IHtK B w ^it''1l: H18HeOt» O^CNMMFTISeARHWtBIUySPtM Criminal Appeal No. IflitfiofMM fii;<i.^^ lEEJI'i? K Wi iSllJ BISi II .ff U !f '^ Jl!t.l^j APPELLANT (InJail) RESPONDENT Ramkeshwar Khairwar, S/® Rarnkhilawark, Age, 40 yeg-s, ^iTCUlturlst^ Viyage Marma, PoUce Statlon BasantpUF;Distl. Suiguja (CG). Versus State of CNtatB^arh, ttroi»£fl»PJS. Basan^MF, Di^t. Suigu^;(e(^. Criminal ApJBeatNo. 1047 of2004 Pttantisiai-, j|fe Patfcain AS^, 46 yews, Agneul|yr^ \^a^ Miirnra,^^^^^^^^P^ StattoitBa^intpur,I3istt.Sy%u{a(G^. Versus RESR3NDENT State of©tihs*^irh,through P.S. BMan^nti'.iQistt.St.B'igi.ga^CQ). Criminal ABpeal under SeeUon 389dofCriminalf'SicedureGaeto. tSTO DB: Hon'I^ShriJusticeT.P.Shanna & Hon'bteSUins.^istiGe N.1fe Agarvraa,.JJ EiiS^ ^ ^SBnt.i^ l^.|glTOBli^?h^Adt«ec|a|i^s^eltS^ln<^A. 1047TO4. '•^Rl^B<^iAgjraN|Bfc.F'aineg|^»^lte1Me^S^^ APPELLANT (InJaiO 1. ^fc^'.'-.. ..^1 •• .-.:.'^.^-;;s^S^ , •- ^^^,:^,^i,;',.l{^a^BlE|^';^B^I^|i^Hziary^ ' |i|lMSSBWil&N8®^^':;.:::-s^ ! ' !. ^ ^f3isfs9S^HSSW9HSWMMte^w.^^..-.-^ . . ..,•.,.;• l.^i©i-||u^g^|iMilg|gig|||^ ijB^:;104?y(Man':arNn®:.o^ -~-saine^,;:iniile^nE|'!|||t|ggiBJS|,^uc|grnent'. and- 'serttense:! dated., ^.10.200^ ttNBe^|||l>^ittift^C^ Apptels are belng 2. ChalliBngeinthe^lis^Ba^ll^the^udgmerrtc^GonweBort&^ ofsentencedated^;"tfi.aQ04;pa^^t^thaAt ie(^8CT^ Judge (F.T.C.), Rantanujlwi, Su(gu|a, In 8e®kinsTnal 11i|o. 35/04, whereby & vi^ereuneter tearrtedAdidittonat SesskMwAic^e, u1i 'ii] : 31 B.I !~fl Biil^ S ''-^ Elil: 3!i 'i'i iffi:IJl 4. afterhddli^theappellantsguiltyfortheoffeRcepunishtatiteuiKler section 302 of e Indian Penal Code, senlenced to undeige; imprisonment for Itfe and firo of Rs. 10,000?- each and In detadt addlttonal Rl for oneyear and sfeodireEshKlto |aycompensati<m ofRs. 15,000/-to &wffeofdeceased. Judgment Is Ingpugned on flia ground that wlthout there belng credibte evidence tp (^innect the appdlants to fce erime in ^' . quesUon, the Cairt bdow has convtoted and scntenced the appellantsasaforementionedandtherebycommiKedBlegality. Case of the proseartton, in brief, te thrt on fte fateful day cf 01.10.2003, the appellant Ramkeshwar aaked Lealavatl (PW-3) i.e. daughter of deceasad where-about his feffiier, to whlch Leelavatl told him that his father has gorae for graztng the cattle. Then Ramlreslwar went towards the hoi^ of PitaBnbar. On evening ttie cattle of Devktehim came baclt to house but Devkishun dld not come back, Ws wife Pahahrarto (PW-2) and Ns grandson Jugesh (PW-8) atfon^wittt other peraore of vltlage want towards ftnest to search the dewasari, vrtiere feey saw, ttw appellants were holding axs and assadting to Devktehun tay tilurt part ofthe axeand cau^ng inturythentheyflecltowaNtlstti&flBrest. Pahalwanla (PW-2) sent Raykumar (PW-8) to the viUage to Infwm about the [nGidenfrand ateo to call hls ftrther i.e. son cKcteoeaaed Rajkumar (PW-1). Rajtaimar came to the spot, he saw Ws father in injuredposltton, he took him to the vitlaige and a er saiinatlina Devkishun dted. Then he went to Pdica Station and (oc^ed FIR vlde Ex. P/2. Meig Intimatlon was recoritod ^de Ex:PK1. The S'W !1 ";il i 1 5. 6. InvesUgatlng Offlcer proceeded fw the scene of oocurrence amd after sumi'nonlng the witnesses, inquest oirer Uie dead body of cte(»asedDevklshunws®prepared^de Ex. P/14. Deadbody of the deceased was sent for autopsy to Cwnoiuntty Neattb Ceirtn, Wfadrafnagar vide Ex.R/15. Autopsy wasconda<*ed by Dr. R.B. Prajapatt vide Ex.P/16 and fbund foHowing Injuries:? i. LaGeratedw6unct%f*roaeipitatregiBnsize4cm x2cmx1cm. J^ .. . . _ ii. Contuslon overtoltpanetatregionsizelOGm x 6cm. ili. Contusion in front of tracheas size 10cm x ecm. Causeof death-was shockand homicidal tn nalure. Plain soil and blood^alned soll were frowthespatvide Ex. P/8. Seated clothofttiedeGeaBedwa®selzedvld»Ex.P/12& P/13.SpotmapwaspreparedbythePatwariwleB<.P/4. IXiring course of InvestigaMon, Ramkeshwar wa»taken into custoc^. He made disclosure ^atement of axe vlde Ex. P/6, saroe was recovered from hlm vide Ex. P/7. Aecused Pitamber also made discksure statement ofaxe vkte Ex. P/7, the sfflne was rwoveBBd from hlm vlde Ex. P/9. Axe was sent for ©<amlnaNonte doctoratd cfoctor hasexaminedthe axevide Ex. P/17-A & P/18-A. Statement ofwttnesses were recordedundar Section 161 -of ttie Code of Crlmlnal Prooedure, 1973 (fbr ^iort ttre Code'). After completlon of Inve^igatlon, chaige sheet was tted befCTie •ie Judtetal, Magistrate Ftr^ Oass, Rammi^ganj, who tn tum, committed the case to the Sesstons Judge, Amtadcapur, from where the Additionat Sesstons Jud^ (F.T.C.), RartaouSanj, received theeaseontran^erfortrial. < -uA^4Usrei;i»iuidyl>;lik;M,Ti.%Ss!ai fee.siai .-ua ;•- S1W \.-.' /' 8. 9. 10. 11 In order to prove the gui'lt of the appallant^sfficueeet, the proseGytlon has examinedasmanyaslSwitngsseB. StErtwnedte \. of the accusectfsppellants were also recordedAtndar Swtlon 313 of the Code where theydental the ciroumstances appeBring agatrat them and claimed Innocency and false implicatlen. After affoTding opportunlty of heartag to the part t the AddKioind Ses^ons Judge hse conpAed and sCTtawed the i^{»llarteas ,,i aTorementloned. We have heatd Smt Klran Jlan, Gouns^ for the appellant in Cnmtnal ^apeal No. 10^W, Dr. Shailesh Ahujar counsel fbr appeltant In Criminat Approl No; 1047®4and Shil Ratesh Jha, Deputy Govt. Advocate fortheStat^'^ponctwlandperusedthe judgment impugned realso record ofthe Court below. Leamed counsef appearing forttie appellarts^iemCTtlya^uad that the present case Is based only on ttie ^dem»s of Pahalwania (FW-^ (wife of cteceased) and hte gramdson Aigeah (PW-8) but a(*ialty they have not seen ttie Ineidert, th»»tore, thelr wttness are m* reliable. They ftirttier a^gued tiat wen accorting to the case of prosecutton, ttw appdtants wera hwmg axe aBd have used its blunt part not used the shaq) part <A the axe, andthisaets of afyetlants shows'Uiattheir iirtCTttonwere not to kiU Devklshun but may be to teach lesson toy causii®jnjwy. Further, the appellarts are in custody shiee 03.1050(0 mdhave completed more than 6 yeare of ttwsentence; Th«retore, afcthe worst thelr act may be offence puntehabte under Sectton W4 Pait nofthelndianPenalCode. < •a.:i® Ti:-i 'fliP'i: 15. 12. On theotherhand, leamed State counsel supporteEtttwju^gi'nent impugned and argued that the prosecirtton has prewct its ease \ , . beyond alt shadow of ctoubt and the present appeltiuite wwe the personswho have commlttetl the offem». 13. In order to apprecferte the contentons of tt»pattle®,we hawe ©(aminalthe evidei'we avallaUe on recofd. In ttuepresentcase, homictdal death of the cfeceased Devtcishun as a tesult o(- fetat ,,f, injury is not substartiatty^disputedby the a^petonts, even otherwise it te also estabWied by the evhleaee ^ ©r.R.B. Praja{MH vlde Ex.P/16 who hescoBdueterftheautopsyi^kte-Ew P/15 whteh inay be as a resutt oft head iiqury. Oeath wre» homfoKtalinnature. 14. As Irr questtoR,the pposecutkMi hasexaminwl evfctere»otPsfcalwania. Pahatwanla(PW-2)hsBdepe8ecliBherwtelwice'thatCTitt»cla(e oflncidentherhusbandwaagonetolSore^fbrgra^nytheeaWe. When DevWshun dkl not come toack, she atongiwltfa hei' gancteen Jugesh (PW-8) and <^ier persons of viltage wert to fore^ to search the deceased, wherefceysaw, the appdt»rtswere helding axe andassaulting to Dewkishun by blunt pait ot ttwaxe aod^ causlng injui'y then they fted towaFds the foiest. 0^ ca te»- cross examined Rapawnar yw-8). M the thne ofr aeektent, Ragkumau^sage was only 8 years, but after stflstyb^ frthtttto chikl witness was able to speatf, court balow bas exainined this. vteiess. Both the i i&Bl"Rji-.l ynMyy ^'sa&i ^w'. liffil 16. 17. 18. 6 they reached the place of incktent, they saw that both Uie appellant8wereassaulttigtodeceasedbyblurApartof <ax&. In \ • • thelr cross aaminatlon, both SiewltnessBs are strud< eot Intothe verston that the appellantswwe present at the time of ineldent who have caused Injury ta the cteceased. In the present case, FIR hs®bean lodg«ltoy tte son of Uw deceased In whkdi tw(ne of the appdlards have not been ,<(. menttoned: FtR has been todged agalnst'the unknown persons. Rajlaimar (PW-1) has explained tn para 8 oT hte evldenw that at that tlme he was under shoch but affier recwdlRQ evictCTice of Pahalvanla (PW-2) and Rajkumar (PW-8), t» itlw appellants were taken inlo custody wtthln fbur day. t.eelaolti <PW-^ has also corrcrtaorated the evldence of PahaNania (PW-2) that ®nthe fateful day aceused Ramkesttwar wes ssking vihere-aboiA of hls fatheri.e. deceased Devkishun. The above evldences are sutndent for drawtng inferenoe that the appellants are the pereons who causect injuries »id bemteidal deaUiofthedeceased Devkt^tun. As regards the <|uestlon of motlw is concemed, Re^laimar (PW-1) kx^ied the FIR and Pahahania (PW-^, L^avaUs (EWW^ and ottier wteesses have speciflcadly deposed fliat vrttwi ftey nwrehed the spot, ttie appeflarts fteet away arri al that tteie OwAtehonoras alive, thereafter he dted aiid doGtor's evktBnce ateo ahsw thal bnly three injuries were fuind over the head of e daceasal, but no grievous Injury wres fbutri ever the body or dec^eed. The appeBants havenot usedthesharppartofttie.axebuthasusecltte *. SahU 19. Uunt part which shows that they hari no Intention t& kll th» deceased but may be to teaeh te^on but white commttttag ttris type of offenoe fhey nay have knowrtec^e ttKrt DevM^ain m»fdtfc Therefore, above evklence fe nct sufflcient dtawlnglnfereneethat the appellants have committed fnureter ofthe cteGBased. ThefraA does not travel beyond Section 304 Part 11 of thttlndlan^anal Code. Whlle wnvincing <he appdlants, ttte court belowhas not ^;, ' considered the case propatx and ttereby cormnitteA lUegaNty in convtetlng the ippenants umta- Sectlon 302 oifthe Indian Penafc Code. The judgment impugned Is not sustalnable .undeF the law and it requires modification. In the result, the appeats are parUy aNowad. Judgment Iniptgned is partly motBfted and insteswl of convlctiBn under S«sttCTr3(^'of the Indian Penal Code, the appellante are convietal under Sectton 304 Part II of the hidian Penal Code. The present appellants ara in custpdy from (%.10.2003 tlll today Tor more than efceutS years. Custodlal period of the appeltante are suffictent sattence vnder ^cUon304PartUoTtheln(ttanPenalCode. AeGffl-dingly,intfead of Imprisonment ftw life, the appellants are senteneed imprisonment of custodtel pertod i.e. about more than 6 years. Theyberelea®e<a,ffnotreqiA'ed Inany oth»case. ' :^SdA;;,; TJ* Sharma Judge^ Sdf- .•",.;:: N.K.Agrawal Juidge