w^r^ f<ri[ch 'cT^T 31T^T 5h^icb ^. r <. 3^cT ^ll^lc^'M, ?$Tfl-H^I<S, |s)<?)>iy^< NHdl $hN|ck .<&fc.......ft..,...6-.2l/,^ 200 ^ 3H^?T XT^F (^?^<^T) ^^R^n'yn^T APPFI 1 ANT- (inJaii) -^ RESPONDENT: {Crimmai appeai underSection 37 Prssent: Mrs, Usha Chandrakar, cbunsei fof IVIr. AkhiIMishra, Panei Lawyer forjthe State/respondent. Dlvlsion Ssnch: Hon'ble Mr. l^ Hon'bIeiVlr. ORAL (Deilyered o| Ghl<4l<y1<flt1 ^I+S^* '^\f^TSt' ^^K ^^fRFT^T^T Bhaairathi. S/o Johan Sahu Aged about 40 years, R/o Tundra, P.S. Bilaigarh, District Raipur (C.G.) ersus - State of Chhattlsgarh, Through P.S. Sheorinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 (2) ofthe Code ofCriminaI Procedure} the appellant. |.C. Bhadoo and Dhirendra Mishra, JJ. JUDGMENT ?th n 27In Aprii, 2007) L.C. BHADOO, J. Thls appea! is directed against tt^e judgment of conviction and order of sentence datsd 31st January, 2002, passed by the Additional Sesslons Judge, Janjgir in Sesslons Triai N,b.308/2000, whereby tearned Addjtionai Sessions Judge after hoiding the ^ccused/appeilant guiity for commisslon of offence under Section 302 oflthe i.P.C., sentenced him to undergo jmprisonment for !ife and pay a flne of Rs.200/-. XI-HC—78 ^wT -^ll^l^, ^TH'H'I^, fs«YI>t<l^< iTm^n' sb^ich .<b.........fi..,..^2.0 W^ -q^F ( 4C<^<^) '^ 200<^_ 371^1 ^T f^'li.ch TT^T ^TI^T^RW ^^TW^f^^l^ 3. rtear Case ofthe prosecution, in brief, aiong with his wife Kaushijya Bai| went to the house of hls brotheMrl- taking dinner, the accused went f4r raised cries 'save save' on witi Shyamlal & Ramkumar reached wlth his wife was Inside. T'ne roo^n opened the door ofthe room with| that Kaushllya Bal was iylng on enquiry, the accused made extrl 4-5 months back he aiong| Kashmlr to earn livelihood, he sa\ with some other persons, therefon committed her murder. The matter was reported by Radh which the report Ex.P-1 was regist by Radheyia!. The Investigatlng and after giving notlce Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-10 on the body of Kashilya B; gave memorandum Ex.P-5 about informatioiigjven by the accused, One Chh^Jdi of the accused was and piain soi! were seized under by the Patwari. Body of Kau; examination to Govt. Hospital, R.S. Prabhakar (PW-13) conducte cbl^td^l^ 'RTO^Tf ^fe^ <Fsi^l< ^^TRmsn^T that on 21-5-2000, accused Bhagirathr and son Tekaram, aged about 4 years, law Radheylai in ViIJags: Loharsi. After sieep. At about 11 p.m., Kaushilya Bai ich Radheyiai along wlth neighbours the room where the accused ajong was bolted from inside. The accused great difficulty, then these persons saw the ground in the poo! of biood. On judlcial confession before them that with Kaushilya Bai went to Punjab & that his wife deveioped iiiicit relations ^, he attacked his wife with pick axe and i^yial in Poiice Station Shivrinarayan on :^red. Merg Intimation Ex.P-2 was given Pfficer !eft for the scene of occurrence |the Panchas, he prepared the inquest •^l. Whl!e In poiice custody, the accused I the pick axe and in pursuance of the |the pick axe was seized under Ex.P-6. ^eized under Ex.P-7. Biood stained soil ^x.P-S. Site pian Ex.P-13 was prepared ^hiiya Bai was sent for post-mortem i^ivrinarayan under Ex.P-14 where Dr. s|j post--mortem and prepared the report XI-tIC—78 7S3S r^i^i^A), ^y'Ks, fci^i'y^i (^) Nl^dl 9h^|oh ^.....&..:......&...^^^ ^ 200 3^t?T '<T5W ( <ic<^<^ ) ^n^F ^T fqrii<=h TI^T ^TT^T 9b^|ch ^v; 4. 5. s. 7. '^ITW ^ritn ^TT^T Ex.P-22. He opined that the cau^ iungs and haemorrhage, the nature| questlon was sent for opinion to th^ Ex.P-23. Seized articles were senl Laboratory, Sagar, from where tj-j< received. of death is grievous injury to both of death is homicidai. The pick axe in doctor and the doctor gave the report for examination to Forensic Science |e report dated 31st Juiy, 2000 was After completion of investigation, accused in the Court ofJudiciai iVla^istrate the case to the Sessions Judge, B| Sesslons Judge, Janjgir, received ti^e witn^sses evid^nce The prosecution examined 13 against the accused. Statement Section 313 oftheCr.P.C. in whl against him in the prosecution has been falsely impiicated in the his brother-in-law Radheyial attemrfted he and his wife raissd objection, wlfe and he has been faiseiy impiic4@ci. Learned Additional Sessions Judgi parties, convicted and sentenced th We havs heard Mrs, Us'na Chandn and Mr. Akhi! Mishra, learned P^ respondent. <=bl^t<rt<fll ^l^<riT ^fe^t ^^K ^T3tRR3^^T charge sheet was filed against the i, Janjgir, who in turn, committed llaspur from where iearned Additlonai |e case on transfer for triai. at the triai to estabiish charge |of the accused was recorded under l{;h he denied the materiai appearing and stated that he is innocent, he d'ime. The accused further stated that to commit rape on his \¥ife when R^dheylal committed the murder of hls after hearing counsel for respectlve accused as aforementioned, ikar, iearned counsel for the appellant nel Lawyer on behalf of the State/ r' XI-HC—78 '3^ ^q|<q|0^, ^Tfl-H^I^, (s<(7'>l'M^< _.........&>..,...Q..:...^.2(./, -qTO^T ^qj^ ••--••—••--••'•••••••--•••^••F--^ 200 2^ ($) 1 3TT§t?T 'q^? (ijclf^c^) 3TT^T ^T f<vli(=h 'cT^T 37T^T $h^ich -Y. V- 8. '^rrw^f^T 3?i^r <=bl^f<rt<fll ^I^K^ '^..f^^ iF^^K ir ^tRm ^TT^T iVirs. Usha Chandrakar has not dl^ Bai. Morsover, Radheyial (PW-1),| have categorically stated that whe| they \¥ent near the room in whicil sieeplng, the door was iocked fro| puted the homicidai death of Kaushiiya Ramkumar (PW-2) & Shyamial (PW-3) 1 they heard the cries of Kaushiiya Bai the accused and Kaushiiya Bai were T^ inside, however, with great difficuSty they could persuade accused B^agirathi to open the door, when he opened the door, they saw that Ka|ushiiya Bai was iying in a pool of blood on the ground and cn enquiry, the ^ccused made extra Judicial confession that he has committed her murd^r with pick axe, because 4-5 months back when they were in Punj'ab, with few persons. Above evid^ evidence of Dr. R.S. Prabhakat 22.05.2000 he conducted post-mo^ noticQd 15 inclsed wounds, cause to lungs, the death was homlcidaji above ocuSar and medical evidenl Kashiiya Bai was homicidai Jn natuf As far as invoivement of the accu^ concerned, Radheyla! (PW-1), accused Bhagirathi, has stated th| Caushllya Bai developed iiiicit relations snce Is corroborated by the medical - (PW-13) who has stated that on rtem on the body of Kaushilya Bai and of death was haemorrhage and jnjuries in nature. Therefore, in vlew of the be, it is estabiished that the death of 'e. ied/appeiiant in the crime in question is l/ho is brotheMn-iaw i.e. Behnoi of ri on the fateful night Bhaglrathi along wlth his wife Kashilya Bai-(since d^ceased) and four years' child came to his house, they were sieeplng i|i a room, whereas he was sieeping outslde, jn the night they startec| quarrelllng, hearing the commotion, neighbours Ramkumar & Shyamia| came and asked him tp wake up and Informed that the guests staying ir^ the room are quarreilng, on whjch he along with those persons went n^ar the door of the room in which the XI-HC—78 3^cT -^ 1^1^^, ^TnwKS, (s«r'>l^^< WH^ *Nich""""""""""""""""""""""""(""""^T;^ 200 <;S_ 3^?r'q^F (ijcif^tisr) ^ncSr^T f^-iich ^T^TT 3TI^T$Fqt5F N,_ hNNfc 1 ^arw ^rf^T'STT^T accused and the deceased were persuade Bhagirathi to open the icy saw that Kaushilya Bai wa^ blood on the ground in the room| judldal confession that he has axe because, she had deveiopecj they were in Punjab 4-5 months bs [sleeping, with great difficuity they coujd j' jjoor on which he opened the door. atea iying in injured condition in a pool of On enquiry, the accused made extra cojnmitted the murder of hls wife with pick iliicit relations with few persons when ^ick. 1(p, Above evidence of Radheylal is| Shyamlal (PW-3), in their cross-ext eiiclt any circumstance which dis4 A suggestion has been made in that he tried to outrage the accused, when the accused and murder of Kaushilya Bai, but Rahdeyiai. Moreover, there are (PW-2) & Shyamlal (PW-3). the door, Kaushifya Bai was lyin^ made extra judicial confesslon Thet/ In the first instance, Radheylal is his famiiy came to his house, wife) therefore, it was not possible for of the accused to outrage her are independent witnesses. The^ the deceased were in the room, Radheylal to open the door, on cr>i^t<n<fli TnT^f '^,fs^ <r3i<^i< ^T 3?ff?R ^TT^T 1 corroborated by Ramkumar (PW-2) & -exlamination, defence has not been able to tredits the evidence of these witnesses. ^ross-examjnation of Radheylal (PW-1) mcjdesty of Kaushiiya Bai - wife of the i^aushilya Bai objected, he committed the |:his suggestion has been denied by t)ther two witnesses nameiy Ramkumar have stated that the accused opened in injured condition and on enqulry, he them. befbre i|e!ative ofthe accused, the accused and of Radheylal \¥BSaiready in the house, F^adheyiai to make an attempt on the wlfe moc|esty. Moreover, Ramkumar & Shyamial have aiso stated that the accused and jon hearing the commotion, they asked oj^ening the door they saw that Kaushllya ^a-PC—78 ^3^-^^Wv^ ^ftWT^, IS)(^I'H^< ...Cb....A.:...4-..7.(/ •Rra^n- ^wra?......—..............>..................^.......-^20(0. f W^?T ^^ ( 4<Nf^<i^T ) W^FT^T f^-li<=h 'cT8ff 'STI^T $b^i<=h 1^ 13 ^" Soma '^TTW^f^T ^TT^T Bai was iying in the pooi of biood.l js established that the accused wa^ Moreover, the plck axe. was recot^ same was used as weapon of off^i axe were sent for examination to tlt seroiogist, both were found staine^j was stained with human blood h^ Thersfore, invoivement of the ac4 v^ife is established and there establishing involvement of the a<; accused attacked the deceased w| 15 Indsed wounds- This was a m< any iitegality or infirmity in the jud^ on iega! and clinching evidence. in the result, the appeai being d^ and it is hereby dlsmissed. Sd/- L.C, Bhadoo Judge <=»)i^?<rt^i ^i*i<;if ^f.rs^i <Fsi^i< '5(7 3TR|T[ ^TT^T Therefore, f^om the above evidence if the author ofthe crime in question. (i/ered at th^Jnstance of t'ne accused, jnce. Chhaddi of the accused and pick |e Forensic Science Laboratory and the with human blood. How the Chh^ddi |s not been explained by the accused. tused in committing the murder of hls |s ample evidence to the effect of ^cused in the crime in question. The jth pick axe and he caused as many as ^rciiess murder, as such we do not find jud^ment ofthe trial Court, same isbased It/oid of merit, is liabie to be dismissed Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Jud(