ihjury No.2 was 1 cms. x 1 cms. and same »ras aisk present in e teft chamter of heart| There was reddishness on nectc and death wasas'phyxiaon aecountof As per the F.S.L. report (Ex.ff frem the bsdy of deceased Gayatri mortem, as aiso ths sseds, wNch to bfe containing glycoside poison. possession fr9fn fffe tumbier from ^sojhe stodswere aiso ofgiycosMt t. .Sanjay Wgnkhecle (PW.14) who 1, there was a red colour frotti in the present ootbe body, naiis become ?n ths neckon account of-hanging in Knot of the cicth whteh was used for right side, its rnark wasof red colour ^riiiage. injury No.1 was m fte size of rouhdthe nesk and same was red ^ cms. below injury No.1 in the size of fe red & brown in cotQur. Blood was |and in vessels & muscies ofthroat. mouth. In his oDinion, ths cause of w ha^igihg. .if-20), viscera, which were preserved Bai by the doctbr conducnng post- taken into Dossesslon were found Similarly, vrater, whteh was taken into tt|ie house of the accused persons as i^ poison.* As per ths eyiciencs, there [''ft^ ^[<st^ w^re tttl ==F XI-HC-22 S^sr-'^IFfRF?, 'g^ff'T?, T6«1iyi< STI^I'^T K-ii+ sn^i . 5nHl<ti *1^ 'cFTqf^I^I'f ^TITT^if ^ 'f^1^' •d^i^.lt •^3i|5gt[3n^(- decebssd consjuming cons^mption. for'the were signs of vomiting on ttie piace] wasteken into possession bythe Mohan (PW-4), who is son .o|r brothsrofthe husband ofthe the deceased vomited after Shyama Bai to Gayatri Bas fof the moming of the day of incident, t|i< Bai, his mother, and deceased Gays|tri for grazing male buffaip. He.retum^d Sakjrig meal, he saw that decsased white weepjng, his mother went and his father Ramraten Went Thereafter, his mother returned Troml crushed glycoskie seedo in a tumBl^r water, Gayatri Bai wertt for steepl glycoside seeds were brought by hj the time when the mMure 6f mother, his father was atso Gayatri Bai became unconsctous tied a rope round the necR of Gayat^ with a wooden beam of the coom fo( Gayairi Bai wnh the wooden heam, and left for the fisid, and his mother' His father returned iri the evening. rop? by which'Oayafri' Bai iras c^ied 'tt^ people pf She_yicin!ty of oecurrsnce and earth ofthat piace Officer. nv^stigating gtyco^ide prese|it: ths accused/appeiianfe and youngsr I, has stated w his evidence ttiat water, whfeh was glven by He has furfher steted that in t|iere was altercation between Shyama 5|tri Bai. Thereafter, he ieft for the Seid at about 10 a-m. for the purpose of Ipayatri Bai was going inslds ths room purppse of taking bath to the pond to ttie foresf for cpilecting hsrbs. the pond ana gavevrater mixedwth to Gayatri Bai. Afler consuming that and thereaftsr, she vomited. The falher and given to his moiher. At was given to Gayatri Bai by his After vomiting, his slater-in-law therea8er, his mother Shyama Bai ^i ^i and hls.faSherSed thesaictrope hanging Gayatn Bai. After hanging iRamraian closed the door of ths room ^ent towards the vicinify <rf the village. [he door ofthe room was opened, ie was toosened, and his father by that time his sister-in-law was arid h^iging arid •^^ ^s{\ a-l -1-,- (^) XE-HC-22 Sfl^i^iT 1?;rig? •sii^i ^RWdf??! ~s:3t -i)i4i<?t-'<, ^ftwi3','1^ra3? -y- - 3ff^?T 'q3^? / ,_.^.,...fc..t^£^ 111CTI %Nfch 3D^i.'?(<nwa1tB stster alreadydead. Atttia timewhsn his she was aijve. !n crbss-examination able to elicit any cireumsteince, whjch] animosity againstthe accused/appefl^nts. appeilante. His evfdencs is Gorrobor^t uf Rykmani Bai (PW-7), who Is daudhtfir and Wife of son df the accused/app^l nothing in ths cross-examination tt|at under tfie threaf .of pplice. ster-in-law was hanged by his father, >f this witness, d&fehcs has not besn < ' ^-' "• . ', • estabiishesthat this witness had any 'nts. He is none else than-son ofthe ited to a grsat extent by tbe svfdence htfir-in-iaw.of the accusect/apReiiants sllante namely, Dashrath. There is he dsposed against his parsnfe stated the Gayfrt- prepar^d Rukmanj Bal (PW-7) has month of Kartik, Gayatri Bai died, at tlj three days before the jncident. On *)• by her father-jn-law & motheMn-law, asking &y Dukaiu, husband of domestic work. Radha Bai mother-in-iaw wsnt for iaking bath -tt grinded somsthing and mb(ed ttie s^ given to Gayatri Bai for drinkiog. On| anci went snside her room. At that I agrteuitural fleici. After consumptlon and fhereafter, her father-in-iaw cam< discussed somsthing among thems^ Gavatri Bai at about 12 noon,they and her father-m-iaw again left for the| in-!aw ca!!edih®-wltagers. ^i'iilri'ii-f w^vK 4 fest <r«i*si< ^ariigiTCT^r in her evidence that during th® ^at time she (PW-7) delivered a chiid fetefu! day, ti^eh on beingasked |Gayatn Bai did not woks up, but on fttri Bai, ^she woke up and did the ^d medicine for her (PW-7). Her the pond ana after rsutmjng she |me with water and ttat .watsr was seeirig this, she became frightened ISims, her fether-in-law went to the }f vrater, Gayatri Bal s^rted vomiUng 1-ier father-m-iaw & mother-in-taw ^ives and sntered in the room of outofthe room ata^>ut4 p.m.;. fjeld. !n the evening, her brothers- catne [^^ ^fa^ XI-HC-22 's^t -^MwA, ri-diy'is, 1s?iraf3( llFRIT ttiHlch_.&,e,.i2,^ sn^i^ii h-1M SfS^I ^+iicti yf^<i 311^1 TOIIWHf?(T ^Ncpifri WRif •? fsret ^R?R ^T^PgiT3i]^r Therefors, asking Gayatri Ba|i suisstance was seen byRukmani B^i started vomiting and she went insi<|i appetlants remained inside the svidence of Mphan has been Bai(PW-7). \ inside roctm to consuma water miitsd with some i (PW-7) also. Thereaftsr, Gayairi Bai ('the room where both the aceused/ for quite some time, Hence, the borated by the evidence of Rukmani corroborated As per the evidence of Sukhtj Jahura Bai (PW-1), mothsr of t) appeilants with ths deceased were | and the deceased used to teii Sukhtlram (PW-9), father ofthe deceased & tl|ie deceased, relations of accused/ |notcordiai, they used in harass her aboutthe harassmentto hsr parente. Therefore, from ttie evidehcsl that in the first instance, accused see'ds, which were crushed &; grind< mixing ffie same in water, itwas giv^i Bai consumsd the same, thereafter, unconscious after going inside the alycoside were taken into ppssessioji the report 'of viscera and seeds, containjrig poisonous substance i. categorically stated io hls evidwcel c'oth on the neck of Qayatri Bai'an^ Bai cn the wooden beam with the h< neck of Gayatri Bai.and as per'the on ihs nscic/or Gayatri Bai. As per ^1 as a resuit.of asphyxia. TherS is ncj Mohan (PW-4) & Rukmani Bai (PW-f of abovs wiUissses, it is esteblished R^mraitari brpughf glycosjcie poisonOus ;d by accused Shyama Bai and after !^nto Gayatri Bai to consume. Oayatri ^he sterted vomiting and she became f|oom. The said five sampleseecis of by the investigating Officer. As per ^scera of ttie deceased were found ^e. glycoside. Mohan (PW-4) has ttat his mother Shyama Bai tied a hisfather Ramratan hanged Gayatri i^ip of ffiecloih which wss tieci on the Imedjcal evidence there were Injuries doctors-evidenee, Gayatri Baidied reason to ciisbetiave theevidencs of -f) who aresonand daughter-in-law of •., ['^if^ "~ Ute XI-HC-22 sn^fqii •f?!IW'3I1^T '^•RNi^rf^ Soma ^ ^ •g^ "ii!<=si<-l4, ag]wi<o, Kwi'yy. -^- <VWff(h«11t*i .\.t»£ts^),..^X^ ^.&>...&.V!y©^2 fee^g"""""'" sii^i'??giw;Hftg ths accused/appeiianfs, respecti' record, which shows thatthese accused/appellante, haye any wiinesses, animjasity against th< evidenfce meCca As far as ths argument appellants that as per the Rarntatan had aiready went to th< Wiehan & RutananiBaithatafter Ramratan ieft for Sie field and th^ became unconscibus after accused/appeiiants hanged her v^ stoth, whjch was takeh into poi Sharma (PW-17). As per<fteme<< oRacGbunt of hanging. For the forsgoing reasons,] thsre is no illegiaiity or inflrmtty therefare, there is no reason sentence imposed upon the accu) appeai, being .cievoid of msnt, fe distnissed, \ ~Sd/- :" , L.G. Bhadoo Jadge Nothing has bsari brought an »,whciare family msmbers of the ijasity against the appeltsfnte. ."1" ~ ' ' • '' .' /. , .' |idvanced by learned cpunse! for the of Rukmani Bai, £®cused/appel!ant fietd, it has CQme i.n the evidence of {rovicilngsseds to Gayatri Bal, accused ^eafier, he came and when Gayatoi 8ai of gtycpside poison, both the (th a wooden beam wtii the heip of a isession by Investigating Officer Ani! report, Gayatri Bai died of asphywa consi|mpton -. / qnq^ql^ 'R1^?ff^ 'fe^ •i.N^i< ' ^•aifiairsn^r Ny- n befbre we are of the conadered gpinion that the Judgment of the triai Court and us to interfere with convietion anct aed/appeiiants by the trial Cpurt. The iabie to be dismissed and it is hereby Sd/- DfflRENDRA MBSHRA Judge [^^g^