y: 1: ^oooo'6%'? <^) IN THE HIGH. CDURT OF JUDICATURE AT Rch [Cymina!) E:1~,"M.P* '' CMM^^^_€.^PI^_JS^_^^nl_^F_.A§9Z.. ^PHAl^lMD2a,_SECTIQN_^74^j3F.^DE_^,j3RI|vmi,^^^ "S73-" . \^^^ |..lZ-r23L- fr^.^^h^^^ .^^.•<...—^.AJvec^ ^^- _^pp£LyffiT : - tlH"=3l3TJ *' HESPONDENT ShjE-i Prasad aUas Hari Prasad S/e Ganesh prasae Kunbi, age^ ab^ut 45 years? resielent ef puraina , PoS» Qlel Bhilai District Durg ( ) » *" ' iA£cll.M^Ji2.^2) ^B^R^V_S The State afMadhya praelesh Thr^ugh $ RcgticiK^x Stati@n Incharge Pelice StaU®nOld Bhilai, District Durg, (A'lP) • ' ~ XI-HC-22 W^T^T f^TT^^Tf^T $b^ich ^f^f $bHT^ T^ ^ww^, ^W\^,, R)dW^< . C-^.A.'.^^\^ 1^^ ^W^{ $h*<7^ ---------- ^ ^QQ 3T^T5^iTW^T ^T^T^T WMt" ^'fe^ ^RSK ^3^TT3TT^T Division Benchi Hon'ble Shri LC.Bhadoo, J & Hon'ble Shri V.K. Shrivsstaya, J, 18-G9-200S Shri Abhay KumarTiv^ari, c(| Shri Arun Sao, Addt. Publij Panei Lav/y'er for the State. Oral judgment dlctated on £j Per L.C, Bhadoo, J. This ap-peai is directsd aga| ^unse! for the appellant. b Prosecutor with Shri U.K.S. Chandei, fais. nst the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19-9-1997 rfassed by the 2nd Additiona! Sesslons Judge, Durg, in Sessions Tria! Sessions Judge after holding the of murder of Sunita Bal, hls wif^ Code, convicted and sentenced h| The case of the prosecutlcj of 17th/18th Novemtoer 1996, Prabhakar Pandey and decsa^ a.ppeijant, were in the house of |Mo.71/1997 whereby learned AdditionaJ laccused/appeliant guiity for commission under Section 302 of the Indlan Penal |m to undergo imprisonment for iife. [n, in brief, is that in the inten^ening night |he accussd/appeilant aiong with one sed Sunlta Bal, wlfe of the accused/' he accused/appeiiant. in the n.ight, some (lft^^(<9^) XI-HC-22 <5'ac| ^l^^ll »)^l|cb ;:2TPTRW, ®^Fre,fc)diy^< 311^^1 M5|Ct» "'^ 9^- 200 3TT^r^FT {^TW^T^T ^W^^f?cT $b^(cb v a:n^T5^iraT?rf?cr -'L- ^rafesfrr WMT'^'te^ ^TRH: ^3:rf^T3TT^T altercation took place betv>/een | accused/appeliant aiong with on^ deceased wlth iathi and danda, as Injuries whereby her ribs were fra.ctij Ihe accused and deceased. The Prabhakar Pandey assaulted the a result of 'whicn deceased sustained ired, skul! bone was aiso fractured and she dled. Next day mornlng, this i|act was admittsd by Hari Prasad and Prabhakar Pandey before Pramila and Mangai Singh, on vi/hich Mangai Slngh gave a Dehatl Nalishi (Ex.-P/jt) to the Poilce Statlon Bhliai, on whlch Statlon Houss Offlcer reglstered Section 302 read wlth Section investlgatjng Officer ieft for scene| P/6) to the Panchas, prepared th| Sunita Sai. the First information Report undsr 54 of the indian Pena! Code. The of occurrence, after givlng notice (Ex- 3 Panchnama (Ex-P/7) of the body of During. Investigatlon, ^ memorandum under Ex-P/5 and Officer recovered bamboo lathi ur| gave memorandum under Ex-| investigatlng Officer got recovere^ one bamboo clyb under Ex-P/3. The site pian (Ex-P/10) of the place- bcused Prabhakar Pandey gave jjn pursuance of that, the investigating Ider Ex-P/2. Accused Hari Prasad also p/4 and in pursuance of that, the bf occurrence was prepared by Patvvan (^ft^^Ra^) ^ XI-HC-22 3TT^T^T f^rt^w^T Sh^i<t)^f^T •^' WHC-1T Sib+licb 3:^T'<iNi<n^, ^Tn^<i^, Rcni^y 3TT^T•p\. ^^^^ (200 3TT^TtRr^ . c^.{\. ^^^ ^^.....................^. ( 200 f^^ 3:n^?T ?^TTW ^rf?cT ^" I Shlvprasad Chaturvedl (PW-3). postmortem examination to the Balkishore (PW-4) conducted th€ Sunita Bai. He noticed 16 ln|url occipltal & temporai bone vvere fc found fractured. The Doctor opin rnuitipis ante-mortem injuries s Clothes of the deceased and fc-vo possession from the piace of occu; After completlon of the inv^ Court of Judicial jVlagistrate First case to the Sesslons Judge, Sessions Judge received ths case The prosecution in orde? accused persons examined nli statements of the sccused perso the Code of Criminal Procedurs <=bi^Td<41-i ^i^<-iT^tec^<[^^i< ^ 3Tf^T 3TT^?T 'he body of the deceased was sent for District Hospltai, Durg, where Dr. P. postmortem on the body of deceased es on the body of the deceased. The >und fractured. 3rd to 7th ribs were also sd that cause of death is shock due to nd he prepared the report Ex-P/11. potties of Master Whlsky were taken into frence under Ex.P/13. sstigation, charge sheet was filed In the plass, Durg, who in turn committed the |Durg, from where iearned Additionai lontransferfortriai. to estabiish the charge against the \\Q witnesses. On the other hand, hs were recorded under Section 313 of in which accused Prabhakar Pandey (^^fe^) XI-HC-22 ^-^ "4i*ii<n-M, «iTn'Hli<o,feidi'y^i 3TT^?T q^^ ^l^dl »>*1ich^_.. <^s '• ^'- "^-^v^ l^^ T^T "T""""""""" ^[ V 200 f^F^ ^ \ 200 CT^TcFT f^TT^^ST $h^Ich^rf5(T ^n^r ?^TTW ^rf?cT —S.- pieaded ignorance and stated thal] also pleaded innocence. He subm| correct that he informed Mangai Sir|gh that Learned AddJtlonal Sessioil Pubilc Prosecutor and counsel fo^ sentenced accused/appeiiant Hari| this judgment. However, he acquitt^ We have heard learned coui1 Sshri Thvari, learned counsel homicidai death of Sunita Bai. Ap4 P. Baiklshore (PW-4) who conduct^d as 16 injuries on ths person of i\ were found fractured. Even 3rd to •present in the small intestine oftM death was shock on account of lr| evldence, it is estabiished that th| nature. <=bi^f<n41^ ^i^<viT^tel^t<f^^4t< ^3Tf^T3TI^T he is innocent. Accused Hari Prasad |tii:ed in repiy to question No.3 that it is his wife is dead. s Judge after hearing the Additional the accused/appeiiant, convicted and Prasad as mentioned in para one of d co-accused Prabhakar Pandey. sei for the parties. for the appeliant, has not dlsputed the [rt from that, as per the evidence of Dr. the postmortem, he notlced as many ie deceased, occipital & parietal bone 7th ribs were fractured and alcohoi was deceased. He stated that the cause of juries. Therefore, in view of the above s death of deceased was homicldal In (<^^^) L, XI-HC-22 3TI^ST^)T f<^i<t>3TI^T Sh^Ich ^^ 3^ ^11^1^4, ^tn^4i<$, ^<rii^< 311^1 M5«Cft <nw^i $b^icb ^ °^Y 200 f^^; 3TT^T ^cTTW ^f?^ — ^^\ Ghl^?d41-l HTR^ff ^' tel^t ^f^R^ ^3^R'3:n^T As far as inyoivement ofl murder of his wlfe Sunita Bai i Smgh (PW-1) and Pramiia Baj (| Prabhakar Pandey and Harj Pr^ turned hostiie. Therefore, the on; and the deceased v'/ere in the h wsre found on the body of the accused, On the contran/, he ^ (PW-1):that he does not Rno^ presence of the accused in the accused/appeliant in commlttjng the s concerned, the main witnesses Mangai f3W-2) wife of Mangal Slngh before whom |sad made extra judlcial confession have |y circumstance remains that the accused |ouse, in the night and ths injuries vv'hich |jeceased has not been expialned by the jaye a faise ©xp!anationto Mangal Singh how Sunita Bai has died. Therefore, estabiished by the fact that in rerj the Code of Criminal. Procedurel Mangai Singh in the morning tha| 1) In para 2 c'f his evidence h-a^ ;he house in the fatefu! .night stands >ly to question No.3 under Section 313 of accused has admitted that he informed his wife died. Even Mangai Singh (PW- st-ated that in the morniny accused met hlm, was weeping and sald th^t his wife died. He enqulred from the accused as to whether there \va|s any quarrej betl<veen them, he repjied that there was no quarfe! and e^piained that after taking mea! they went for sieep, In the morning, he tried to wake up Sunita, but she'dld not wake (^y^r) XI-HC-22 3TI^T^)T f^TWW^T ^HT^^f^cf *41<4C<11 $b^ich 3:5T ^ll-MICt-q, «>Tf1^11<o, fcf<nt+l^< 3T7^?T ^.^^^^' 200 [?T M?ich . ^-y^.^vA^ )Q|^ f^^[ W^T 5^<TT^K ^rf^T up. The-refore, pressnce of the ac| fatefu! night. PW-5 Arjun Narayan has ^ reporting the matter by Manga! S| •he and Sunita consumed iiquor lt| when he tried to wake up Sunit^ swejling on the facs of Hari. consumptlon of Siquor, he fell do^ vjew.ofthe above evidence, prese^ PW-9 J.P. Puranik, the IH bottles of Master Whisky were r ,0ne bottie containing ha!f of the stated that there v^as blood on thc were also recovered from the p!ai was present in those tumblers. PW-4 Dr. P. Baikishore, v<!orking as Medicai Officer and h€ <=bi^f<n41Ti HTOTf ^* tel^t <f^^i< ^ 3Tf^~R'3:n^?T ;used is estabiished in the house in the tafed In para 5 of his evldence that after ngh accused met hlm and informed that the night and on the next day morning, i, she did not wake up and there v/as On enqulry', Hari Informed that after Ti, therefore, he recelved the Injuries. In ice ofthe accused is established. ^estigating Officer, had that ^/o scovered from the piace of occurrence. wine and another bottle was empty. He ciothes ota the deceased. Two tumblers ;e of occurrence and smell of the liquor las stated that on 29-11-1996 he was corsducted the postmortern on the body (^y^) ^r XI-HC-22 3TI^T^T f^TW3:n^T $h^i<=h ^f?cT $h^l<=h ^^ 3^r ^iqi<nq, ^Tn^^i^, fcKni'M^ ^l^icil $b*licb 3Tt^?T ^5«<ft '^:(\:'2-^S; f^^ W^ 200 3TT^ST ^•CTTW^TT^T ^rf?< -> of Sunlta Bai. He'noticed as deceased. There were abrasiorls Occipital & temporal bone and 3f bone v/as also fractured and ther4 m^ny as 16 Injuries cn the body of the or^s on ainiost every part of the body. to 7th ribs were fractured. 'The thyroid was aicohoi 'm the smali intestlne. The accused has not expiained the aitove jnjuries. The accused gave a false he c3id not know how Sunita Bai died. In establjshsd that the accused and the expianation to Mangal Slngh that visw of the above svidencs, it 14 decsased were In the hous'e. Th4 per the evidence of Arjun Naray^n injuries and . there was swejlln^ (PW-S), accused/appeiiant - Hari. he feil down, therefore, he sust^ined estabiished that the accused was Mr Tlwari, learned counsell medlcai evidence liquor was founp One empty bott!e and one bottle the place of occurrence atong v^ accused and the deceased cons^med <=bN?<n41^ ^iH<nT^fe^t<Ri^i< ^3Tf^T3Tr^?T decsased sustalned 16 injuries and as an (PW-5), the accused aiso sustained on his face. On enquiry by Arjun nformed that consumptlon of ilquor Injuries. From the evldence, It is author ofthe crime in questlon. yie for the appellant, argued that as per the In the smali intestine of the deceased. [containlng half of liquor recovered from t\¥o tumbiers, whlch show that the ^med iiquor, in that process, altercation (^^pr) XI-HC-22 3:oET ^||41d^, ^T{1^4l(o, ^cni^y 3TT^Ttra^T C.'y-A. ^^^ ^.........;........... ^ 200 HTOCTTSh^lcb f^s CT^T^T ^Jch^T^fT 5b^icb;E:rf?cf RT?^cTT^K ^- <=hl^lId<lTlr1 ^l^«-lT^teI^t<Rl^l< ^3:ri^q'3TI^T and quarrel took piace.between shows that the accused assauiN her death. The club has beenl therefore, the offence agaihst the| 304 Part-!! ofthe indian Penai Co^ We have gone through learned counse! for the accusi hem; There is nothing on record, which d the deceased wlth IntentJon to cause recovered at the instance of accused. accused does not travel beyond Sectlon adm.1tted posjtion is that as per tt' smal! intestine of the deceased a contalning hajf of liquor a!ong *' Ijquor was present were recovei that after consumption of the Hqu bet^een the accused and de' |the evldence. Argument advanced by ^d/appeljant js not without merit. The |e medical report 'liquor was found in the a|id even one empty bottle and one bottle /ith hvo tumbiers in which smel! of the assautted the deceased, whlie a^ had the knowJed.ge that the deat are of .the considQred oplnion appeiiant under Section 304 Part- ^d. From the circumstances, it appear ^r some aitercation and scuffie took piace (eased, in that process, the accused tsauiting the decea.sed with the ciub, he :h of Sunita Bai likeiy to be caused. We |hat the ofrence against the accused/ l-1i of the indian Penal Code is made out. (^y^r) XI-HC-22 3TT^T^T f^Tt^3TI^T 5h^icb^f?cT 5h^|cb ^ Gowri ^ y^' ^ ®) 3^T ^l^l^iq, ^^^(0, R^ll^y 3T7^Tq^^ . CrO--^. ^^\^^| Kl^dl *^|ch ^""4"'"\"""" W[ v 200 3TT^T i^RTTW ^rfN Q\- For the foregoing reasons, se't' Section 302 ofthe Indian Penai Ct in the resuit. the appeai o' Convictjon and sentence impo^ Section 302 ofthe indlan Pen-ai convlcted under Section 304 the accused/ appeilant partiy succeeds. ^ed upon the accused/appeiiant 'under ^ods are set aside, Instead thereof he Is Part-li of the Indlan Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous •judgment of the trial Court, the a|ccuse: t'JI today, the accused shaii be ehtitied period against the above sentenc^. Sd/- L.C, Bhadoo Judge <=hl^fd^v1 ^I^^T^te^il^K-^K ^'3Tf^T3n^?T 'tence of the accused/appeilant under )de cannot be sustained. |mprisonment for ten year. As per the alccused is in detention since 19-11»1995 for set off for the above detentlon Sd/- V.K. Shrivatava Judge (^^r)