the 1 WW m wt 200 W3“? (W) am% mwm mm WW éwrmm scene of occuné‘nce and pe deceased vicie EX. P—Z. Hc a was sent for autopsy to 1 Where Dr. NLS. Suiiya (P. memorandum of EX.I,P—9 of the appellant, weapon of o§ence axe, was formed inquest over the deadCbody of the iso prepared site pian of EX. P—3. The body he District Heaith Officer, Durgukondai /report of EX. P-‘7—A. On th‘é W. 5) conducted post mortem and gave recovered Vide Ex. P-‘Q-A. One bicycie'and blood stained Gamchha wa taken into possession on being produced by the a-ppeilam: vide EX. P-9—B. Appeiiant’s blood stained clothing were also taken into p0 session vide EX. P-lO. Plain soil, blood §W€d $011 alld blOOCl Stalll€d Clommg W€1E 8.150 M611 mtO possessmn 1mm the spot. p Patwaifi vide Ex. P-ll. Se the deceased was taken in o possession vide Ex. P—1'2. 4. After completing in estigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magis' ate First Class, Bhanupratappur who in tum committed the case t the same was received o Judge for trial ’ 5. During trial, the ot map was also got prepared by Halka ed packet containing pieces OI clothes ox the Couit of Sessions Judge, Kanker and transfer by learned Additional Sessions osecution examined 10 witnesses in all, thereafter statement of ac used was recorded in which he denied the evidence appealing again t him in the prosecution case and-pleaded false implication and also examined defence witness Sahdev and Dr. MS Suliya in his defenc The trial Court aft r hearing learned counsel for the parties, appellant as mentioned above. 6. WW,W,W p ‘ e e ”‘ r ‘7. Homicidal death of Pakluram is not in (iispute. Even othéxwiw, from the evidence of PW. '2 Kamml and RW. 8 Pawan Kumar who are eve-Witnesses of the incide nt and further evidence of Dr. M.S.Su1y‘a who conducted post mortgm and gave his report of EX. P—T—A in which he has men‘u’oned one incised wound in siz'e of 10cm X 3 cm X $8? cm on 1eft front'ai area and on internai examination, he has noticed mat beneath the injmy described above, ieit panetal bone was dissected vertically up to brain and there was extra dural hamatoma of size 5 X~3 cm and 8 cm deep was present and he has further opined that the cause of de ath as comma due to the injuries over the brain and the same was homicidal, homicidal death of the deceased is established. 8. Learned counsel for the appeliant submits that the appeilant was suEering from mentai s ickness. He was undergoing treatment for his sickness. Defence wimess Dr. MS Suhya has pipved the certificate of EX. D—l wherein it is mentioned that the appeliant was suffering from the depressive psychosis and, therefore, any act committed by the appeiiaxt fails withm the exceptions described in Section 84 of the LRC. which envisages that nothing is an offence WHICD. ls (lone by a DEI‘SOH W110, at the nm€ 01 (10mg 1t, by l‘EaSOll OI ‘_ unsoundness of mind, is ' capabie of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is 'ther wrong or contrary to iaw. i i 9. On vthe other han , learned counsel for the State, has supported the impugiedju gment. \!\ WWW mmei‘wm ammam taking meais. Her fathe ’ %1e6ping together on €116 assaulted her father by axe the door and cried. The ac to keep quiet, however he: etc. came there, thereafte identjiied the accused and moss-examination, she ha: resides separately m the Sé one year. Her Iather and o‘ the door from inside and categorically stated that s‘ e saw the appellant assaulting her father d not see anything. She has herself stated unning. She has further admitted that she t1 l making the assault by axe. The other persons, who were sleepinl‘g in the room, were not woken up. When her father died, the house 1 woke up, she found her father dead. Her i0. We have 11€arcl lea perused the record of the t1 1i. From perusal of th canviction of the appellgl Kamini, PW. 3 Trilokram': 1 a f ‘12. PW ‘2 Kamlm who Sukiuram; has deposed m is 12- 13 years old daughter of deceased med counsel for the parties. We have iai Court as also the mpugned Judgment. e impugned judgment, it is ciear that Lt is based on the statement of RW. 2 and RW. 8 Pawan Kurnar. at they were sleeping in their home after r, Kamia, Kamleshwari, Bhuwan were floor. in the twilight hours, the accused , at that time, she was awake. She opened cused had put ed the hght and asked her axing her shouts, Triiok, Devsingh, Satan, r the accused fled from there. She had the accused gave only one assault. in the ; stated that the accused is her Mausa. He Lme village and doing business for the last 'hers were sleeping there. They had closed they had also put off the light. She has and has denied that she d1 that she saw the accused I could not see the accuse has closed from inside. She has denied the suggestion that when she WW,W,W mm . m 200 WW (W) WW, g? FF $,W mm wt 200 mvm (W). WWW 3941mm mmm Wm wW éwifcmm brother Pawan Kumar (PW. 3) was aiso s1€eping with i161" in the room. She has admitted that before the incident, mere was no quarrel of the accused with her father. Triiok resides in the nearby house. He came to his hou‘se after the illcident. She has denied that 1 Ishe did not see the incident and she is deposing-on being tutored by Sgatau.‘ She has admitted the accused. 13. \tiiat the accused resided in their home, . deceased, has also stated however he ‘resided separateiy. Once the appellant took him in the bicvcie and had stared at h-im as a result of which, he gOt frightened. The accused assaulted his I V . that her father had cordial reiations With father while he was sleeping by axe over his skull. Hearing the sound of assault, he woke up and saw the accused standing with an axe. At that time, his sister Kannm was also present there. This witness has also stated that at the time of incident, they had bolted th e room n‘om inside, however they had not put off the light. lie had atso admitted that he Woke up on hearing the cries of his sister and father. He has denied the tutored hv his grand—father. 14. "' 'hat on the date of incident, he saw the deposition, he has stated .i a accusedgoing towards Lollattar Road with axe. He was told by the children of the deceased Zle did not see the accused assaulting his suggestion that he is deposing as he is . that the accused had assaulted the stated that memorandum of Ex. P—Q was \ 1‘ \\:\‘deceased. He has further \ PW. 3 Pawan Kumar, a 12 years old hoy who is also son of the PW. 3 Trilokram is n eighbour of the deceased. in para '2 of his WW, Wm,W @ WW m: 200 Wm (W) %"W mm a? WWW WW wW §wf<maném recorded m ms presence by me was seized at the instance of ti Vide Ex. P-Q—A. He has denied not make any disclosure statemi 15. prw. 4 Dev smgh hés ah hearing the shouts of the giri, ] Kamini and Pawan Kumar on ‘t has been. assaulted by Mausa Com has. obselved that the ab diary statement of Ex. D-‘Z, ho“ . that this wmless has aiso glven 1b. From close scrutiny ol the the first place she claims that she 'er subsequently she denies having there is also inconsistency in her statement that the dOor of the ‘room was closed from inside. and the other witness Pawan Kumar has also stated that the door of the opinion that considering their age and the fact that immediately after and informed RW. 3 Trilokram and U18 mcla€nL Ul€y falSCd alal'H] RW. 4 Devsingh that the atpellant who is Mausa (husband of their father Sukluram, We are of the considered opinion that notw thstanding the above inconsistency, their version inspires confidence and it can be Safely held that the mothexis sister) has assaulted pohce and the weapon 01 onence axe re appeilant from the fields of Pichod the suggestion that the accused did mt before him. ) deposed that earlier in the morning, 1e and Trilok came out of the house. temg aSK€d, mfOlmed mat Ills IaUl€f i.e. the appellant. Though the trial ave portion does not find place 1n his €V€r II'Olll p€msal Of EX. U-Z, W€rlllld this version in his diary statement. VCI”SlOh Oi l".W. Z Kamlm, W€ 0DS€IV€V that though there is incons1stency in her statement regarding Witnesslng the moment as 1n witnessed the incident, howe‘ witnessed the incident and however we are of the considered house was closed from inside, WW,W,W Wm 111 200 WW (W) WWW Hm s1 mmm‘ WWm$WW m ‘ j %a~if%mm appallalit was the author of tilt crime in question. Th€ir version is also comborated from the Statament of Tli'lok Ram who is noigh‘bour of the doceased anti who has stated that he saw the accused nommg axe and going towaj‘ds Lobattar Roani and the chiidren informed that the accused had assaulted the deceased. Smmal is the version of Dev , n fSingh. Their veision is also corroborated from the promptly lodged Fl}? bV Satauram in which the appellant has been named and Satauram (RW. 1) has also A incident is of 4 am. Their vers on has further been corroborated from the medical evidence of Dr.NIS Suhya (RW. 5} who has Iounu‘ corresponding injuries over th skull of the deceased. 1'7. Now the argument a anced by learned counsel for the appellant based on Section 34 of l.P.C. is concerned, we have closely i scrutinized the evidence of all the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the defen has not suggested to any of the witnesses that the appellant suffeiing from unsoundness of mind and the ailment was of su h a nature that he was unable to understand the consequen s of: his act. Dr. MS Suhy‘a has been examined as PW. 5 by prosecution, however no suggestion has been given to this witne s that the appellant is suffering from an'y‘ psychiatric disease or th he was treated by this witness just at the time of the incident only after the examination of the accused, the above witness h s been examined as D.W.‘2 to establish ed that the children of the deceased s assaulted by their lvlausa and the s' informed that the deceased t a c s ' e d WW, m, W Wm m 200 m>m (W) maf‘aam mWiwm aaaimm and submit report and acc Been submiited to this Cm Which The psychiatrist cxaJ aEuexed and from perusai ( Sahu, Asstt.‘Frof. (Psychian Hospita}, Raipur, it is obse active psychiatric ilincss at _ about his behaviour in t1“ psychiatric iihless in thc p: incident is. on 18th March Thercfore, we are of the con been able to establish ‘unsoundness of mind Wh within the exception of Sec the considered opinion tha proved by the prosecution b 19. In the result, there is same deserves to be dismiss a ‘ ‘ that th€ app€Ilaiit was suff‘ :Iing from the depressive psychosis and he has referred the patient for further treatment to medical college. l8. During the pendency of this appeal, considering the defence of the appellant, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jagdalpur was directed to get the appellant'medically examined .~by any psychiatrist ordingly a report dated 28—11-2UUO has Lrt' by the Superintendent, Central Jail in nination report of the appeliaut is also r1" the above report given by Dr. Manoj K. v), Pt. J.N.Ivi. Medicai College and BRAM rved that the patient does not have any present and in the absence of history : past or any documentary evidence of ist, his mental condition on the date of , 1999 could not be commented upon. sidered opinion that the defence has not t the appellant was sunhring from brings the offence committed by him 'on 84 of l.P.C. Consequently, we are of involvement of the appellant has been yond reasonable doubt. no substance in the instant appeal, the d and it is accordingly dismissed. Sdl- . T.P.Sharma ‘ i Judge a i