^T"'''e>S«».'.. .^" fa (>-? •r^^^: SB8 ;^ »9'S!:Slss!iess HSIJM GOijRT QF GhHAf Tlbt.3AKM AT BiLAbPUK UB: ti9It_9!6-^-?.CLyi!iI^f?9F?-lmi?-llS^ UQn'hie §hr:O M ghsr,rirg!.-3j- ! i Crimjna) Ai^pea' No. 1019/2003 APPLLLAN1 (InJaHsince 10.09.2002) suneet Kumar. S/o. J\vsls Pfsssd R^trs, Muea aoouL zo vears, r^/o. Grsrr8 Beltuksn. Thsns <I Vri; jSiiuyii', UiSlt,, Cha"ioa 'C.GJ ^i«aiiiMil- IVOn-ADDQUSHt SsISTe Ot L-hnSrt!S£lSfn Through P.S. Janjgir, Dtea daniQii-^rieirnpa 1^.^3-1 (l-.'rirri(H3f Appsa' un<36r sssction -.^./a(zl ot Tne ur.l~^.t-.'.) i-'i^sertL S"n Gurudev!. -Sharan, counsei for the apDetiant. Shri Sandeep Yad-a", Dy. Qovt. Advocate for the Siat< bhri r-uniL Kugjrei, couns^i TO[' tne oujector. ^'s?s=??^ O R A L -J U DG M E NT (U5.0'.20'IU! i'he roilowina luiinment ot me Court was deijyereci ov unirendra hiisnra, •I. i. ! n©aDDSltsnt Ti8£ QfSTsrrsa tnss crimsroi SDQsa! UHQSF -^scron .5/^(z QT tns God6 Qf GnmiHSl HrQCQdure sQainst Tns luoQmsnt QT c-Qnv!CTiQn snd Qrdsr of ssntsncs dst6d 29UI Ju!v. 2003 D3ss8d in Sssslons Trlal ys'-?n /2002, whereby iearned 2"° Addltionsi Sessions Judge, (FTC5, jgniQir ansr HQiQ'no ths SDDs'ssnt QUUTV TQF rnurQsnnci ^'HTSSIB! anc caus'ng d'ssppearancs ot his dsad body anc! bscyc'e ror screen'ng himssif frQm Dunishment h.as cQnyictscl h'm unaer Ssctions 302 snd 201 of the iPC and sentenced him to undercso ImDriSQnment tor lite & to Qsv a flns QT Rs/IOO/- and to undsrcio R.L tor 3 vssrs snc fln©of Rs.lOO,'-. resDeci!vslv. Botn trls ssnisnces ars a'rectSQ to run rtnnf;iirrenTiv ;i:4:i PB^BIR^IK?^!ProsecuGQn>asl'Pl^eGtsd;l!"!their"PU9ned order.-is that' gi|iaugRter of the deGease^ had an affair with the appeilant and she Dranred to marrv him. However, the deceased married her with another boy,asaresult,theappelianlnour!shedgrudgewiththedeceased.0n 07.09.2002, at about 10 -n a.m.; 'A'hile the deceasea was going to schoQl, the appellant assaulted him with battieaxeand committed his murder nearthe canal and ihre^ his dead body and thebicycle in the cana!. The incident was witnessed by Pyarelal (PW-6), his wife Rambai (PW-5) and aaugbter Heerabai (PV\/-4), who were doing SQme agriculturai work in the nearby fieid. 3.Report:oftheincidentwasiQdgeclpnthesameday by Pyarelal (PW-6), j on ihe basis of which merg intimation (Ex-P/6) was recorded at 17.25 ••^'"•^•' '•:• -.".. '.• .' .." •'••• •. •'.:.' '....••. :-' • . ' . ' -. ..• ! hQtirs ^nd thereafter, first information report (Ex-P/5) at 17.30 hours g ! was registered. After registering the cnme against the appe!lant, the J poliee proceeded for the scene of Qccurrence, prepared inquestover the|)ersQnQfdeceasedvideE)c-P/16. Site plan was prepared vide Ex- P/18 and thereafter, dead body was sent for autopsy to Government 1 Hospital, Janjgir vide Ex-P/19. Dr. Anita Shrivastava (PW-17) ! condUGted postmortem andgave her report vide Ex-P/27. 4. Plain soil, blood stained soii, broken speetacles of the deceased and bicycle were taken into pQssessionvide E)t-P/1 from the spot. Seaied packet contatning wearing apparels 6f the deceased, beit, watehand j ring of the deeeased received from tHe hospital after postmortem was 1 taken into possession vide E^P/4. On the basis ofl tli^tosi.ii]eij stafement of appetlant (Ex-P/9)^ weapon of offence battleaxe;»@|®l^nj ^r^iiTtQ^ossessiQn from. the ' aDoeliant: .vide ^Ex-P/1 |®|odg|^igd| VISSSKSiiS •J|s li sll ||i !!lw BBBgiSSBgS''^I;Jfe s',:. : -'..:, • • ' :; . . : ' •• •aiaBSSK;MSPn:^^ '':'..:;;:'-... 1. ..•'.:.:•:. lilKIS8SIWanBaaRPareisoft^aPPeHantwerealsotakeni^^ ^.Ex.P/11. . . • ^ V ' ', • • • - . : : •• 5. Seized articles stainsy with blood iike substance inctuding battleaxe ( ' , " ;' • -; • .. -•• were sentfQrthe opinion ofthedoctorandthedoctorvidetierrepQrt Ex-P/28, Ex-P/29 and Ex-P/30 advised chemteai examihatiQn for •^- ' • • ' . '.•.—•'..'''.'. ''••'. ' ' . .' '••••. " ' confirmation ofblood qvertheaforesaidarticlesandfurtheFopineathat :</ . - . : ' '::!: :''':-:': . .; the injury present over thepefeorv of deceased couid be caused by battieaxe. Thereafter, articles seized during investigation weresent for chemical examinationtQ FQrensiG Scienee Laboratory^ Raipurvicietx- P/23,and asjserthe report (Ex-P/24) submitted by FSL, baniyanworn by the deceased at the time of the ihcident containecl blocd. 6.1 Bfter comDleting investigation, charge sheet was filedin the Gourt of p"^'•.'•,„',' :,,':. '1-: .' •' '~.':.1'...:. ''"'•. . :.,':; ' - • ,.:- • ,: ; '' i j dliief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir, whiMn lurh committecl the case to the 1 jlGdiUrt of Sessions Judge, Bilaspur ahd the same was received on ^trfflisferfor trial by iearned Ariditional Sessions Jydge. :\- ' • . • •-•..•-.' •.'•.- • . • . . . .•• • . • . - 7. Learned Sessions Judge framed charaes under Sections 302 and i^201QTthe indian Pena! Code against the aDpellant, who abjured his •!'9yiit-'.: •:•; ':1 • .' . ...... :. . ! : . ':: . ' 1 8|. Proseeution in order tb estabiish charges against the appeltant ftji examined 17 witnesses in a|l. Thereafter, statement of aeeuseci was iii !reeQt^ed under Sectjon 313of the Code of Criminai Proce v iwHiieftT]tie ttenied the circumstances appearlng against him iri the :RJi|s^utiQnseas8ar^pteadedThatQnthedateofinGiden(h8^w^ i^iiiS.^He^ss^een arrested and bsaten by the^^^^^^^ '^ '• . ". •" " : '•••' '".:-..^.^.:-.-../:^:^.'"^:...' -1- ;TO^rnet|i^pna!ady at Korbath^ he r H •; i '^ ^s^^^^. 'SCTSi;?® ;^^^N^:^ '"'ii"''"'!^' •^i^'e-"^^^^1^' "*.. '\ v i'%a| jania'r. Me nas oeen imDl'catecs 'n tns atQ.resaid ottence oni" because he ioved the dauQhter of the deceassd and he wants to examine ner in h!S defence. Ths appel'ant aiso examined Babuiai (DVv'-'i) and Jwaia prgg^Q ('DVy-2) 'n his dsf©nc's, 9. Fhe trtai Court after hearing counse! for rhe respecilve parties, conyjcted and sentenced the appel'ant as mentiQned In paragrapn one of th!s 'udament. ' •'' s. iQ.HQmtoidai death of deceased Phiraiiai !s not In diSDUte. Even Qiherwise, from tne evaence of Hesrabaj (PW-4), Rambai (PVy-5) and Pvare'al (FUV'-6i. who ciaimed IQ havs seen the assauit bv bsttieaxe on tH9 D@rSQH QT d9C93SSQ S.Hd furthsr on th©bssis of SV!Q6PCS Qf Dr. Anita Shrivastava (VV-17), who has conducted posimortem and proved her postmQrtem report (Ex-P/27), and has found ihe foilQWing injuries on the persons of deceased and opined that cause of death is syncope due to extensive antemortem injuries, homicidai in nature, hom'cida! aeath of deceased is estab'ished. ' NJ u R IES f1 i (2) (3) w f^\ incised wound preseni over back of neck or size 5.5' x 3" x 2.5" deep. Musctes and soft tissues cut beneath it. sians ot intiammation seen over msrain. Contusion seen beneath the above wound size 2" x'1", incised wound extend'ng from upper ieve! of right ear to lett ch'n S!ze 7" x 1" x 3". iRGised wouid from chin to down !evs! of lert ear OT szs 4.5"x1"xS" HQrizonta! incised wound over center of necK of size K, £;"v 1 " v 3" -w'.^ A 3 A iw' ^ ye-sa-'A sss-s^ (o! MQnzQp.iai 'ncisec! wouncs over iower ieve! o? nscK ot size 6" x 2" y.'S'.'- She has further ooined that wound numbers 3.4.5 and 6 are interm'naiea med'aiiv resu'tina 'n snaoe as arawn !R ihe post mortsm report. She has further opined that ths man.Qible bone is cut. Aii bones muscles and cartiiaae are cut beneath it. smail amount ot ciQtT9Q;biQod 's seen over cut er'ds QT tracnes anl oesophaaus. (7) Laceratea wound below iett eye ot size 2" x 1'2 cm. 11 .Shri Gurudev i. Sharan. iearned counsei for the aoDeilant submlts that convictiQn ot the aDDeiiant is based on the ev'dence of Keerabai iPy'v- 4), Rambai (PY'V'-O! and Pyareiai (PW-5). Reterr'ng IQ the srte pian (Ex- P/2'! prepared and proved bv Jankiial Banjare, Haika Patwari, It was araued thatthe above witnesses were enaaaed in aaricuiturai QDeration 'n ihe'r tieiri at a distance of aimost 169-165 meter awav from th.e piace QT incident and further referring to the evidsnce of Hserabai (Pu"'-4) and Rambai (PVV-5), it was argued that thers is a mango grovs betwesn ths fieici whsre thess witnessss havs bsen working and the piacs of 'nc'dent. in these cireumstances, it was virtuaily impossiois for tne witnesses IQ havs w'tnesssd ths incifient. Kash'ram (PW-7) was aiso worKir'a i" ths adiacsnt tieia. nQwsver. t"is wrtness iias cateQQr'caiiv slaied that he did "ot hear the sound of faiilna of bicvcie or witness the incident and the tnai Court was not iust!T!eQ !" reiyng upQn tns svidsnce of tne siieaed svewtnssses ''vho ar6 reialivss of tns aeceased. ft 12.0n ths other 'nand. iearned counsei for the State as aiso learnsd CQunses TQr the CQmplainant supported tne impugned judgment. 13."Ve nave h.eard tearnsd counsei for the oart'es and oerussd the records as asso tH6 irp.QUQnso iuciamsnt. D ;-:Si'SR U.Pyareiai (PVV-6) has lodged the compsaint on the same day rrssnt'Qning ssssA Tne apperant as perpstratQr Ql.ihe o'tersce. t ri's wsxnsss "as depossa tnsx on Tns Qsts anQ tims QT inciQsnt. wniis TnAv wars yvssQino ins!r fiQiQ t^ev p.ssrd soms HQSSS. Qn HQsriHQ tns HQISB. th8v stood UQ SP.C^ ssw tns SDDSii^rst ssssust'P.Q KHErsiia' DV D3tlsS2X6. h'Ti!rST131 TSiS QH TP.9 orQunci 3HQ even tnsp tns soQ@f!snt QSVS z-^ osows. ! nsrssiisr, n& thr6w th6 dsad bodv '.n ths csnal srsd siso his biovcls. hs has si'so dspQsed that tns appsllant useci to evs-tease aaughtsr Qt h'r'.irat'ai sna because of this, thsre was a quarrel bstween his broiher Phiratiai and tstn9r ot ths aDD6"arit SHQ OSCSUSQ Qr ?H9 3DQV9 QfUaQ^, IH9 3DD9iiaHl tiss mufQsred pnirstlsi. h@ tunlisr st3tscs tnat atter yvitnsss'na th9 inciQsnt. n9 Q'sciQssd tH6 sams IQ KSSHIFSm. VyHQ W3S £!SO WOFKIHQ H93F thS!r flSSd 3P.Q iQdQQO rSDQFt vids Ex-P/5 snd £x-P/6. !n QaraQr3Qh ^ O? HES CrQSS-QX^miH8tlOrt. tH!S wtnsss nss cstSQQrica'.lv ststsd thst tns oiscs wn$r& tn©vwsr$ snciaQsci '?. w6Qaincj 's at 2 Qisianc@ QT QU m©Tnr fror" the D'acs of 'ncidsnt. He has aiso admittsd tnst he CQUid not witnsss ths first assauit as hs was standinQ 'n ths south directlon. He tiirned towards the place of inc'dent after hearing tp.e no'se. He hss cateQQricaiiy statsd Shat hs wss abis to sss the incidsnt trom ths a'stance. 15. Heerabal (PVV-4) has aiso depQsed in the sirp.ilar "nes, th.Queh tr"s witness has admitted in oaraQraoh 9 QJ her deooslt'on that tnere 's ! ! ^K 'ss^ 'i. ^ ^, mango grove between the canal and the fieid, where they were working. However, no specific question has been put to this witness that she was not in a position to witness the incident on account of mangQ grove or due to Q'stance. 16. Rambal (PW-5) "nas also stated that they wltnessed the incldent from tiie T'eica whers ihsy were we^aing crop. J l7.Ali these three witnesses have been crQss-examtp.ed at ienatn bv the aetence, ".Qwever, tns cietence CQusd not e!!cit anytp.ing Trom the'r cross-e)(3m!nat!Qn "ynicr! makes ("e'r version untrustwortnv or unrsi'sbls. Thst soart. thsir version is slso c-QrrobQrstsd trom tns evidence of itwaru (PUU-!!, Kashiram (PVV-7), Ramkumar '^PVV-Q), OmDrakash fPW-9' and Gooa! (PW-9i who were aiso wortana 'n ths nearov fields. lhe abovs wtnesses ci'sclQseci aDout tne incsaent IQ them c'eariv mentiQnina that the aDQeKant has assau'ted the deceasea. Thesr vereion is aiso corrQborated from the medicai ev'dence as corrssDQndinQ iniurtss caused bv battisaxs has bssn round on th.s Isf rf person of tne aecsassd. is.For the atoresatd reasons. we are unaDie to accept me ara.umsni Qr iearnsd counsei for the appei'ant that on the baste of the eviaence Qf Haika Patwari (PVV-2) that on account QT distancs; these wiinesses could not have witnessed the incident as no sucrt questions nave oeen jt to tns abovs wtnsssss thst tnsv coijio ""t navs wtnssssQ ins 'Rcsder't as tney were at fairiy 'ong d'stance away trom tne piace OT incsdent. ':t~».i- 5SSEu:y, g, '•/I-h K ^-// -"s&S^ 19. VersiQn of these witnesses is further cQrroborated from the recovery of weapon of offence battleaxe at the instances of the appeilant which has been duly approved bythe investigaiing Qfricer. 20.uefence witness Babulal (Dy'v-1) has deposed tha! Phiratlai fe!i in the cana! and d!ed. He had aone IQ ses his dead body, whers viiiages had aaihsrsd and thsv told that Phiratisi fsii '" ths canai and hs siista'nsd in'uries fr"m ths stone. tin. rod etc. existina 'n the csnai. However. In <i. cross-sxamiRation. "e was not abis IQ disciQse as who ini'ormed him tngt phirar|a| ngs TSHSn !n th9 cansl. ZI.Jvraia Prasad, tatfer ot t"e appeiiant, has aiso depQsed tnat hT'iratiai Q'QQ 3S n9 tSll in ?h8 CSFO! 3rtC! tniS r3C? W3S QSSC!QS©Q TQ Htrn DV Pvarsial fPVV-6'. brother or ths dsceased. HQwsver, "Q anv suaasst'Qn has been given io witnsss Pyareiai, Rambai and Hssrabai thai Phiratial disd QH sccQunt of faiHnQ in ths csnsL Even ths aDos'lsrit has nQt tsKen tnis det©ncsin PES ststsmsnt rscorosQ uncisr -bscison i5i^ QT Cr.P.G. Thus, the above defence of the appeliant 's on fsce "f '! sinsnnouani. 22.uu'e are aiso of the ODinion that there is evidence adduceci bv the prosecut'Qn ihat the appeilant had strong motive for comm'tting the r'rfm^ 23. For the aforesaid reasons, we ars of ths opinion ihat the tria! Court was fuiiy justif'ed in relying upon the ev'dence of the eyewltnesses ,and convlcted ihs aDDeiiant bv ths imDuoned judomsnt. There is no "isaaiitv or int'rmrty 'n ths 'mDuanea lUQQmsni. 24.in the result. ihe aoDsat fa'is a"d it is accord'naiv dismissea. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- . R.N. Chandrakar Judge