L^_.. '^.. 1 y itfl l M M ca 31 1 S) 1 <T~ t is3 i .S i3' /*! lj>l • 1 •'ll -I Itti ^'^i ';S;^t '^' -^' sj- I IW[ -h 1 i3 ' ill' ' M i .'I 2[>i £° 1 Al 1 - I y 1 .'„ jq ' ^o 1 "i 1 r 1 .1 '-•9. ^ l.'f '. -a !> 4 S-q X5 |U< tll ' •s 1 "I ) a !>S! l"l ^ ^' ei, ^. wv^ s.: Ell-f "<-I ' fl « £1 3 ^. -! .nf a vq' :s »-Ei "I ^ s 3 J4 y •Si s ! iS ! •q. ! -+' ' 3. 1 -I 1 xs, 31 3)-I ai^ -I 3 J3i 3 ^ «>Jj d ? ^ 2! 31'a—I 01 ai »>q . ,. o e£f sl-Iu < a-I °f ^ S| —f iri 3 ,3- a ^ 1 IU GO fll <^ ^ ^ s ll U. "? II ^ II ^' "^B,. II s /-u -) 5 X!) " U] ^"£1 I" ^ -p II ^-I il £! 31 ^•B)tj •Bl t "I "a II » IIS- ^D <• "t II"s vq II O 91 §1 °! .°; 1 00: •^l' w r ?> o.^ c- -61 t0: im' -"•ICT" "®a ^i^^T^^ / 'SI-i ?^-*sff ^"???^'}?3?,> •?<'""ri-'';flt^'^i; ^...3.^/^ -^- DIVISION BeNCH: HON'BLE 2. iS' SHRI t-.C.BHADOO &HON'BL^SHRIDHIRENDRAMISHRA.JJ Appellant Respondent CRIMIKALAPP^AL N0. <rf 343 OF 199S Ch^ich@Baba V8. Sta|e rf Madhya Pradesh Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, leamed |;ounsel for the appellant. Shri U.N.S.Deo, learned Adc|tk>nal Publtc Prpseeutor with Shri I.P.S.Bhatia, leamed PanelLawyer flirthe respondent/State. ORAL*! lC.C.Bhadoo.J (0^02.2006) J374 (2) o< the Cr.P.C. the appellant By this appeal under Section'} has questtoned the jegality ofthe j^idgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.11.94 passed by Ambikapurin S.T. No.86/93 wherebj? leamed Addttional Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appellant Balram convicted him urider Section undergo imprisonment forljfe. UDGMENT leamed Additional Sessions Judge, Iguifty fpr commissibn of murder Of )2 ofthe IPC and senteneed him to Case ofthe prosecution in brief is ths|t P.W.-STunaram todged a report P- 7 on 29.07.94 atpoltee chowtd Lundr^i, police stalion Dhairpurt6 the effeet that a day before thereto at about q p.m. accused Chench @ Baba -i 3S.HC-22 'T3 "ilWldl, at^l'y'te, ftcii'yy XWM] aiirai ^........i3fc4^.1^^.-ai; JW sn^r^ir 1^ri?i3n^i •aiqwarsg sn^iWiiWHfer —ci, iiiiwlll tlllffl 4 fe?t <R|(^1< ^ •aiPgti anig -•>< ! asked his wifeSonharo Bai to gwe hi(n food on which she re|riied that she has just rgtumed after grazihg the g4ats therefor®,she has not prepared food and the food of all the persons h^is been prepared at the residence of Govind, on which accused Chench ^sked his wife as to why she did not prepare food ^arted abusing her, p' jsked up an axe and rushed towards her to attack, on whichBalram (sincje deceased) snatehed Uieaxe from the accused whteh enraged him. The which he fell down. Balram againa^ked Chench to accompany hun, he would provide food. Balram took 1h and provided him water. Ther6aft^r he started going tobring fbwl. Howeveraccused Ghench chased a and blood started oozing from the ir( andran away. Merg intimation P-10 accused kicked Batram as a result of accused in the room of Matko Bai d attacked him with carpenter's axe as a resutt of whteh Balram fell do^n in the courtyard but the ifficused again attacked Batram witti carpent4i''s axe on panetal regfon, head and back from its sharp side, as a resy|t 'of which Balram sustained ir^uries uries sustained by Balram. Tunaram asked the attsused why h6 was aftacking so many times. Even then, accused did not stop and continued |to attaek Balram witti carpenter's axe was redueed to writing. On rwehring Uiis report an intimation wassent to p>e police station Dhairpur where FIR {P-1) was registered. Thereafter In^stigating Officer left for the scene <rf occurrence. After giving hotice fo the panchas he prepared ttie panchnama of the body P-8. Btood jstained soit and plainseil were taken into possession under P-9. Accusecf was arrested under P-13. Ctotties of ^he deceased were taken into posjsession under P-14,carpenter's axe was taken into ppssesaon under Pj-15 and clothes ofthe accused were fqi%^^ 1 Xi-flC-22 •iiroiqn 'fyri^gn^i Sfr-^l^ ^^ 3.! 4| 5i -S^ -STORTq, •S^tWTS, 1^?!rey .......e^.,-^^ siAwRgnre.'d)??! -s^- taken into possession under P-16 4Wirl41-l TfTCf^S ^"fs^ (!«)4<;K T3lS^3II^t The recovered arflcles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sags^ for chemicatexaminaUon from where report P-17 was received, Bbdy ^)f Balram was sent for post mortem examination to Primary HeaWi Ceijitre, Lundra where Dr. D.B.Deshmukh conducted post mortem on'the bo^ly of Bafram and prepared report P-3. After completion of invesUgation c^iarge sheetwas fited in the Court of Judicial h4agistrate First Class, Aml|>ikapurwho in turn conwnitted the case to the Session Judge, Ambikapi(r from where the leamed AddiUonal Sessions Judge received Uie case^n fransfer for triat. Prosecution in order to esfabfish tt»echarge against the accused pereon examined as many as el^ven witrfesses. Statement of the accused was. also recorded under SecBon 313|ofthe Cr.P.C; m which he denled the proseeution evidence appearing a^ainst him, He produced one witn^s in defence namely Munna. After hearing the arguments <rf the accused/appeltar* leamed convicted and sentenced the Uiejudgment. lea^ned Publie Prosecutorand counsel for ^ddittonal Sessions Juc^e, Ambitaipur app^llant as menUoned in para®raphone of We have heard Smt. Hamida and Shri U.N.S.Deo, leamed- -M.P.S.Bhatia, Sidtliqui, leamed counsel for the appellant ActdiUonal Pubtic Ptosecutor witti Shri leamedPanell.awy^rfortheresponctent/Stale. ''«»-. [''^tf^ Xt-HC-22 ^3 ^TPTRT4, •S^THS, WMI+iy WCRW9CT^--•••^^•••^v 3Di?rqii WM sn^i 5h^fi<t> ^fifl •31T^I TOIIWBftrt -4- •^rafm'^'T 'RT'Rff ^ l^^ Tf^?R ^sifSgiTsn^! <^» 6. I Homicidal nature of death oTBalram 7. | As far as the involvement of the murder of Balram is concemed.P.W |s not in dispute. ^ccused/appetlant in committing the t5 Tunaram in whose presence erime in quesfion was committed had todfied the report P-7 in which he had assaulted the deceased Balramwith s P.W.-5 he has stated that on the clearly stated that accused/appellant| carperrter's axe. Before the Court fateful day ttiere was Ctihatt fesS^al and food was prepared at the residence of Govind, brotherof the ajipellant and Balram asked Chenchto accompany him for food at the residejnc®of Govind on whteh accused said Uiat he will take food on which Balf|im brought water and gave it to the accused, thereafter accus^d attackejl Balram witft carpenter'saxeOn the. neck asa result 6f which Balram attacked Balram with carpenter's !NI down. Tttereafter also accused ^e on his head. He again assauttod Balram wHh earpenter's axe on heajd and chest. He sisked the accused why he was attacking Balram on w^ich accused ran away. Blood started oozing outofthe injuries of Balram. lalram suceumbectte the injuries and he lodged ttie report P-7. P.W.-6 f.aali toi wife of the deceased has corroborated the above eyiKlence |oT Tunaram tn material parUculars. Evklence of these eye witnesses hs^s been corroborated by th®evidence of Dr. D.B.DeshmukhtP.W-2 who h|®stated that he condycted fte post mortem on the body of Balram on 29.07.92 and found that there were flve injuries oh the body of Balram and ^ubmitted his report P-3 Accordlng to P,W.-2 Dr. D.B.Deshmukh the caus|e of deattt was head injury because the skull was fractured and brain mtrterial was comlng outof tt. Defence -. / - ['^ ^g^ XI-HC-22 w.^ •V '•f- 'K »-'• 3^W ftiiNsn^T ^i*?^ <ll?fl 8. "T5I •^IFTRFf, ^iRTHS, l«t(11<iy •;:s, ^.......^A-^-^y- sn^rwnwdfet -s- has not beenabto to elicit any circui Tunaram and P.W.^ Laali Bai to untrustworthy. 4>i<<t<'i*ih iniRff4 fs^S <rat<TC •^sifen sii^i nstance from the evidence of P.W.-5 make ttoir evidence unreliabte or Inviewofthe ocular and medical e^idence adduced bythe prosecution, weare offce considered opinion tha( there is no inflrmity or itl^aBty in the judgment of trial Court convicting th|e ac&used under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergp j^nprisonment for Ufe. In the resutt, theappeat isliableto l^edismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- A' L.C.BHADOO Judge Sd/- DHffiENDRA MISHRA Judge •- / ' ['qt^'^sT^ /