%^;N;^^^%s^i. ^.^^^''•^ s-'ga -I'.r.^ '.ise&MSSi :|j'nder :t&-K.-affi ^-^ /& &^& c.. .••? .lA.li.S--' 'y y ytlis""-^ i.i.^.^a.'^;' •"4^ £'':......„...-„....-.,........_..—_L -*\. •^•A.fe-.^'^^' ~PTI! s'5?'7x?5:y^ . L^ '-'^. ~SA\ ^V' <( -KIY -^ -l"\\11w) ^ ~<c^-Qr\^!»\^:\\ (??iy <^^t\^sv ^c^^^r^sy Age - ^fe.^—— 3 \\^e'^ ^^Vct?t'^^vs>^t,\ i®a-7 ^^'A>^<-\-\ scpj'l^ r\ Za:^^^^^^^^£^^^>f^vs^^^^^ <*r wig&es to 1»e TC] 51 ', to be tepre- UE ^) V\'>-\.s^. -t-2>-S? H:;. [:';1: •fbts^.^ .SLI^A^T -V)p'-<i1 ll^ ^l^ m ^2^_iS..__--———-::Jsull ;-.,.1;,. .;..;' .....A. '' "I^^^N'sS.S^;^S-:5~/;!;%lA'v^;<r ^r^S~t"Z'~'T7~y t-t^iiill^iililll^ v'ji: ^;- •ff-' w^<l SCT81^Bi%i^KitAiN^ra^^:^^:^-^ ff'"^ . fT' 1 / t^l^%lN% a«) ^' t of tiifr-Al^^Ks.e.iaA«*:,*SS?: <ltf» Ti;gh Comt,;!absl»M >• <"" ^,'ppeliate'~csnr'r *S;SS,S-»I.€,''?""a XI-HC-22 sn^w^ feWSTIS?! sR*iW ^ •g^g ••qpn?I4, »Til-M'ie, fawi'yy 'ffltR'IT *t|l°b -^fcvV^r 'W?. 200 0 aii^i TOiTwgfOT Bivjsion Bench : ' Hon'ble Shri Justice L.C. Bhadoo. Hon'ble Shri Justice V.K Snirivastdva. J 08.12.2005 Shri Arun Kocher.counset f Shri 6K Beriwal, Additional <^r^<Ti)i'f iTTFI^f ^ 'f^st <FiitdK ^73iPaH3i]^r _& ^r the appellont. Public Prosecutor with Stiri Akhil Mishro, Panel lawyer for the Stat^. Oral judgment. Thisappectl is directed agai^ist the judgment of coriviction and sentence chted 09.12.1994 p4ssed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikoyur in $essions Triat No.27/94 whereby leamed Additional Sessions Ju^ge after holding the accuad / iippellant guilty for commission(^f theoffence under Section 302 ond 201 of the IPC, convicte^l and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life ond RI for ^even years respectively and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in defttul^ of payment of fine to further undergp fSLfor sixmonths. The case of the prosecutioiji Bai was married- to the accused 1\ 6-7year^/priorto the date of i '• / ~ . ' - ^ . -' <md 29t1' October 1993. The i, jn brief, is that deceased Bigani .? '-. _'-...- appellant Ram Raj of vitlage Rdkelj incjident £e. intervening night of 28 ond the accused / 'Bppetlouvt' de3eased •:.-[111^:^RsT^ -..^•^.:___-<-,- Xl-HC-22 •3^'^ffqRT'I,'S^ftWT?. f<<WI'M3< ^Ti-R'ff W-IRn .^.;...^....^^^s '"n SII^T'^I f?:ira?3]it?r B'qre'^trftil sn^rTOiiw^fR -2- ^i^t^^ 'rn^y,'?^^ iS^^K ^T sipgHsiii^r sincie Rarii which 4n were residing separately smcjp Deceased Bigani Bai cind the night on hearing the cri< wake up the Bigani Bai, she with a lathi, ds a result of said that Bigani Baihaddied villagers sent this informaticfn receiving the sa.ms. father <md sow+hat face of: tl^e- clott'ed blood was pre^nt Somarsaj enquired from the him to reportthe matter to However, Ram Raj buried th^ made a repor!- (Ex.P/l)to the^ Lakhonpur on ld November ^' .which his daughter died, initiated under Se'ction 1741 made to the Sub-Divisiohal The Naib Tahasildar namelyl pf Bigoni Bai exhumed in under Ex,P/17. Panchnama •• / ' ' . . after gJYin9notice (Ex,P42) ip one month from the date of incident. ftaj had quarreled in theevening. In !S of'the child, when Ram Raj tried to did not wake up then he attacked hsr Bigani Bai dred. However, Ram Raj on account of pain in her stomach.. The to the parents of the decea^d. On \f the deceased Somarsai (PW-1) came Ueceased wos in swotlen conditionond the mouth. After seeing the body, accused / appellomt Ram Raj and asked •jtie police before buryin9 the dead body. Bigani Bai, his wife. On this, Somarsai Station House Officer at Police station J993, raising doybt about the monner in which the inquest (Ex.P/6) wos |of the Cr.P.C. A request (Ex.P/7) was Pfficer ond under orders of the 5&0. Shyam Singh Pekra, got the dead body ? of villagers on 3rd November 1993 fhe dead body (Ex.P/3) was prepdred the Panchas ond the body waSsent for prepence [Tt^^fe^ + '3^ •<fWW<l, 0fli'M*!S, 'tN^TRT'R STlSsiqff f?;iRT3Ii^sT 'swwfss ^....c.£-.A.:....^^!.j..l^ wrfe* imaf •^TSie)'.-(ftrRR ^3rf:TOsii^r postmortem •(•o^the Primar/ (-lealth Center, Udaipur, where t>r.AR Jayant (PW-6) conducted po^tmort-em. On his examination, it wos found that the mandible bo(ie wiis fractured and on opening the body, liver was found ruptur^d. Doctpr opined (Ex.P/15) that cause of death was internal haemorjrhage due to ruptyreof liver.which is hbmicidal in nature. He ga^e-hjs report (Ex.P/16) to -Hiis effect. During the course of the ifivestigation under the police cystody, accused / oppellant gave me^norandum (Ex.P/4) regarding the placa where he keptthe lathi.tl'iaweo^on of the offence and in pursuonce of the same Shri NP Upac|zyay Sub-Inspector of Potice (PW-5) recovered the lathi (Ex.P/^). 51-10 Lakhanpur gave Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P/9), on which first infqj'matjon ,report (Ex.P/10) was registered on 05th November 1993. JThe 5HO prepared site plcn (ExP/13). After completion of the inv^s't'isntion, charge-sheet was fited ggainst the ascused / appellcOTt for commission of tite offence under Sections 302 ond 201 of th^ IPC in the Court of Judicial Ma^strate First Class Ambikapur, who^in tum committed the case for trial to the Sessions Judge Ambik{)pur, from where the Second Additional Sessions Judge received th^case. on transfer. Jn/order to prove tt^e offence agdinst the accused/ appetlflOTt, "^- prosecution examined sgj'en witnesses. The statement of the t^^fig^ •XI-HC-22 sn^r^T i<ti<* snt^E sbtji»b 'gffS . -Sw ^TTqT^s;. WS^TS, 'tWWf ^' .C»,^..,^tj.j^< •CTi^TOiraTWt?; - ^. 'Ei7rqf?pft;T tiri[?i? a fei^ ^fSRsre V 3rf:gi[ 3^1 ^ accused / appellant was recorded which he denied the prosecutior^ witnesses ore brothers of the- deposed against him. He .olso C)h'armsai - DW1 and bakhalsai - t)W2 Sessi^ns Under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C in evidence and stated that the c^eceased that is why tfiey have produced two witnesses namely in his defence. Leapned Additional argumentof both the parties, appellant os mentioned jn'ttie e<irli Judge, after hearing the convicted and sentenced the accused / li^r part- of this judgment. We have heard 5hri Arun appeltant and- Shri 6K Berivwl,' 5hri Akhil Mishrd, Panel lawyerfoi Kocher, learned counsel for the Additional Public Prosecutor with the State. Learned counsel fBr the immediately after death of Bigar|i deceased were informed and father other members were pre%nt at they were haying any doubt abou| have reported^ the matter imrn( ma-l-ter-.afl'er thres days. There| the repoff. He further &iagued accused/appellant argued that Boii the family members of the ler of ttie decea^d Somarsai and the time of burial ceremony. If the couseof deatii, they should idiately; but they reportsd the Fore, no credence ain be given to the whole co®eis doubtful as that .[•^.Ifi^ + XI-HC-22 ^n^r^ 1?;ii??3ii^i 9;»IW(itOT -s^ •^nwti, 's^STFre, i^irafy i<itRir ai*srai __...^..;A.....ib.L^l 311^1 TRITW ^fel - j. ~- there is no eyewitness and which the prosecutipn has pla^ crime against the accused / certain judgments and the the judgment. qmf?pfr?r •iniraf.-91%^> ^fsR^re ' ^; aipan sntg ^ven the circumstcmtial evidence upon ojced its reliance has not estnblished the ^tppellant. Lfiarned counsel relied upon So^ite wilt be referred in the later part of On theother hand, 5h of the trial Court. The law on the pojnt when deloy has occasiohed casi, then the detay becom< deloy has not occosioned txccused, then the case of tt through evidence, the a9ainst the accused i Akhit Mishra supported the judgment <# flar delay in lodging re^opt is sett-led that implication of the aceased in a false [s fatat in the Criminal ca.se and if the Jor cooking up false case a9ainst the le prosecution caai not be thrown out ff has been able to prove the case / oppellcjnt beyond reasonable doubt. pBose|cutiori There is no doubt ttiah in this c,ase. The whole ca^e ^ " . ' • . ' .• ^ ' fr •. . ' The Hon'ble Apex Court ii^ / • • .- • L ' Bihw^raiwted'm AIR 200S a cofie bdsed on circum; ft- there is no direct and ocukir evidence te rests on thecircumstantial evidence. the case of Nesw Ahmed Vs State }i Si»remeyour^ ^^tfhas held that; jn evidence, before th Court can record [-^^Rrt _ T T TLTrfl rt, ^.-ilL--, S!^V^! t?;IRT3IT5W 'SCTW'HfCT 's^ '•TiqRra. dTfly'iS, facii'y'i'T Cy .A -^^^'f'^S' tii*i?(r wnw SII^TTOiWtriCT f' ./-o conviction, it niustsatisfy it; inference of guilt cbuld unimpeachdble evidence led circumstances put together also complete the chain so guilt of the accused and are not consistent with the hypo'l on the basis of these pi circumstantial evidence relied ielf that circumstances from which an ^e drawn have .been established by by ttie prosecution and that all the \re not only of a conclusive nature but ]ully asto unerringly point only to the }iot capable of any expkination which is Jhesis of the guilt of the accused. It is inciples that we shall examine the upon by theprosecution in this case. fatder Now we shall proceed prosecution. It is an adm dsceose.d, took place in th< October 1993 in the house <t information to the parents.af buried. Somarsai-PW1, the couse <»fdeaith bricause th died on account of stomach p{ Bai was in swollen conditiohl mouth. However, the body report (^x^/l) at the PQltcej enquiry under the orders^ <^i^F<n4l'} Hffldf ^ 'fe^' Tf^T^R ^aiPgiTan^r' o examine theevidence adduced by the tted t.ppsition that the death o'f the intervening night of 28th <md 29t11 if the accused / oppellant, he sent the the deceased. they came and body was of the deceased raised doubt about leaccuSecl informed that/Sigani Bai hgd lin; but they noticed that face of Bigani and clptted blood waspre^ht on the. buried upon which Somarsai lodged a station Lakhdhpur. On -this, cm inquest SbO wous initiated. Dead body was o .' ••'••, [1^ ^R^^ . • WtdS Xi-HC-22 • 3Tli?I^T li?;31i^T ^RNT'^f^f —^- ^ Sij'^r 'fy^t .cy....ft.4.±<>ll.^-f • . WRW^qR?"^'"""^""""""~"'""TF[ 20® 's^TOTW^g ^.-7- i wf?*-^%?':fe<'R exhumed ctnd posfmortem of Or.AR Jcyant yw-6) who has sta^ conducted postmortem along (tfitf^ thttt Mandible bone of the found ruptured ouid the cause of to rupture of liver. His report G ^ the body was conducted by tsd thaT on 31'd November 1993 he br.T.M. -Mahaleswar and found decedsed was fractured and tiver was was intemal haemorrhnge due dfcath Ex.P/15. The above opinion of the ^loctor has not been dis-credited. Therefore, in view cjf.'ths above f ndings of the doctor, •t+is claim of the accused / appellant wgs betied of rupture of liver, the mandib^le bone of Bi9ani Bai was found fractured and no exptanatiqn w^iat so ever was offered by the accused / appellont for that. Th &hannurdm and PW3 Annuram is PW6 t5r.AR Jayant tp the exten- because Bigani Bai died pn account s evidence of PW1 Somarsai, PW2 corroborated by the evidence of that when they reached and saw the dead body of pi9ani Bcti,clot1^d blood was present on the mouth on. cnd'rtie face wds in swollen condit) Now,we shall examine this ^nedical evidence in •rtie lightof the previous conduct of the accuse^l / appellont, Somarsai PW1 has cqtegorically stated that the 4<:cused used. to quarret with his dau^hter and she stoyed some titner with him imd after 3-4 months, he-atonq with Ramnath and5un<ter^went amd left Bigoni Bai at the T [^^Rg^ + Xi-HC-22 3]1^rqil ^IW3lT^?[ ^+^^sfi^ 3%f'•qjqi^q, aTli^i'ltf, ra<rfl C.^. (^ - 3.<- ' "IS an^iTOiiwgfl? & residence of tbe accused. PWl'Somarsai and PW3 Annuram have stated that on seeing the s^voflen condition of face and clotted blood on the mouth of the appeltant not to bury the deai the matter to the pplice; bu and buried the body. TTiis supportto the factthot as of ttie assoult, therefote, he| WVIW1 'Wraf ^fe^ •(Faf<$K' •^SlNtTSIT^r deceased, they asked the accused / body and further asked him to report he did not digree to their suggestion :onduct of the accused further lends ^he death of Bigani Bai was on account was not ready to report the matter to the police. No exptanqtton w|idt so ever, has come front the side o'f the accusd regarding.tiie friii^ture of the mandible bone and pupture of the liver, because, death of the deceased was caused in the house of the accused / appetlant, explairi thecircumstance un the body of the decaised. fhe'refore, he wos the right person to ifier which these injuries were found on puring the police custody, the accused also gave memorandum (E;S(.P^4) |'s9ordi"9 tti®weapon of the offence i.e. lathi thot he used to- c(ssault Bfgani Bai ond the aime wos recovered at his instance background of the above e; reporting the mattep t6 the with his ^on PW3 Annuram, the accused./ appellant to'^ej under Ex.P/5. Therefore, in the idence, if we look into -Hie delay m police, it is an.admitt'ed position that Somarsai, father- ofihedecdpsedi wasan illiterateperson. He, along mme^iately on seeing the bocly, oshed lort the mdtter to the police. When tie [^^^" Kl-HC-22 31^7^,7 t<;'li+ STiS^; i ^nwnf^t •t^ rs; ^iTztRTO. 'E^iWS, "W^lRT'I' •a^i^^i; MsSein C..JS- ,-son. ,. . •^ ^! f •i^'. •^. sn^itwnwdl^t .•5 ?wf?W?'wisft" ^'fftat ^CTT ^ % sifiw sn^f faited to cto so, on 1 November ttie police staition LakhiBipur. witnes^s.nothing hciscomeon re brothers of the deceased had appeltont that is why they had im| Therefore, we are of •t+ie considi the matter to the potics, in vie^ ctinching evidence available on r^ medieal evidence, |et(th pf Bigoni The evidence of befencs con not be given credence. r . Now, cetning to the judgw accused / appetlcmt; the fjrst ju is Awfvt _Vs_ Stgte af Maht •Matrimonial eases 2002 II Pg 16{ wife qfter pouring kerosene and is of no help to •t+ie accused / caas, the decea%d did not ii dectaration ond the Court- reach^d of the rtprpn«!pd,:p<»i^ifaded hl ^93, Somarsai lodged the reportat In cross examination of -these ;|:ord thaf Somarsai or his two sons, (ny enemity against the accused / Kicated the accused Jn a fdtse case. ^red opinion •rtiat delay in reporting Iv of the above circumstances ond lcord was not fafcl. In view of the IBai was homicidat in nature. S/itness in yiew of medical evidence judgn^ents cited by the counset for the Igment cfted by the learned eounasl ^fwshtra reported in Oivotee & This wds a case of 'rtie murder of setting her*on fjre. The above case o^pellont for the reason •that in this in|iplicate. the accu?ed in her dying t6 -the conclusion thdt the fflther ;r to aive sta*ement against 'the [^ifeii E-HC-22 sn^T^ i';-<i+ arg^i aTqWdrpI ~a~^ -^r^'M2?. '©^n-^^i^,Moif^"ui •aii^iyS •^SSep Ctr- A- Z&.i 1S~ 3n^r^snaR"gfei ^o- '"iWSyl'il.l •Elp^Tf^"}^} -d%R<-R' ^ 3rf:gT sn^; accused / appellonteind further tl^e Court reached to the conclusion that it is a case of suppressior^ of true facts from Court and tampering the ihvestigation. T^e second judgment cited by the leamed counsel for the accused / State of Bihar reported in &MC ttie Apex Coyrt reached to the cp^clusion that the dyin9 declaration not effected before any doctor burns, the deceased can not-sun) the dying declaration wos not re^ appellant is that /4rwW.SffwA Vs 2001 I Pg 734. In this coise also r any independent witness but to the mother of the deceased, inte]rested witness was not true. The Court further reached' toi the coiliclusion that because of ex-tensive ve beyond 10 minutes, therefore, iedupon. The other judgment relied upon by the counsel for th^ accused / appellant was Maiwhsr K? Starte of W reported in DM^ 1999 I Pg 638. The Court after scrutinizing the e;yidence, reac^ied to the conclusion that the deceased herself^ sprinkled keroa accused being frightenedof the ^ne oil and put herself on fire. The observed that the cleceased was memtaers wei^ objecting appetlai ,/ •' •' . .• oppeltatrt' Was not qgreenble for ^-. incident.ran away from the spot, therefore, that conduct of the a|ccused can not take place to prove that the appellant caused the deSfiih of the deceased and the Court |)ressing for marriage as her family it's conning to their house and the the marriage, hence, the deceased [•q^^Rg^ Xi-HC-22 .311^^? ^SIW3I1^ stiHicti'gitg rs[ '^TT^i^J, -'^TT^PiSt T^7?H?i'XK -^iJ " iL^i'°^^ r?^; ^^ 'f^V"i "v»-^^3 I Cy-.:(q--J-fcll^^ W 28S 3iit?i e^Rnwtre?! K- put herself on fjre. Therefore, in is qlsb of no help to the present a< ^r^^NN TTW^ ^ 'fe^' ^SrtiOT.BIWf The case of Kishan Lal Vs deeb thdt &MC 1999IEpgNo,439also relal was in the facts arid circumstance; Apex Courf- and as per the doctor of syncope which wos attributabk burns because there;v r% no not record .even .deep bums Therefore, the Court reached •thedeceased died on account of the above faets, this case is appeltant. Similarty, theother ju^ for -riie accused / otppetlant is als^ Sfate of Heirvaiw reported in •V- that none of the symptoms i| Alurninium Phosphide (celphos) that the accused administered ce| '• / For the foregoing reasons, holdina the accused /^appellomt g view of the above facts, this'case cused / appellant. . Stdte of Ra.iarHian reported in 1't^sto case of dying declaration. It i^ that has not been believed by the '^ opinion, the death was on account to lieart, and not because of the burns. The boctors report does ^n the body of the decepsed. no inference could be dravm that alleged bum injuries. In view of of no help to the accused / ju^lgment relied upon by the counset pf no help. Tn the wse J'aipaf Vs 2002 II pg 682, the Court held »as suggesting administrotion of the case of the prosecution was bhosto the deceasd. the dso o^c anld we are of the considered opinion in lilt/ for commission of the inur'der -r [Tft^ ^f^ XI-HC-22. 3Ilt?I^iT 'f^'iwsntw sd^i'fc 'gftB padma ^.-' ~^^[ T<|J<.||(^^, ^•^i'y<|s, ^(;1l<-E<i< ^TS^T.M^q? Cls.A. ^.fc)l °1S ••H1, :3n^r?-RiWHf?g I •1- isr'^iwwi ^fs^ tiSr.sre ^aiPtn STI^I of Bigouii Bai is based on clinchin^ does not require lany interference circumstontial evidence and same of thisCourt, As far as the cOnviction the gppellant, ignoring the. sug Annuram, byried the body in punishment and that amounts evidence of the crime. Therefi under Section 201 of the IPC. LJnder Section 201 is concerned, as sug^estion-of Somarsai PW1 & PW3 brder to sme himself from the ^o cousing dis-appearomce of the >re, he hos been rightly convicted In the resylt, we d6 not hence; it is liable to bedismissed Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge firid any substonce in this appeal: and is accordinglydistnissed. Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge -. / [^^f^