\v H!0|iGuuKT_uE.CHHAri'|SQARHAI^ BiLASPU^ D8: Hpn'bjeShrjDhiren(lraM'snra& Hon'b!s Shrl R N. ChandraRar, JJ. Appeiiant H" JslS) Respondent Criminal Appeai No. Padami Lacchu, aaed 32 years S/o. Padaml Podiya Muriya, OGcypation Ayricullure, R/o. Pandewar, Padrnapara, P.S. Dantewada, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) Vs. State ot Chhattisgarh Present: Shri D.R. Sharma, Sr. AdvoGate with Shri B.D. Barghaiya, counsei for the appeHsrst. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocaie foi the Slate ORAL uUDCMENT (29.06.2010) 1. The appeiiant has preterred this cnmlnal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Coae of Cnminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10th January, 20Q3 passed in Session Tria! Case No.249/2002, whereby iearned Sessions Judge, Jagdaipur after hoiding the appeliant guiity for caus'ng homlcjdal death of his brother namely, Padami Mangudu, convicted him under Section 302 Qt the indian Penai Codeand sentenced h!m to iife impnsonment. 2. Brietjy stated tacts QT' the case, as projected in the impugned judgment, are that deceased Padam! Manaudu, appeiiant Padami Lacchu and Padaml Pandaru (PVV-2) are rea! brothers and their houses are adjacent to each other and suifl tree was pianted by their tather near their house and three brothers protected the tree and enjoyed its juice. They used to se!l the juice of the tree to others and distribute proceeds among themseives. On 3rd iViarch, 2002, at ^ ^ about 7.00 p.m., wife and daughter of the deceased weni to the forest and Padami rviangudu and his son were at home. Vvhen they returned trom the torest, they found that the appeilant was quarreiing with his brother Padami Mangadu in reiation to sult' Juice. The deceased was trying to pacity hlm, however, the appeiiant got agitateci and compiained that he did not allow him to drinR suif! juice, threatened him to kili and went to his house and brought bow and arrow and tired at deceased whic.h hit his armpit and abdomen. The deceased feii on the ground and died. 3. Report of the incident was iodged by Padami Lakhe (PvV-1), wife of the deceased on 01.04.2002 at about 11.45. On the basis ot which, tirst information report (Ex-P/12) and merg intimation (Ex-P/11) were recorded. Poiice proceeded for the scene of occurrence, prepared inquest over the person of deceased vide Ex-P/5, thereafter his dead body was sent for autopsy to Community Heaith Centre, Dantewada vide Ex-P/BA, where Dr. B.K. T'rkey (PVV-5) conducted PostmQrtem and gave his report vide Ex-P/8. Spot map was prepared by investigating officer, Vijay Thakur (PW-6) vide Ex-P/13. On the basis of the memorandum of the appellant Padami Lacchu, weapon of offence bow through which arrow was fired was taken into possession vide Ex-P/2. Arrow was aiso taken into possession vide Ex-P/3 on being produced by Padaml Lakhe (PVV-1). Biood stained arrow and blood stained wearing appareis of the deceased received from the hospltal after postmortem were taken into pQSsession vide Ex-P/14. Seized articles i.e. wearing apparets, arrow and bow were sent for t ^ chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur vide Ex-P/16 and the report of F-SL Is Ex.P/17. 4. After compjeting investigatlon/charge sheet was filed in the Court ot Chief Judiciai Magistrate, Dantewaaa, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Dantewada tortriai. 5. Learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 302 ot the indian Penaj Code against the appeiiant who abjured his guilty. 6. Prosecution in order to establish the charges against the appeiiant examined 6 witnesses in aii, thereafter statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code Qf Criminal Procedure, in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prQsecution case and pleaded innocence and faise impiication. 7. The triai Court after hearing counsei for the respective parties convicted and sentenced the appeliant as mentloned 'n paragraph one Qf this judgment. 8. Homicidal death of deceased Padami Mangudu is not in dispute. Even otherwise, on the basis of the evidence of eyewitnesses Padami Lakhe (PVV-1) and Padami Kumari (PVV-3) who claim to be the witness of the fact that the appeiiant fired two arrows at deceased which hit on his body and further from the evidence of Dr. B.K. Tsrkey (PVv-5) who conducted the postmortem and proved his postmortem report (Ex-P/8) in which he round the foliowing injuries present on the deceased and opined that the deceased died as a resuit of cardio respiratory arrest due to excessive internai hemorrhage and that the '<< injury sustained by the deceased is sufficient for death in ordinary course of nature, the homicida! death ot the deceased is estabilshed. JNJURiES (1) FeatureQf decomposition present. (2) Eyes cjosed, mouth dosed. Bieeding from nose. (3) Penetrating wound by arrow at above umbHicus right side arrow was present (4) incised wound below right shouider joint of size 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. 9. Learned counsei for the appeiiant submrts that the trial Court was not justified in convicting the appeilaRt under Section 302 of the iPC,as from the evidence, it wouid be evldent that the incident occurred due to sudden provocation without premeditation as the appellant and the deceased were engaged in quarrei as the tieceased did not aliow the appellant to druink suifi juice and in the heat ot passion, the appeljant flred two arrows at deceased and thus from the evidence avaiiabie on record, the offence would faii under Section 3Q4 Part-ii of the IPC. 10.0n the other hand, iearned Govt. AdvQcate supports the impugned judgment. l1.We have heard learned counse! for the parties and perused the records as also the Impugned judgment. 12.Paaami Lakhe (PVV-1), wife of the deceased, is an eyewitness of the incident. She has deposed that her husband and the appeiiant are reaf brothers and her father-in-iaw Padami Podlya pianted suifi tree near their house and the brothers used to take out the juice from the ^19'^..,. /^\ i ^ t -^' tree and seli It to others and also distribute among themseives. The quarrel ensued because of suifi tree. H.er husband died some 7-8 months ago. He was murdered by the appeiiant by arrow. Dispute ensued between them in relation to taklng out the juice from the sulti tree. The appeiiant got agitated and threatened the deceased and thereafter he fired arrow at him which hit his armpit and centre of the abdomen. She had taken out the arrow from his armpit, however, she could not take out the arrow from his abdomen. The incident was witnessed by her daughter and herself. She went to the poiice statlon and iodged report. 13. Similar Is the evidence of Padami Kumari (PW-3) daughter of the deceased. These witnesses have been cross-examined by the detence. However, they stuck to their ctaim as deposed in their examination-in-chief. Their version is further corroborated by the evidence of Padami Pandaru (PVV-2), reai brother of the appeiiant, who has aiso deposed that the appeliant murdered Padami Mangudu by arrow. They quarrejed on account of sulfi tree and the appeilant fired two arrows from his bow which. hit the armpst and abdomen of the deceased. After receiving the arrow injury, Mangudu had toid him that Lacchu flred at him by arrow and thereafter he died. This witness being real brother of the deceased as weli as the appeiiant, wouid not impiicate hls reai brother in a faise case. He was also cross- examined by the detence at length but the defence couid not elicit anything in his cross-examination which makes his version unreisable or doubtfui. A,1.. .^^'^^ /'••g"^i'^ .7 'll^^ ^ 1 1 A^i J ^y 6 l4.That apart, their evidence is further corroborated by the medicai evidence as corresponding injuries were tound on the person of deceased. Even pierced arrow was found embedded in umbiiical reglon ot the deceased by Dr. B.R. Tirkey and the same was subsequently seized atter receivsng trom the hospitai. Both the arrows were sent tor medicai examination and the FSL, Raspur CQntirmed presence of biood over the arrow. Their version is further estabiished from the aliegat'on in the first information report iodged by Padami LaKhe (Pyv-1). Thus, we are of the opinion that the trial Court was justified in relying on the evidence ot Padami Lakhe (PVV-1), Padami Pandaru (PVV-2) and Padami Kumari (PVV-3) in convictmg th.e appeilants. . 15. So tar as the submission ot iearned counsei for the appeSlaRt that th.e jncident occurred due to sudden provocation and without any premedstation is CQp.cerned, there 1s no apparent provocattQn by the deceased. 'ihere is evidence avaiiable on record that the appeHant fired two arrows at his brother and both the arrows hit the deceased on hss yitai part ot the body and, therefore, the CQntention th.at it was not intentional and the incident occurred due to sudden DrovQcation is not acceptable. The triai Court was justified in CQnvictfng fhe appeiiant under Secuon 302 ofthe indian Penai Gode. 16. Sn the resuit, the appeal faiis and it !s accQrdip.giy dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Bini Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge