@ -:!:- INTHE COURT OF HONOURABLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BDLASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) CRIMINAL AFPEAL N0 ......3.)........ /20C Appeallant / Accused - 't.r.°''i:CT-^^' ""li" '." O" •^••^""^^ .[^'W^'^"" V/^saW....'-'""^ , O.^, fcy Sh" ••"fc"""' _. A.a'^C'11 ^ >..—-—""* Respondent / Prosecution :'a IR. to eri-£^) Verses Biselal Goand son ofAnjori Goad aged about 40 years Residiag at viUage Sivani police station Gatapar District Rajnandgaon ( Chhattisgarh ) State of Chhatdsgarh through poUce station centre Gatapar Dist. Rajnandgoan CRIMDiAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF CODE OF CRIMDSTAL PROCEDURE ^entence u—i-y.4i.>.ii>i. BHaitEiHIII; W9K t-i-L,^'^.. XI-HC-78 sn^T^rf^TN? gaiT-sn^T gBiTq; BiWWS^ s-lil ^1+1W( Sh*1icb 75?' •<ll<41(n'l|, 0iTl1u'IS, IsK'lKHy •£.¥»t1•1\)IJt .^\.... ail^l 14^* (li,cil^st^) CTgTWHfN'an^T DIvtston Beaeh: - Hatt'Iite Mr. L.C. Bliadoo Hon'Ute ate.SatWt K. etii'qffiifl-i tii*(ciT^tet^<F3i+<;i( ^)3rf^IT3TI^T .AI. 21-7-a006 Mr. ShmtendBa Dubey], counsel for Ae appcUant Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Addi|tfotial Public naosecutor for the Slate/ respoiident Oraljudgpaaentdictate|i on Dais. Per L.C. Bhadoo. J: - This appeal is duect^d ^jamst ihe judgment of convfcfen aiul order of sentence d^ted 20A Juty, 2001, passcd by (he Additional Sessions Judge,] Khaic^arti. Dfatrict Rajiiaadgaon ScssiEmsTrialNo. 126/199^, whereby^leamed AdditionalSessions Judge after holding fhe acci|ised/appeBant gmlty for comaifesion of ofifence under Sectfon 302 imprisonincnt fbr life. Brieffacts (rf the pro^ecution case are fhaton5-10-l998 at about 9 a.m. whcn Pujari attacked Pujari Baba with Kotwar, on wluch the F.I.R. >fthe I.P.C. sentenced hiai to uiNlei^o Baba <8>. Chhabilal was in finnt of the house of Ankahi, the accjiused aU of a suddea appesized and aa axe as a xesult of whfch hc died instantaneou^r. Thc inatljer wss reported by Kapurdas, viBage (Ex.P-8) was registeicd fin- conuiussion ofofifence under Scctioa 30^ offhe I.P.C. The Invcst^atu^ Officer 1 teft for the scene of occun|enee, after giviag notfce Ex.P-1 to tfae Panchas piepaied ises Ex.P-2 & P-3 of the body P.T.O. )^ XI-HC-78 w *TTt[<'IT&>*1|ch 3'Sf-W^PT, vjnfiW^, \^f\wy ^..Q,,A..^U ^R- 200S^ 3TI^?rtR^5'(1^3^ET) 3T1^T^rf^IR7 cpti sn^r st)*<iti CT(n'WHf?tT3n^T ofPujariBaba. Blood staiaed| fhe head of fhe deceased werc Wliite in police custody, the and in pui'suance of fhat, he | Meig mtiinatfon Bx.P-7 was were scnt for Forcnsk; Scfcacd aeport Ex.P-8 (second) was sent for post-mortem |sofl and plain sofl as well as bsdr of Itaken into posscssion under Ex.P-4. ^ccused gaye meanoraadum E&P-5 lot recoveaed fhe saes utider Bx.P-6. by Kapurdas. Recovered articles letooiatory, Sagar, fl»mwhere flie rec|sfoed. The body of Pujari Baba was to Commiinily Healtb Centte, gnfen examariilaon Khau'agarii, wtoere Dr. S.S. mortem on fhe body of Pujari report Ex.P-9. Site plan Ex.P-^ 1 Chhabta (PW-5) conducted post- pabaand ppeparrf fhe post-mortem , 1 was prepared by the Ratwari. After comptetkxn of invc^tig the Gourt ofAdditional ChiefJh in turu committed the case tol fi»m where leamcd Additfojnal received fhe case oa traasfer fot The prosecution in ord^ accuscd eacamined six williessels fhe accused was iccorded which he denied fhe and stated that be is iiuiocent, UDlder prosecuqon Leamed Additioaal arguments of Addittonal accused, convicted aad mcntioned inpara 1 pffhisj qrof?f!ftH WRTT if fei^ TfSRere ^3T)^«T3T[^T invc^ti^tion, ^ti^tion, cfaaacge shect was flted ta (udicial Magistrate, Khairagarli, who the Sesaions Judge, Rajiiandgaon, Sesaons Judge. Khairagarh, 'k'trial. ^r to esteblish eharge against tfae On ibe other hand, statement of Section 313 of fhe Cr.P.C. in evidence appeanag against Irim |therefiMc, he be acquitted. Se^sioas Judge afler hearing fhe Publlc RtDsecutor and counsel for thc sen^enced the accuscd/appeltent aa jud^ment P.T.O. ^ w (2^) XI-HC-78 T5T .qiiiict^i, »-<f1yi|d, Ricii+iy Ofv qilMl sh*ll<=h W[ 200 3I1^T?5Tf^:IW tmSIR^Tsbllti OT^r'ra^? (<^3g^8r) gTgTWHi^rsn^T Wc havc Iieard tea^aed <»unsclfor thc parties. As fer as fhe queE|t*on of h.<anKadal death of Pujari Baba is concemed.same Isasna appellant Even ofhetroise, Dr. S.S. Chhabra (PW-5), who conducted post-mortem his evBleace fhat fben m the body of Pujmi Baba, has statrf ia ^was aa iajuxy on tfae ri^it side of head, anofher injuiy was on •Bps ng^it side of &ce aud fhe thud iujaxy was on chia. On dissec^ theie was aa injuiy m tB^ bone aad (hc injuxy wa4 qrewitaesses who have Bisdalattacked decease<| Pujari Baba feU down an< established ffaatthe deaflk As &r as iavol comiiuttu^; the muBder o) h^ stated in his evideno stovtg wifh Sjyaram, Kas the oecasioa of festwal i attacked Pujari Baba in reported to fhe PoUce. evidence. The SCCK m. qn wifa^ irTOt'ffte^ ^ITSK ^3rf^H3T1^T becn dteputed by teamcd couasel for fhe bn of&e body, oa.Uw r^jht side ofhead size of2" x l" x Vi", flMire was fiactune of extaoxluq; upto tbe baain materiaL The cause of death was fi'act^re of skull bone and iajury on hcad. His report is Bx.P-9. Pien|lal (PW-1) and Syarau (PW-2) are the stated ia thdr evidence fhat accnscd Pujari Baba withaxe as a result ofwhich died. In view ofthe above evKien.ee, it is ofPujari Babawas hoimcidal m nature. ^ement of the accused/appeltont ia ' Pujari Baba is concemed, Premlal (PW-1) ttiatmthe m<amu% at about 10 a.in. he }iiram and other viU^ers were sltting on ffae viBage and in their presence Biselal ftont ofthc houseofAnkaIu wifh axc as a result ofwhich Pujari B^ba feU down aad died. The mattBr was ^aram (PW-2) has conoboiated fhe ahove !|stioa was atoo taken into possession. In P.T.O. 2-- v XI-HC-78 HIHWI ?hN|t»» 73f -^MW^, •S-^WW, faclWy ^.^...A..^^.. ^r 200^ 3TI^?T4ach (li°lt^<si^<T) 3n^?'^rR-<itti imrsn^rOTR; W's-'^f^l BTttTSK^fNsTI^T lOi fhe CTOss-cxamination of ffaesie able to dfaat any cnctHastaiicel witaesses untrustworthy or witnesses inspire confidence o^ consulered opinion that the mvolvemcnt of ttie accused aiid based onlegal clmchn^ Leamed couxisd for evidencc of eyewitnesses it i^ attacted the deccased all of a| aad wifhout haviag any time, tfac accused -was svffenctg inind and fhcre was no inteati<|>n of Pujari Baba. Therefore, cxtend beyoxid Sectioa 304 on the judgment of Kcrala H^ State ofKerata reported m I On fhe ofhcr hand, supported the judgatent ofthe Section 84 offheI.P.C. whfch is doiie by a person who^ unsoundness of inind, is iacs^s act, or ffaat he is doiag what Sectioa 105 of the Indiaa "wfaen a person is accused wltDesses, defeace has not been which matees ti>e ewBlencc oftiaese ikaieHabte. The evulence of tfaese 'thfi Court. Therefare, wieare offlie fladang of fhe trial Court *llf<-l<fl-l HIHrtTfftel^t'iRlWK ^STi^fl'an^r i4 attackmg fhe decea^d is correct c^idence. fhje appeBant at'gued fhat fix>m flie estdaBshed fhat accused Bisdal suddcn wi&out aay paeaieditation i^sity aseaast fhe deceased. At tfaat fium insanity ie. uosoundness of of the accused to causc fhe deafh agaiast Ihe accused does not Psdft-ll of •Qse l.P.C, He placed I'cliance Court in the matter of Hiwmda vs. (S|OOeiCCTta81(DBl. Additioaal PubMc Proseeutor IrialCourt. offence Pait leduncd .cs^able ^nvisages fhat ''nofhiag is an offence at the time ofdoing it, by reasoa of of lcnowiag ftae aature of the ^s eiflwr wxoiig or coatemy to lawa. E^Sdtssce Act, 1872, eavisages that offence, the tiunlen pf provmg of|any P.T.O. ^ 2-- 79 ^- ^ m d^ (5£J XI-HC-78 3?i^T q?r fiaN; (raT3TT^TaOT^ ^|^''';' NI*<WI a>*ll<*> asTarraRpT, riTfl'y'id, isicii'Hy .fe'.:A-.^ ^Tj; 200-SL 3)1^1 Mslch (^qt^q^iT) BT(TTWTrf^T3:n^r •^rafrTifl^wmf ^'fe^r ^TFOT ^sTf^q'gn^r fhe existence of dtcumstaace4 brix^ing the case wifhin any of (he General Exceptions m the Inaj|an Ptnal Qade, 1860 (45 of 1860) or withia aay special escception o^ paoviso coataioed in any o&er part ofthe saiiie Code, or in aay la|w definiag Ifae offeace, is uptai him, aad the Court shall presume Ipte absence of such cirouinstance^', TIierefore, in vfcw of fhe pn»v(sions pf Section 105 of fhe Indian BvidenceAct, 1872, the burdei]i is oaflieaccused to prove his case fhat at fhe time of coamkissioa of crime on accoiint of unsoiuidness of mind he was ^iot capabte ofkaown^ fhe iiature of fhe act fhat what be was dom^ is eifher •wrossor contraxy to law. Bven the Apex Court in the laajtter ofTJI. LdBlaiaIah v. Btate of Knnataaui reported in AIR ^SOOl SC 3828 has IieU ttiat fhe biudea of pioving the excep|tiaa under Section 84 is oa tbe accuscd. Smular is tfae judgnteat of Apcx Court m the matter of State of M.P. v. AIunadaUa |reported in AIR 1961 8C 998 in which it has bcen Iield fhat fh^ buiden of proving tbat fhc incntal condition of the accused was dpit proper at fhe time when the said offence was comnutted Mes on tbe accused ia view ofSeetion 105 of the Evideitce Act. It is a settie|d positaon in law tihat eveiy mmi is presuined to besaae aud to po^sess a sudBcient degree ofre^ion to be responsibte for tus acte uote^s tfae cpntraty is proved. Thereforc, m oider to se^k protection of Sectioa 84 of the I.P.C. the accused was required]to provebyadducmgewidence fhat ofimsouDdmmd. Ifwe :loo3s: into I, in tfae fust iastancc, at fhc at fhe time offhe incident he w fhe recoxd of fhe casc ia 7-9 P.T.O. ,-1!.-1- •0'1'd u- --7, V|$(Y j£t»Q»sno paqiiqj^dnn uau^p pasnaos sfyfBsy. SAUXJTS 4SU(Bpp^<i iwp SBA .aoiiBiyaiiiaiio qyff MU, scscfoS. sq^ Kp satnoq joj aaaq^ A'B[ 3^ pioo jo ia5(onq B saya vaaa aq pire punoid ^ppnin aq^ ao iraappTO aq^ ^age aoos isq^ SBA a|i adeosa <q ^duiaoB AIB a3(Bin scp. vio Tpiewe sncuapmm avf^ j|ai aiR jo ano 'pai^ueu aaaq aesq\ {(Brina) B^wni^ 1.11am8pnf pree yvsffaddv jojpismioo paiuB3{ ^q aft» 4ffil ^BA paspp.1 p3(p •pmmjo paenooe aq» aniua jo xioiseiiBiBoo atp <q qoea aeo ijnog aq» <I3pl4i jo BIOI VB iou si araip. 'asojaisqj, • l»qAo»SB Smwsasiy) 3[q8<fea %cm yzacKxxa ao yavp. va^S. Tfsas Sas atp jo gie UOR;»S -opaii yaamaape^ Are rsog Sauqgns ^ou SBM pasnostB 3ABq sassani.uik aq» 'sssssiiiui H3Ag 1BI.4 JO SIHtl. StR fe pasiKi B3t jo iioissituuioo jo siasc^ sip ^B piipax SBM pssiiooB OTR jaqiaqA <^ SB ^ieapaai pasn.xw aip 8iq»^S.ioj •o| aoitBOHddB UB paAom 3A»qa( fcftai^ lii^itehiyte^ >iniy> |j>iS| ^ ^!*>hlK l-y»l->JMib 3tB 'E AO J° Aiompsat avy. (syif luiq 3[o<q pue aimGo •rsaq J3AO pamod SBM ja^BA pire ssapioporo pamemai SafSi vaas SBA pssnooB ajy. ^aBtsinnotqa ipjnoj aqj, •aiaip l^oa pip pasnooB aip pasBaoap J|ayB -vesff. SBA saouBi.smnaip aseo •fsvff. j.o saotiBismnoinp jo ts Bred ai 'paiiuaouoo si yiavaSpat aip SB j^ sy s^aiipnnosan vioy SaxsafflXB SBM fo avas). sqf. ya •VBVQ uoienpdoa i|8naiqi puooaa ao aoaapiAS Ot &04ao3 si 8mop SBM aq aq pmiBjo ssaupunosim. jo lon seq pasnooB aip '•o"d"-0 S'(|S Slp III U8Ag •SS3UI[I IBttOOT aq»leqi psvefs SffBauoSsvao pip jo uot»Bmme3S-sscua ui (d qans ou si aiaip ^nq 'aun.K) ^o ssaiiptinosun vsxy Suuajgns •afBfJaosia o» japao in: paatacBssa lly^o aq^jo geg UOROSS •»pan aousgap ysy. 'jetif. jo gmirmSaq i^itepSjfti&uaa <telh'< itblh»IteU Mfc^l^'^UE (hi'£B.Pjb^>) tOBh \k\ 'o, ~^ OOZ UA ......7.............. tfolh4S IWhlh >Rftll-itej ';)|rft[jl»'J^lMtKteE 8Z.-3H-IX 1-f) XI-HC-78 an^T^iri^iRi traT3n^Tsb*li<ti 35T •-i|l'l<ld<4, ®T(1u'IS,IsKII+iy HIHWT ^lfl ch ^ 200 gn^Tqsra? ('^3^8T) S?aTWHf?(T311^T Iiad a histoiy of paranoip of which is Itoat fhe provocation and duringl positun to understand The sixth circnain.slaace Section 313, Cr.P.C. fht questioits was fhat he did not yw aay repty. such cii'cumstances fhe questions. There is| which showa fhat tfae As such, fhe aboivc judg|n presenf case. Thereforc,| imder Section 84 offhe II The case offlie apj^d Section 300 of the I.P.C.I, is not murder if it is cocaljaa ^ht, ia (he heat of a no sudden fight aad present case is not covea^d I.P.C. The laaaner in fhe deceased witia deadt skuU bone was fi^EKtuied ,as per fhe doctor's opmi<|>n 'bi<ifcf41-f 4itic<TffteIA<Ri'K,i< ^sri^Tsn^r scluzophraaia bne 6f tfae manifestatipas pajtient ineay tum vioknt ewen wiQiout any the morbiii state he may not be m a ]thenatuns and coasequences of his act |was fhat during hte escanBnation uader aaswer of fhe accused to most of fhe d<|>es not rcmember. To somc questions he ^jiThereas, ia fhe pxcsent case, fhere are ao bTo4ghton recoxd. The accused aaswered all |no medical or ofher evidence on record, aitcused was sitEfering fi?om mental fflness. judg|ment is of no help to (he accuscd ia fhe I fhe accused is not entlfled for protection |P;C. ipl^dlant vs not covered uader Ej eption 4 to which envteages fhat cu^>atote homicide laajtnitted withput premedilation in a sudden pa^sion upon a sudden quarrd. Theic was th|ere was no sudden quaneL There&re, uader Exccption 4 to Sectton 3W @ffhe whlch the accused attacked aa fhe head of ' weapon like axe, as a resuU of which and fhs injiuy went up to the btam. and this injuiy viaa fhe cause of deatfa, as ^ P.T.O. 1 -1& XI-HC-78 3-0=1 ^|i|ld<i<, SrftWIS, Rlciwy 8 <TW?(1 ShHI<=h 2T, riTfiy'l<i, ra^lT^ ...^?t./i. ^q- 2002^ 311^1 4sl«K(li?^<s'^ET) ST^ST W R.li»ti (TaiTsn^rsiira; f^^n «m Soma aiip" ?RITWfl1?(T3;d^T -pcr fhe setfled taw, iatention| fi-oni fhe itature of the weapoiil iafficted and fhat fhe wxused the piupose ofattackiag the fhe body. Thcteforc, mtentio^i cause thc deathi ofthe deceased. In fhe result, we.do not impii®uedjudgineat and fhe accordingty, dismtesed. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge chiolrl^-1 4|t<d)'fffol<0 <Rl<<l< SRsri^iTsn^T 1 of fhe accused caa be ascertatned used, part offhe body whCTe itw^ [used dai^jerous weapon like axe for d^ceased, ttaat too on fhe vital part of of fhe accused was writ lazge to jBnd aay iBegaUly or ixifinnily ia fhe ^ppeal is devoid of mcrit, same is Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge P.T.O.