A V wwwmaaaawgww xxx—Wham (w &-2rm Mg g [my "iu hth (Cnmmai) APPEAL @F PRI$QNER $:;_L_L.‘_ Nama‘ 1mm s mama R32m WW Jx m9 ac“ Agg 4 2b 1% 9'2... ’ Semeackxi s§ 5K gW ‘ Unum‘ symtma gag; I Q44 W (M 9)) $2 ”WK g/yL 1' uugc§ m 6h mmmex mat 1f he sbtaies at Wnsmes w be repiesemmd by lega’i ‘ m at mmw me Appwu’ce tear: Wm mm macaw wmh me base for we‘ven days wniess rim §em$ wmimwmew mmwm if me km? pmctamwner daes @ot appear Wnhm sevem dag» swEaE m mi my ¥®gm mm, gmmmmm$ imam at mi me ii" wxm me pnwme: may wacead smies ai thai mace he wnh does nox {he wash case and w be WLH mpxe— mat b3 mhiwtcE m gw: & kwanmg m any legal mwmmmer who sheuid appeas v 1 . Ema 9f &g§3imii§$nkfa£ awgy @f Jimgemamt @‘Qa 9 2 L9 9:2. ‘ i E - LE L? 9L mg m3 win‘ie‘h mm? ma’vm ew i I‘ 9;? 7 ” Balm 6m. which &@pw1 :%m ¥ mpregemed M moi -» YES W w: wgmihwgm wiwher wimw w b3 ha NH w ‘ w ir%zj/ tur/gamac wéiém a WW M @wm pmevzi m 321m wse Mr fa om m‘ iransmxssmn m ws &F%Y\k~fk 3&mnmrsmiem I m kmy 61% “we @“g‘ mmxgi m @Z E M $ @ffEm Em“? m mmmf. Eemvék w awommny *i Elwm m mppm§ «3f am Amyeham mom: d I bkg é @ai‘e Fmmmt&@dl m E‘émc FgxzwMtMm me H C 'u >u~:‘ 3 Magmiraxc ’n pm. \, Emmi af Rmwi m P’gpgaliate Com‘t % ' ’ x . ‘ , ——# ‘ l . M If HIG§§ €0URT OF CHHAT‘TISGARH : BKLASPUR €REMENAL APPEAL Ea. 11Q5 Q? lggg 1 Jagdislii V$. Stata of Madhya Pratiwh {may Shhamiggaxm ; JUEGMEE‘iT FM Cwn$iiig§i£m$_ ”/"’” Sdl- Fakhruddin Judge m: m- "Hon’bléz: $m’i Ju§tice EKK. $hriVa5tav Jmlgmem: 3mg fmw )-1Q—%g¢5 ”Ed/- Fakhmadin a Judge §" ’ w 1 / ‘ @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH : $1LA$PUR CREMINAL AP?EAL N0. 1105 GF 1992 JagdiSh G VS. Siam of Madhva PradESh (now Chhattisgarh) Comm :- Hon’ble Shri Fakhruddin, J 8r, Han’ble Shri V.K. ShrivaStava, J Shli V.C. Ottalwar, AdVOCata appears as Amicus Curiae on b€half of the apye‘}1a11t. Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Paiml Lawyer for th€ Staté. JEJDGMENT Par Fakhruddin, J Héani learnad counsel for the artié‘s. p 2. This appaal is dimcted against tha judgmctnt damd. 22—9-1992 ddivemd in SaSsions Trial No63/9'2 by tha Additianal Sewiens Judgs, Balodabazar, whm‘eby m6 appeuant has bean convicted uniler Section 302 of 1:116 Indiaa Psnal Code for committixlg murder of his wifo Bhoja Bai and sentoncod to undm‘go implisonment for life. n g, T116 facts, which am Lxot disputed, are. that daggasod Bhoja Bai was the Wifo of the appollant—accused, One Savitri Bai was Wife of Mahadev (son of the appellant). After marriage Savini was Ewing with Mahadev in the house. The accused had an evil eye on Savitri and at some point of time he tried to advance toward‘s her, which was not Hked by deceased Bhoja Bai. Panchavat has also taken place, thereafter divorce took place. between Savitri and. Mahadev. Mahadev \\ marmed with another ladv Shanti Bai. 5L; ” \ h) é?) O11 3—9- 1991 at 8.00 a.m.; appellant with his wife Bhoja Bai 311d son Milaram went to his fidd for ag1icultura1 work 1.5. wesding. a Appellant, Bheja Bai and Milaram wart‘ in field tiJl 11‘00 am. Milaram was Sent by appellant to his Imusa and aSked him to pmpam The fodd. At that Time, accused and hi$ wifa Bhoja Bai were in the tiald. ThEreafter at 1.30 RM. JagdiSh want to his brother’3 hause. namdv Ramnath ajld askcd for monsv fmm Phoolkunwar, the. da‘ugllwgqf Ramnath. Phoolklinwar gave him Rs. SOj- then Jagdish I went. According to the, prosscution, when thé appallant alld Bhoja Bai did not return, Mi1a§am went to the field at 1‘80 p.111. He did not found hiS father whereas he found that his mother was lying dead in the field and her neck was tied from the Saree which she was wean'ng. $eeing this, Milai‘am retunied to the locality and neurated about this to the villagere. By that time, meseage was sent to Mahadev (RW. 1). First Information Report (EX.P/ 1) was lodge-d by Mahadev, descn'bing these events and it was mentioned titerein that his father was missing. 1t was further reported that the deceased and appellant were together in the held, It was also repmted that it is the appellant who has killed the deceased. On report being lodged, the crime was registered and the investigation was made. The dead 'hody was sent for post mortem which was conducted by Dr. GR. Agrawal (PWell). The post morteni report is EXP/7, which describes the following injuries on the body of the deceased: Aberration presentsoyer left hand on anterior aspect size l cm. X 1/2 cm. \\ 2) Aberration over chest on left side 8 cm. below nipple size 1/2 cm. X 1/2 cm. \\ .\\ 3) Confusion over left auricle over ear lohule size 11/2 cm. x 1/2 C111 4) Mukiple abmration of diifamgt size and shape pr6s€nt 0x761“ cu'bii'al fossa (Right side). a) Contusion $126 3 cm, x 1 cm. ovar rightwrist—anterior amped. The Doctor ophmd that causm of d6ath was due to strangulation aim homicidal in aamx‘e. 5. The prosecution filed challan and the case was commitied to the Sessions Court. On being charged fer The offence of murder, the appeilantuabjured the guilt and contended mat he has bee11 falsely simplicated. The prosecution examined 14 wimesses. RW. 1 Mahatiev, P.W.2 Milal‘am, P.W.3 Bishatram Velma, P,W.4 Gambirdas, PWS Keju‘ram, PAW.6 13.}? Agnihotm‘ {ASL}, P.W.7 Gambir Das, P.W.8 Phool Kunwar, P.W.9 Nmnala Bai, P.W.10 Rishi Kumar, P.W.11 Dr. GR Agrawal, RW, 12 Savitri Bai, P.W.13 Kartik Ram and P.W.l4 LK. Pandey (1.0.). The Court below relied on the prosecution evidence alld convicted the accused/appellant & sentenced him as mentioned ab ove. ,o. Shri Ottalwal‘ appealillg on behalf of the appellant contendet‘t that there is 110 eyewitness and the case rests on circumstahtial 5 evidence and the chain of the circumstance has not been proved. He I also contended that according to the prosecution other persons were nresent near the field of the appellant as the incident occurred in the field in a day time. i.e. in between 1100 am. to 1.30 p.111. but none of them saw the incident. Shri Ottalwax further contended that if a ladv ix is strangulated, she would Ciy which would receive the attention of the other persons, but nothing had happened and the entire case is concocted It. is also stated that between the appellant and deceased there was no immediate quairel. So far as Savitri Bai’s (slaughterin- 5‘1 law of thf: appdlaut and demasad) matter is concenmd; the sam€ Was all 01d affair. E 7 , Per contra 8111i Agrawal, kamed com1s€1 appearing ‘for rim Sta‘m ampermd thC findings recorrkd by the. trial Judga £11 th€ judgment and contended that the circumstancw are ch’nching ami have been proved. s ‘x, 5 8. In VIEW of the rival contgltions raissd by laarnéd counsd foy the parties, we have. carefuXly gone. through the material on record. In thiis caSe, the evidence of P.W.2 Milaram 1S censietent. He has Stated that he alongwith his father (appellant) and mother (deceased) had gone to the field at about. 8,00 am. for agricultural week Le. Weeding. He has. also stated that at 11.00 am. he was aeked by the appellaat to go to the house and prepare the food. P.W.2 Milaram came to the house and prepared the food and was waiting for his father and mother. When both of them did not return the house, P.W.2 went to the field where he found his mother dead and appellant. father was missing. This witness has been cross—examjrled at length. There is nothing‘to discard the testimony of P.W.2 Milaram and his evidence is rehab le . x 9. P.W.8 Phoolkunwar (niece of the appellaht) is another witness. She has stated that on the date of incident at about 1.30 p.111, the accused came to her house. She has further stated that at that time the accused had 'l)rought~ori§ iokiny and one empty hag (hora) and kept the saine in her house. She has also stated that the accused. demanded Rs.5/ — from her, but she gave R550] — because she did not have the change. The accused took Rs.50/ ~ from her and stated that a: 1G, There is ano‘rher witness RWJO Rishi Kumar (nephew of the. appellanty He has stated that on the date of incident at about 1.30 ~ ’ 2.00 p.111, while he was going to his house for Taking meals after the work frQm Kirana Shop, he ’met the accused near the pond. The accused was wealhlg Banivan and Towel and demanded shirt from Q him as he is going ”to market to purchase Tea Leaves, Sugar etc. He gave his own shirt to .the accused which was wom by the accused. It was blue co1our shirt. Then PW. 10 reached the house and found that his sister Phoolkunwar was weepnlv and she had stated that the. accused kept taking and bag (hora) and demanded Rs.S/~ but. she gave Rs.50/ — as she had no change of Rs.5/ —. He has also stated that when he was sitting for taking meals, Milaram came and informed that Bhoja Bai died. In cross—examination, P.W.10 Rishi Kuinar stated that the accused did not return. ‘\ u. @ 116 would rfitm‘n tha balemce. Therrjaftrar he want 811:1 did not coma. SE16 told fhis to her bromer Rishi. Sh€ has £1130 stated that toiciny Emd bag (bora) wem $eized bV the Police from her. There is nothing to discard her testimom'. ll. In examination of the accused the question No.§0 was put to s. the appellant about the evidence of Milaram. On this the answer of the appellant was yes. Then question No.25 was put to the appellant about the evidence given by Phoolkunwar. On this the appellant has admitted and said that he kept zioiciny and bag (hora) in her house. The question No.28 was also'Emt to the appellant about the evidence t \ given hv Rishi Ixumai On hearing this, the accused started weeping. \\ x I \ \ \ \ 14V The Court below considered all these aspects and arn'ved at. a Ending that the appellant is the person who has killed his wife We have also gone through the entire record and we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence. So far as the offence is concerned, the injulies, which have been found on the bod}: \ \ \\\ \ ‘ \ultiple aberra‘n‘ons and on over right. wrist anterior aspect. Under of the deceased, aie on over chest, contusion over left auricle, \ 12. The Evidxenca of P.W.2 Milaram, PAIR/18 Phoolkunwar and PvWJO Rishi Kumar go to Show fhat they are the truihful Witnesses. Thr: evidance of megs: witnesses further go to Show that the deceased waS in the compaxxy of the accueei The evidence aleo Show that accused asked his S011 Miiaram to go to the house t9 prepale feed and when bQth of them éid net came, Meal‘am came to Lhe eeld and fou11c1 that hie mother was lying dead a11d fafller (appellani) has left, the Spot. The evidence also ehow that the appellamt Went to the heuse of V‘ P,W.8 Hloolkunway with éoicz‘ny and em§ty bag {bora} and R350; ~ wae taken bV him, thereafter he met RW‘lO Rishi Kumar where he took a shirt from him. All those circumstemces were placed before him, which are practically admitted for and no explanation has been givee,‘ The injuries found on the deceased were homicidal in nature. 13. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant. is that some other persons could have seen the incident. The incident is hypothetical. The deceased and appellant are husband and wife. They were working in the field. The appellant has not disputed these facts and on the contrary he has admitted the same while replying to the questions at the time of examination under Section 313 of the ‘x, Code of Criminal Procedure. ‘i-\ \ \ the cil‘cumstancss, we am of th€ considersd opinion that the offCnCE committed by tbs appellant falls undsr Section 302 of the Indian Penai Code. Accordingly, the appeal fa‘ds and is diSmissed. 15. Before panting, we appreciate the valuable aseietzmce rendered by Shn’ V.C. Ottalwar, Advocate appearmg as amicus curiae on behalf of‘the appellant and. Shri Ravinclra wval, learned counsel A e \ '4 peanhgyfor the State. l l Sd/- Sdl- if V.K. Shrivastava Fakhrugldjn Judge ‘Jlidg: 21—12l’05i 2 1- 12—05