^.;'<-'': ^:[« m. 6) X ]-i.;lg.;(B ii.-fli'iB ®'/:lh't-' iii ^IEn;:iS) ^MSf, :'®®w" O'.^'t-': l-H:t</X ^s'. lES'W.S'7 fli^h'w: ww^ s-w-- etW.::':' SO; 0',WI'f-B: »vw'& wwy ;Bi.»'(B'1 •%; '^?^0& ^s& i.^ll V- tis •ia!»^"ia N'. [-HC-22 ® 731 ^WW^, »Tflti'16,fafll'My ^.s'^.i <41Mrtl sb^l* •••••••••••••••••••y ^ 200 i^s 3:n^r?iT f^irasn^r aitiio (lf?()' aw^i sn^T srarar (TfgtT «til'M(<v]41-< WRTf ff fs<S rfsRCT: ^arf^iTsn^r DIvisloa Beacb: - Hoa'ble M».L.C. Bhadoo and Hon'ble Mr. Dhtoendra Mishtla. JJ. 10-11-2006 Mr. V.P. Gupta, counsel] Mr. D.C. Pandcy, Panel.j( Oral judgmcnt dictated for the appeBant ,awyer for ttie State/respondent. Dais. an Per L.C. Bhaclpp^J:- This appeal -is directed and order of sentence dat^d Additional Sessions JudgeJ No.53/2000, whereby leame^l holding the accused/appeBa4t uuder Section 302 of the imprisonment for Ufe aad pa}| payraeiit of floe to further und^ against the judgment of conviction 7-12-2000 passed by fhc 3td Jagdalpur, iu Sessions Trial Additioiial Sessioas Judge after guilty for commissfon of ofifence [.P.C^, sentenced TIJTTI to undei^o a fine of Rs.5,000/-, ia default of ^rgo R.I. for one year. The case pf fhe proseci^tion, in brief, is fhat on tfae fateful day i.e. 3-11-1999 iu the ev^uiag when deceased Kawasi A%rtu was at his residence with his his house and asked him °le |nrife, the accused/appeUant came to t: us go for consuxaing liquoi^, and took him along with him. 04 the way, fbe accused attacked tte deceased with axe on his he, Id & haad as a result of which fhe deceased feU down aud succ^unbed to fhe mjiuies sustained by 'him. The iacideut was witaes ,ed by Kaw^i Huagi (PW-2), wife of the deceased aad Kawasi Di^i (PW-3), daughter-in-law of the deceased. The matter was re^iorted by Kawasi Hidma, son of the (^^?r) F-' yiTMtiJNAURE /^* XI-HC-22 sn^r^r R-fi'+isn^r OTRiflfStT 'Svi ^ww-ii, eiTfly'is, fsifii'My 3TT^?T4ach / HW\\ sh<<l<h •••••"•••••••••••^•-^ 200 Rl'b^. 3n^r g^ciRR (rf?(T decc^ied, in PoUce Statton: based on that, fhe F.I.R. Ex.P- for cominission of offence Q^dam luider mag iatimation Ex.P-4, -P was registered agaiast the a»used Section 302 ofthe I.P.C. und^r The Invest^atmg 0£&cei| after giwing notice Ex.P-5 to report (Ex.P-6) of the body ofj was sent for post-iuortein e) Centrc, Badekilepal, wheie Dr.| miortem. He noticed two inji( region of fhe head of the secoud injuiy was contusion i( aad the bone was foimd cause of death was coma due iatemal hemorrhage. He ofofFence, axe, was sent for afler examitiation of the axe, The axe was taken into posses^ Afler com.ptetion of mve^tij fhe Court of Judicial Magista-^te tum, coinmitted the case to fljie where leamed 3rd Additional traasfer for trial. The prosecution exaiiune|d fhe cbsaye agaiast the accus^d recorded under Scction 313 ol •sbl'illcl'ifl-l ^ltlriTffte^l.I'al^K ^; sif^ir a-n^T teft of the scene of occurrence and |fhe Panehas prepared the inquest Kawasi Aaytu. The body of Aaytu ^amination to Qie Prunaiy Hcalth N.C. Lange (PW-1) conducted post- i, one was contusion on fixintal ia thc size of 4* x 1 W aad liie the size of 1 W x 2" over teflt ann, The dcwtor opiaed that fhe ]to cerebral injiuy and shock due to fhe report Ex.P-1. The weapon to the doctor imder Bx.P-8 and pie doctor gave the opinion Ex.P-2. tiori under Ex.P-11. uiji|nes decedsed ttt fi-acttured prep^red op^rnon mve^tigation, ^tigation, charge sheet was filed ia ;, First Class, J^dalpur, who in Sessions Judge, Jagdatpur, fix>m ^essions Judge received the casc on .dd six witnesses in ordcr to estabUsh Statenient of the accused was the Cr.P.C. in which he deaied fhe (<f©y^) 'U'T T r/~t__(iji_. XI-HC-22 TST^TPfRra', a-rflwie, ls|<-)i<Hy 3T1^7T4acb ^W<^t sb<4i*v""' "v" •'••••'•-^- •••^ 200 ( Rl'd.A ja 3f1^T?)T R-ii+sn^r st'li'tidl^cT Sfl^TBRtTWtrf^T qillfcKfl-l *11MflTffte^t<Rl+lil< ^; srf^'q'sn^r statfed prosecution evidence and been falsely impUcated ia the ^ Judge after hearing counsel sentenced the accused. ' fttr fliat he is innocent aad he bas rime. Learaed Additional Sessioas respective parties, convicted and We have heard Mr. VJ appeUant and Mr. D.C. Pande^ the State/respondent '. Gupta, leamed COUUM:! for the , learned Paael Lawyer on behalf of The hoinicidal dcath of H by tearaed couusel for the inedical evidence of Dr. N.C. of Kawasi Hungi (PW-2) & fhat fhe deafh of Kawasi'Aaytu I^awasi Aaytu has not been disputed ap^eUant Apart finm that, fi»m fhe l4nge (PW-1) aad fta ocular evidence Ka^yasi Du^i (PW-3), it is estabUshed kvas homicidal in nature. leamfed As far as iavolvcment of is concemed, Mr. Gupta, that there is no iadependeat inorteia report, the cause of d no blood stains have been been recovered at fhe iastance wtitness fhe accused ia the crime ia question counsel for fhe appeUant, argued ia fhis case and ia fhe post- l^ath has not been mentioned, even foulnd on fhe axe and ttie saw has not ()ffhe accused from tds possession. On the ofher haud, respondent supported the judg^nent lesjmed Panel Lawyer for the State/ ofthe teial Court. As far as non-examinsl concemcd, ia thc first instanc<|;, shows that thc crime iu independent witness. Moreov^r, r'aTinnt 'hp rp-i'ilC-fTPt mit riSfaOy- |tion of iadependent witaesses is ;, there is nbfhing oa record, which luestion was wltnesscd by aay r, fhe evidence of related witaesses r>n thn giniinri that thpy nrc rplated XI-HC-22 3:5? •<<|i|Kr)<l, «iTny<IS, fsldiy^ 3T1^?T^acb VWf\l shMI* -••••••••••••"•••••• ^j- 200 f^g"""""" sn^T^ir f^iwsn^r StlliqiHfSH' Stlliqi sn^rs^iT^RtrfsH' °bl''<fc1''fl-1 *11>1dyffteI^t<RlWK ^3Tf;giT3TI^r or iaterested in. fhe deceased. the Court is required to scrutii carefaUy aad wifh great cucu right conclusion., Kawasi Hungi (PW-2) is As per fhe scttled prmciples oflaw, .tituze the evidence ofrelated witaesses tmspection in order to reach to the tfhe wife of the deceased and Kawasi Du^i (PW-3) is ffae daughtef-ip-law of the dece^ed who have categoricalfy stated in fhcir ev^dence fhat in fhe eveniag they were at their residence, even decea^ed Kawasi Aaytu was at residence, at that tiine, fhe accused cai4e aad asked the deceased for goiag with 1iim for cousuming Uquc|r. He took the dece^ed along with him, they also foUowed theiti and they saw ttiat the accused assaulted the deceased with |fhe axe on his head & hand as a result of which ftie deceased |FcU down and died iastaataaeously. In cross-exaaaination of fhese |two witaesses, defence has not been able to eUcit any ciTcumstance|, which inakes the evidence of these witoesses luireliable or untn^stworthy. Therefore, there was no reason before fhe trial Couitt or this Court to disbelieve fhe evidence of fhese witaesses |onty on the grouad that they arc relatives of the deceased. Th^ir evidence staads corroborated by fhe fact fhat wheu a Panchay^it was convensed, in that Paachayat, the accused xaade extrajudicis|l confession and said tfaat as he was cultivatmg fhe laad of his bi)ottier Bonja and ffae deccased was sayiug fhat he wUl not aBow TiJTn to ciiltivate thc said laad, that is why he attacked the deceased ^rith the axe. Kawasi Hidma (PW-4) who is the son of the decea^ed, has categorically stated ia his evidence fhat the Paachayat w|as convened aad ia fhat Paachayat, (Ift^y^) XI-HC-22 3F5T ^WWt{, WT^WW, Rldlti^ W^T^iach trrawgwra?"""""""""""" wr 200 fcl'b^. SIT^TW R-ii+an^r shlitiCTfScT 3n^T?TaTSR:iri?g' '»ii<ilci41-fi4wdT^te^t<F']<^i< ^sri^iTsn^r fhe accused made a confessiofa that he has attacked the deceased with the axe. Even Kaw&si H^dma (PW-5) who has been dec]ared hostile, m para. 3 of his evide^ice has categorically stated fhat fhe accused inade extea judicial cjonfession before fhe Paachayat and said that, as fhe deceased w^|s saying to the aceused that he wiU not allcw him to cultivate the l^nd of his brother Bonja, fhat is why he attacked fhe deceased ilrifh the axe and inurdered him. Therefore, ia vicw'of fhe evid^nce of fhese two witaesses (FW-4 & PW-5), it is established fha^; the accused niade cxtra judicial coafession and that was voluii|tary and true. la ttic circuaistaaces, ttus extra judicial coiifess^on made before fhe Panchayat corroborates the evidence of I^awasi Hungi (PW-2) & Kawasi Du^i (PW-3), In view of fhe above Le. the extra judicial coiifessioja, iavolvement offhe accused in tiie cruue in question is establishe^ As far as the arguinent appeUaut fhat the cause of (^ ocular aad circunistantial evidence 1. ^dvauced by learaed counsd for the eath of the deceased has not been mentioncd iu fhe post-niortei+ report Ex.P-1 is concemed, it bas been inentioned by Dr. N.C. |Lange (PW-1), who conducted post- mortem on the body of the dejceased, that tfae cause of death was coma due to cerebral injuiy aii|d shock due to uitem^ hcraorrhage. In his evidence, fhe doctor ha|s categoricatly stated fhat the deafh was liomicidal ia iiature aad Kawasi Aaytu died. Therefore, pn account of intemal haemorrhage |fhere is no nierit in this argument. As far as the atyunent| of learued counsel for tfae accused lot recovered finni fhe possession of fb.o.t tlic 8XC' iTi '^uesti^'n' T.VQ.S litot. TecoveTed fixws- r' XI-HC-22 an^r^ R-fi+sn^r sb1 BfB(T sbllch Soma ^"'/. ^/ -V /p '/ ^ 1^2-. *11*1MI Stl*1|ch 3^ -^ww^, w^\w\6, fs|cfly^< 3TT^?T4^cb ^c:.^.t^l[^. WT 200 f^s 3I1^T5?(ITWHf5(T tSae accuscd and. uu LlLn^d w accepted, it is not going to in view of fhe ocular evidence Dulgi (PW-3), as also the extra Panchayat, iavolveinent of the estabUshed. > «' No ofher argument has for fhe appeUaat beijiefit Sd/- L.G. Bhadoo Judge chi<iF<-i<f1-f wivK a fs^S <Ri<-iii< ^sd^iTsn^T \A3s Fuuiitl, cvcii. if tliis &i^uBicnt—is the accused for the reason fhat of Kawasi Hungi (PW-2) fe Kawasi judicial coafession inade before fhe accused in fhe crune in question is been advaaced by leamed couasel Therefore, we do not fi^id aay iUegality or iafinnity m fhe judgment of the trial Court. la fhe result, the appeal|beiag devoid ofinerit, is liable to be disnussed and it is heisby disriussed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge (^y^)