HC—78 SV^I W R-<i+ ^SH STT^TgRTn^ 3^? ^NIrt^l, gnflti'lfi, R^iyy MINc^l *<4|eh •V^ 200 sn^r XRW (ija^g^g) ^iiw ^ifta an^i DIVX8XON BESCH: HOS'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DHXREJSTDRA MISHRA Ss HON'BLB 8HRI JU8TICE t.P. 8HARMA CRHBINAL JkPPEAL N0. 20 QF 2002 A^peUaat In Jail ViersU. Kespondeut Preseiit: ShriS.K. Mishra, Shri D.K. Gwalre. (Delivere4 Dhirendra Mishra, J This criminal appegl conviction and order of ae^ in S.T.No.303/2001 wher^by Jagdalour has convicted tti< Paial Code and sentenced causing hoirucidal deafh o^ °M<<i<"i<iii iiiCTi ^.fe^t <r«f*^i< ^'aiRpTsn^r KARAM SOMA AGE 2 5 YEARS S/0 KARAM MUTTA OCCU, CUVriVATOK, (FAKMKK) K/0 VILLAGE KOREPARA, AERRABORA P.S. KONTA DISTRICT DANTEWADA (BASTAR) S'W OF CUHA'msOAKU THROUGH P.S. KOI.iTA DIST. DANTEWADA coi^nsel for the appellant. Gotvt. Advocate for fhe State. OBLAL JUD&MENT on 3 lrt January 2008) is directed against fhe iudgment of ^tence dated 8th November 2001 passed the leamed Sessions Judge, Bastar ie appeUant under Section 302 of Indian hiia to undergo imprisoiuuent for life for Karam Chinna. €i. "%. fc %:^y/ -S^3f ^ |i)|^, g-JI^'KS, Mrtl'y^ tiaa; ( s^.'wi?:n? ^FifepN 'WRff ^ fs^ tfSr^ri ^i StfiTO Sil^ prosecutton tttc 2. Case of fhe Inforiuation Reoort of Ex.P/ 1 of the deceased on 3.10.2000 Station Konta is that on 2.10.1 takuig m.eals with his wife sitti^i; is adjacent to fhe house of Chiruia, uncle of the appeUan< fhat "you (the appeUaat) is noj you dont work what vou shall enraged by fhis, the appeUan^ house and shot arrow which p( result of which he fdl down tiine. Thcreafter, Soina fled as revealed from the First lodged by Semal Kanna, son-in-law at about 17.10 hours at Police POOO at about 22.00 hours he was ^lg on a cot outside liis house, Tyhich deceased where deceased Karan |, was couiplaimng to the appdlant t doine anv work, field is barrai. if t>eeatm.giasuininerseason." Being brought airow and bow froin his terced fhe abdomea of Chinna, as a the ground and died after soine bis house with his wife. dn frorii 3. After registCTing fhe abojve report, Merg of Ex.P/2 was also reastered. Inauest over fhe dead bodv of Karam. Cbinna was prepared vide Ex.P/3, The dead body was sent for autopsy to Primary Health Centre, Kontaiphere Dr. M.P.S. ShandUya (PW-51 conducted postinortem and g^ve his report of Ex.P/7. The arrow pierced ia fhe abdoinen ofthe jdeceased was taken into possession 1 videEx.P/4. | 3 4. After conipletme the investieation charee sheet was ffled in the Court of Judicial Magistral-e Pu-st Class, Sukma, who tn turn coniiiiitted the case to the Couijt of Sessions Judge for trial. GRPRJ — FS/24 ,07 — 50.UUO. —78 '''>;%Sr.sS^'1''' 3^ET "i<l<l|(?><q, ®Tflu'16,(s|01«^< NINdl shNleb •^ 200 sn^?r 'vw (ij«if^«<<{tT^ SW^t ?)I ft-li'* ?TaTT 3?n^T ?ti+lich ^aiwtrf^T sn^r chl'LfI<n'4l'1 'HTR^ff '^\1^1' iptl^K ^aifipTsn^r 5. Duriag trial fhe pros| Thereafter, statement of undei- Section 313 of Cr.R. appearuig against him i4 innocence and false unplica^ion icution examined six witiiesses in all. the accused/appellant was recorded '.C. iu wluch he denied the evidaice fhe prosecution case and pleaded 6. Learned trial Court parties, convicted and nientioned in paragraph on^ 4fter heariua counsel for fhe resTiective sjenteneed fhe accused/appetlant as of fhis judgment. 7. Homicidal deafh of otherwise, from. fhe euidea^ the deceased, PW-2 Karaml from the statetneat of Dr.Ml postinorteui and found aa| deceased, noticed foUowin( is cardio respiratory hemorrhage in peritoneal fhe deafh was honiicidal in deafh of Karam Chim-ia wa^ On external examindi Har faUUre •am Chinna is not in dispute. Even ;e of PW-1 Semal Kanna-son-ui-law of Buchchi-wife of the deceased as also .P.8. Shandjlya (PW-5), who conducted airow pierced ia. the abdom.en of fhe |injuries and opined fhat cause of death on account of excessive iaternal caused bv penetrating sa-rvw and Inature, it has been established tliat fhe honiicidal in nature. ition: ctoritv (1) There vr&s on abdonien, which wa^ lateratlv. The sald kii |arrow piei-ced at the right side of the near fhe 9th rib of right side and 2" kiilurywas I" in length and 4" deep. -.,siesssas^ ft '^J ^^ ^^5=^ jd.r'^-^.. A^'''...^^^. ^&. ;r«'" "i -^ "^SQ 3rcT ^||<<|rt<<, WTf1<H'IS, fs|i?il+1^< •BI^T ?iT (<•<('* ~^^ ^TI^T fli*i|sn <4iy^i *•<!* •^ 200 sn^yr traw Cj^f^^ET) TCTW ^fer SII^T 4 On internal e?amindtion There was one stoinach and stoiuach, whict fuU of blood, eardruin was punctured, tniury punctyring fhe peritoneum of the cutting Uie internal organs of the ;I|L had reached fhe backside. Cavity was Iperitoneuni cavity ~was fuU of blood, ijunctured, membrane of intestines was intestine Tfii'as fuU ofblood. sm.^11 8. Learned counsel for ^he appdlant subiuits fhat fhe iucident occun-ed at about 10.00 iji.m.. in fhe night. The witnesses have admitted that it was pitch house of deceased Chiiina deposition fhat fhe deceas eyewitaess to the inc-ident aay premeditation and fhe chi^f<n'^*i •HiH^il* Tf,fsl<) <r^^i< ^aiRiirsn^r Idai-k. PW-1 Senaal Kanna has claimed to have witnessed the incidlent froin his house while he was takins bis ineal. He has also a.dijiitted that his house is adjaceat to fhe and ffae house of fhe accused is at a distance of 100 meter fifoni fhe house of deceased Chinna. fhere&re, it was not possi^le for fhis witness to see fhe incident aad as such, he is not 4n evewitness. Similarlv, PW-2 Karam Buchclu-wife of the deceas^d, has adnutted in paragraph 6 of her fcd was outside fhe house whereas she was taMng her ineal in |ier honie, Thus she is also not an Lastly, it is argued fhat fhe incident occurred on the spur of ni^nient on a sudden provocation without ^ppeUant inflicted only one an-ow iajury oa fhe deceased, which resfilted tn his death, fherefore, the offaice i XiP 2% r 'ft... 3rcT ^i<ii<y»<<, aifly'iis, isf<?>iyy< ^Wv\[ (hKI* •^l w^yr ISRRR (Tpfy??r) ^T^T "^T^W ?T?TT STT^T 9fil-tT4i TCiIW ^te 3I[^[ •-> •*i'<I<-l<ili liicii 'iffe'A tfa<^lt ^aifwsn^r against fhe aooeUailt does jiot travel bevond Section 304-1 or II of theIPC. 9. On the ofher haad, 1 fhe iniRua'ned iudgment ?arned counsel for the State supported Court. of the trial 10. We have heard learneld perused tfae record as also t^ie counsel for bofh fhe parties and have unpugned judgment. 11. PW-1 Semal Kanna is son-in-law of fhe deceased and lirother-in-law of the appel^ant. The appdlant is fhe son of real brofher of flie deceased. Sa]ual Kann has deposed fhat iu. Uie night of fhe tncident he was sittiilg on a cot wifh his wdfe after takine his outside his house. The adiacent to hls house, Chi] Ihouse of deceased Karan Chiana is bna was present in bis house and he was visible froin fhe place ^here he was sitting. At that tune wtfe of the deceased Karain Budhchi and fheir erand-son Mukesh were present there. The hosue ^ nieter from fhe house of )f the appdlant is at a distance of 100 leceased Chiuiia. The appdlant was present in the house of Clitana at that tune. lie assaulted Chiana bv arrow. which struck tiis abdomen and he huaself saw fhe appellant shoottng arrow 4t Karaia Chinna, as a result of which Chinna fdl pn the ground. |At that tinie he was sitting ia his open. courtvard. This wituess bas further stated fhat before the deceased was shot by arroT|ir he had told the appeUant "you do not i i)^e>. .rfieB'Ta%s .?!c::>.'aS>> ^ WW- 3'eST ^l^lrt-M, tfiTfl'M'Ka, Rt01«^< *41Mdl **^1* WI. 200 an^?r ^raw C^f^^w) an^f ?il (<;-fi4i 'cTKH sn^T^i+iiqi ^giw ^ifei SII^T CM^'41l lff<-[^tf ^'fe1^ <f«14^« '^siRnsii^r earti brolieh.t work aiid if vou do not tius. he (fhe appdlaatl incident was witnessed by deceased and hunsdf. AboU Karam. Chicma died. He foUowinR dav. Defence cohild exaniination and he has examiaation-in-chief. 12. Karam Buchclu (PW-3) partition has alreadv takert two brofhers. The appellaflt appeUant had shot arrow a^ died. She has herselfwitnes) appeUant rurmine away af|Ler further narrated fhe bac] coiitiaitted by fhe appeUan^ paraeraph 6 she has state^ house and she vras cateeoricaUv denied fhe incident and stuck to her shooting axrovf at her husb4nd- 13. So far as the argunie^it appellant fhat siace it was for fhe witnesses to see tlie L, what vou wfll eat". and ena'aBed bv arrow aad shot at Chtnna. The liis wife, Karam Buchchi- wife of fhe [t one hour after he was shot by arrow, lodged fhe report of Ex.P/ 1 on fhe not eUcit anvthiag in his cross- stuck to his version given in the taMn: sll 41 |), wife of the deceased, has stated that place betiveen her husband and his tit is son of her brofher-in.-law. The her husbandxas a result ofwhich he .ed fhe iacident and also witnessed the assaultuig her husband, She has iground in which fhe offence was ia paragraph 3 of her deposition. In. that Karam Chinna ivas outside the meals in her honie. She has 'estion fhat she did not see fhe 1fliTn that she witiiessed flie appeUaat advaaced bv learned counsel for fhe ]a nitch dark nieht. it was not possible incident, is concerned, froiu perusal of 3^r '^wi^'if, ^Tfly'Ko, fsi<?iiy^< Nltldl *MI* 200 SW^V JKf h-V<h ^TT STT^T'^qt^ ani?r 'WK Cyi^^y) ?%1WHfel 3Ilt?I ^ the evidence of PW-1 Sem.a|l Karina we find fhat it was a m.00nlit night, fhe witnesses have c^tegorically stated fhat tlie place where the appeUaat aiid.deceased visible from. fhe place wher. sittine in their hoine and appdlant and the deceas' IChinna were tatkmc to each ofher. was PW-1 Semal Kauna and his wife were (he witnesses are close relatives of the \d. Thcrefore, the arguiuent fhat fhe incident occurred ia fhe nitht and it was not oossible for theni to witness fhe incident at a di^ 14. So far as admission takhig her meals in her h' -y .evmTliTintinn on the point -n| takiaa her meals uiside fh^ has cateaoricaUv stated fh; and bow and shot at her| herself. Ttius, on the basy paragraph 6 it caruiot be pi was taking her nieals inj available on record, it also reiaained absconduig for a fhe chargesheet w^as filed s cftt^lCTift'l HIH^lf ^fJ^l<l) <f^<^IT ^aifgqsii^r ltan.ee of 100 nieter, is not acceptable. of PW-2 Karam Buchchi that she was >me whereas fhe deceased was sittini outside Uie house, is conc4med. this witaess has not been cross- &3tt<^vUZt^ ^/ 'hether at ftie time of iticideat she was house. On fhe contrary, this witness tt when fhe appeUatit caine wifh arrow husband. she wituessed fhe incident of statement made by this witaess in esuiaed th.at at the time of incideut she iide the house. Froin the evidence ^ppears that after coniinitting the crinie fhe appellaut absconded f('oin his hom.e along wifh his wife and period of m.ore fhan seven m.onfhs and howing liini abscondiag. 15. 'Sovr coBling to thej next arguinent advanced bv learned counsel for the appellaut ithat it's a case of death due to arrow SrcT "i<i<iii0<<, ^Tflti'itS, Ki<?>i'yy ail^W '(l39? WT wiwaftff •3'i^T "b ^TsfepiH •qPRff•9'fe'atTfSR^R ^ arRi-if aiii^r ^-\ injuiy and fhe appdlaat shot oijily siugle arrow, therefore, it caiuiot be inferred that the appeUaat )iad an intention to cause death of fhe deceased and fhe offence 4gainst him does not travel beyond Section 304-1 or II of the IPC. was inflicted bv arrow aad b< It is not in dispute that the injuiy 'f'w over vital part abdoiuai of the deceased, which caused his iiistantaneous deafh. There is also evidence that there was soiue the deceased iust before fhe in quarrd between ftie appeUant and ;ident aad thereafter, tlie appellant went to his house, brought arrdw and bow, shot at the deceased on his abdonien aiid caused his ^.eaQi. In fhese circumstances, the areuinent of learned counsel ft>r the auBeUant fhat fhe apoeUant had no intention to cause death of the deceased and he assaulted flie deceased on a suddea pro-slocation without anv preiuedifation, has no force and fhe sam.e caniiiot be accepted. On flie basis of afor4said discussion, vfe aie of the 16. considered opinion fhat fhe p| osecution has been able to prove guUt of the appeUant based 0^1 the inaterial avaflable on record bevond reasonable doubt andjthe trial Court has not coinniitted anv illeKality or tufiriuitv iu. convicting and sentencing the appeUant by the impugned judgm.ent. 17.' In fhe result, fhe appealjbeuig devoid of substaa.ee fails aad is accordingly, disxnissed. j ^»^^°=""=" i •—-"" sd'- ':-- Sd/- | T^.Sharroa M1SHRA 1 Jttdge - Judge ^~~~~~~~J-^-i-^' : • •'' __.-...-•--• ' GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007— 50.UUO. ;•<;><'')