i%?-:11/!.\'^"<^ '^t 'y^ f'^J^^S! £8/(J[»il)^ • ),(X)0-9 Bl .ni^ 1 '^•-, cTir Oivision Bench (Criminal) |"| Namc -:-F^irr^H .J-5^it- No. Falt1"'"la";c--.7"-j-ro^t^pr- Rcsidence—^^-^.- 3C"1C""1 io—5it^'y(ref' U,,^, se l,<x, —— -^Q^.^-.- ^ by ^y- -^q -Age -•- i- on —— it is expSa'ncd [u EJic piit.(';Lcr Ei:;u ii fK' ^ia'te^ or vl,'i:~.!K'^ ;t' t " rcj'!''.''i'''i'.<1 h^ ;; :<":;;t; pr;icti!!0ii^r thc Appci;iic Coiir; wiii not procecd \v!lh ihc bM'.c l^i' ^c'm <.:;'>^ i.i..^.^ the IcgaH pr^i-tiiiiuwr ttppL-^s^. Jr t!ic !cyai pruL'tiiionc;- (^^> i.<;l ^f?-;.:r v .ij; 1 iii scvc?i da^'i he ;)iay noi ht: iie^rd at aii If ti'ie pn^^iier staf;^ sJiat ];e docs i^'i vi ^i' ;o hc rcprcilbit.ed hy ieg;'l practit'oner the court nuiy prdcccd .1; oni-'e \\'i;h [he t :isc ;'nd witj noL i,l-s obiiged 'io yi\e u Itearsn^ to any iegai p''Ui.-tiiit)i^T v.lio si'iould appi:.yr. i Hate of AppJication f'cr copy ol" Judgement ————. • 4 i.^ate ofwtitc;! copy rcceivcd —— 3 I3|^;e on wiiich Appeni pent ———— W;iict!-!er ^ic prisoi'ii;!- wi^!';c:> to be rcprescntcd or n«i - YA Ni* f J t59^ i r-awk t^JlC*U«!h***Wr — Name—-^' Conl.nu^ in—^^^^-- waAd to llie CHIEF JUDICIAL MAG1STRATE —4f33Wl3i-PS^-——- (o gat]^r with a copy of judgemen.l or order passcd in ^he (.'<ise !for'l'Rvoiir'^-i' 1 'trammi^sion >.o Uie proper AppHiiate ^purt. : 1 '"', i 1<; -^—L-a.4:.. /'^ e •^»' Superhuep.dent-Ce^tr^ A A» q'F^y—:' : »]-^-T-»r]j; Date q([rcceipt in C/ J. M.'S Office Dats receipt ofrc.c;Qrd^tp accQmpsny— Y' ^ f ...•-/• \} . '•' \ ^ No.—rrj-- Forwatid®d't,o Appe^of.he Appeli^e C^r^^^p—^^^^ ^^ ^^(T%J^5-\4^i-^ —£4—^--^^^Dat4-^f4N£a^r-:--^K^:i;''T^I:^ ?t~< i^'.l ;»-ll- «."*<'::;1 ;'•• '! 1 ' : :.i '.. .o thc: $Lm-^_^^EliEL2il|>s-L4^^ :Cl|J.M;iigistF^t( ^C it^iH ~i—-L~~~ttW-^'!fe% i!W'?ts Dats ^freceiptin AppliateCc-urt- RgX, i:;Riaiy'?p!v:i:i|*83 •v: '•. '• •-•"': '..••: .^ ' '.• ';^..:.".^ ' 1Q-HC-2Z aii^i'^ir.. RMW> an^i ift*iiq»<ilifl i;l ;: -3^5'iraicCT, ^1'y<i4»'sf<fli*<S? 'VsS^K ^..^^^3^^ «i«ni%»ii<» fa*<i8T' DIVISiONBENCH: HON'^.ESHRtL.C.BHAOOO Vs. chXll^i'qi-j *3)+i<Ct) *1 ,1-S^l <l-(q<'ci< '^3^-4^1^ Smf. Usf-ia ChandraKar, learnetf Sh ri Akhil' Mishr^, teamed P:t.1 ORAL (O' ,The-appe]|anthaspreferredthi| -t. ' . .'- : ", Code, of 'Criminal Propedure- conviction and order of senti SessionsJudge, Ambikapur, S} learned Sessjons Judge afierj ofcausing^omicidal death ofl under S6ction;302 of the Indiaii undergo imprisohment'-for life. ^coun.sel.forthe appeilant. 'QrtKerespondenyState. .Oi3;2006) ! 'i. <: - . I^t- 1 -; l.appeai under secticin 374 .(2) of.ffie: ^gainsl the: impugn'ed judgment ]df mce dsted'08.12.1986. passed, by :tirgujy iii S.T.No. 69/95 wAerebythe^L .UT" the acoused/appeliantguiiliy; ':.i his father. Jangliram: cdnvictetf'Wrri "i Penal Gode'arid senfertcecthim itos r'ri' i-.j m l':ti;i ^i .i.1 ^Wi ILIII iww -—r- XEHC-® ^:::.. .. . ^?[!-<<Wld4, «Til'M'i6,Riyw3< an^i^t Rt-lidi an^; ^*i •yl?a ^,^..^.;^A.^/^ 200 wR-irawraa yi 1^^T' •iKi^i ^gi<3T <a^a _. Case o'Fthe prosecytion, deceased dangl iram': Nej First.lnformation Report (j3- the.afternoQn mentipning two sons namely Dhanrrjaai lived with.Dhanmasi and three years. ;The'lancf fel 6y DRanmasj and'.Day^ ^esterday-. i.&^ 15.11.19^ consumedthe sams in:th^' was waFmjng himselfbyfll there,;at;abQut8.00 p.m,, near JangB, pickei:! up^ a] JangSi'three.fburfimes. H^a Dttarjrrjasi .als.®came thsri of oecurreiiea.^ :After-lialfl, •There'was.profuse bleedil searched. for Dayal and -t| the foiioviflng day i.e, '16.11 poiice f cociducted • inyes investigating officer perfoj .Janglj and prepared inqu^st Panchas. The dead :bo< Hospital, Anibjkapur. , postmortern and syBjnitteti jn brief, is.'that appellant is the son of Ighboyr Mangalram PW-2 todgedkthe p-1) on 16.11.1:994 aiabout 12.115 in jtherein fhat deceased .Jangliram; Ihad jaai and Dayal and deceased Jangli payal was liying separateiy sinceilast in the shgre of Jangli was cultiyated was ciaiming 'A share ^ oyer it. 'fcWfa'lil-i <<l*l<-ff4 fetS<Rl<$K ^? •3lFfl*l •dlt^ ^4 fhsy' prepared hadia liqubr •and .sfecond^haif. In the.nightwiiert, Jarsgli l-ei'andlhe wife of Dhanmasi was ilso payaj came oytof his house an^iwent;: tumblec lying: nearby and assalulted: iiaring fhe shouts ofwife of Dhanmlasi,^ ^ and.by that time Dayai left the piwe:: ,an hour of'the'.incident, Jang!i;]3ted, rg from the fbrehead of'JanglL [Fhey lereafter wentrto lodge the.repoiljiOn Ijt.1994. Afler.registering tBeioffience. ti'gafion. During •investigation'i'|the; 1-med inquest over the dead boejy |of ^stTeport~(P-7) after due noticiBtoJtfte, |ly-\ S sent for autppsy to ©cn/t. ;t)r.' M.K-Jam' (RW-4) ^ concfuet^d1: hia Wport: (P-5) in whjch he iho^i?erfi: tiU -'YT-IK""' t^L XI-HC-22 SII^g'*! K'li+aii^i aitiiii'gfsg ;I ^g •airaRpi,ytii'yw, isiciwy .ilWCTI SBHI* 3n^r ^ra? ^.^.a}^^^ ft^r' <sin^ s'^i^Fr^fefl depresse.dfraciureofnos^ zygomatic bone near the| also found a circuiar torii broken pieces of bone of | ,at the time of investigatt^n eagiiy. He tras also foun<j'; first injury ov.er the head -^nd and t'he ear of the .decea^ed .clotted infcoth.the nostril^ both'the^eyes^ Qn cijssecj bone;iios.ey3one anEfifron^t' feund;pale£I'te^oipined^th^t.j over the; head and vita! oj biegding. Oluratton of ths| theifimeofsxaminatiori. gFisvous in n ature and th| After completion crf'th&inwj 302 :of the IRC wss fill Magistrate,'-Arnbil<apBr ft.t'jp Court of Sessions Judge, 3. -Learhed Sessions Judge of the li:)C. Th.e aecused brder to estafc>!isft the' examined S,K witnesses ii also recorded under ^See ; <<il<l!TWl-< TORif4 feS^iSRSR '^sipin 3)i^i and depressed fracture of'jeft pact of depressed fracture of the head^He injury near the.left eye along wifh iead which was 50 badly broken that it could acGommodate one lipger another iacerateci wound besieie the ftird wound was.'rtearliiB'lsft-sar- jed was also partiatly,,cut. • BSoodl w&s and biood was also accumulat6d in [ion he found fracture over zygotnatic fet'bQne ofthe head £EBdttje.head'wffls $ause (rf.death was du®taiiiijyry' rgans of brain resuttjng in expessivei Ideafh was from 24-):o48hoursfromi. :-'* -. ."-'.. 'i •'•.'• :• '•': :• ^U.theJnjuries were.ante-moctem apd: l.'cteath of Jangliramwas hciinicida]^ ^stigatioh oharge sheet yndec S?ctjorj sd in the Court 'of.'Ghiefi .iudiciail in tum committed the case to.the ^i-nbikpaurfortrial. ', i'i: /, i' famed the charge under SeelSiOn 3Q2 ^bjured his guilt. The<prosaGytibn-in: ci'jarge against the accuseyi'appeitenf jil al!. Statement pf'the^acdu^scl was loff313 of'tlie Cr.P.C. inl*(lic;h lie 1.1 •j' i •,)'i!il'i XI-HC-22 an^i'^t R-li* 3?©5T s6^ -yf?fl 'T5?-i<l4|<'i'sl,»fl1yw,ftCTwy ^T^T TR^ .c^^^iMS^ ^ wwma»*)rai •^t ^^s' denied -tlie circumstanc prosecution case and ple on the basisofsuspiciDn. Homicidal deafh ofJarK considerin g th e statemerjt postmprtem over the de^ variQus injuries wt-iich h4 fbregoing ^paragraph; tl Jangliram is establistied. No<s,th:e^rijy^i)yestion^tp'^6 the ;pr6secution: h^s beer< the accusea/appeilant :ih;tl) LearFtefl^ounsel for ffie case:iof'felsejmplicationa^ p.m..:.!on 15.1-1.1994,. hcn^ neighbour Mangalram :Py|i incident.on ttie foilowirii no explanation for the Idet^y MangalFam who-.has todj prosecution case an d as 4 is argued that' thougiT PJ eyewitness tp the incident | poiice station which creat^s :t* '*l<lIc)'i<~M HllriT^.feat <&lt<;l< ^ 3!P(PI3II^5T is appearing against him in the ided innoeence .andfalsB'implicatipn 'am is.not in dispute. Eyen.ofhemgse- of PW-4 Dr. Jain v/ho cGridycted id body of the deceased.anci found' ve been described in detail in the le homiflida!: 'death df deeeased ^is^ecided in this'appeal is - whettier, I'able to establish the involvemeni; bf |e corgmission, oftheaboveoffence? ^ccussd/appellant submits thaf.iti i&ia ^tlTeincidsnttookplaeeatabqut9i30, fever, Jihe report vras todged by'the.. ^-2 »tio is -not ah eyewitness^ta the |jay at about 12.15 R.m./and there js. It isfurther contended thaf RW-2 the FIR< haa not supported|;{He [uch the FIR. has nof been proh'ed.l-rlt 1/V-r 'Sukhvaro.. Bai elaims ttf^fcie- San tiut sh e disi nof lodge. th e ^reporf in.:1Me| suspieion about Jier pi-es^nee at llfe! XI-HC-22^ ^"^^ '-"• Sn^i-qiT f?:iics snlsi *tll* ?S^ ^TRRPI, ^•(•l'l4, itctl'ay *<I*IPII (Bti'6 am^T m^ ...^.^.34z/£t.w, 2fl0 Ri*<{isr" piaee of incident. It is afsc| Suftliwaro Bai and PW-3 they.havea motive to fals^t the instant case as fhey irj from the.estate ofthe deefeased PW-1 Sukhvaro Bai that •t.wicf'iil-i 'OHd'T* faul tRlfelt iT~grfw[.3ii^[ argued that both the witnesses PW-1 Ptianmasi are husband and wife ^nd ^ty implicate the accused/appeilant'in fact intend to disinherit the appeliant andthereforethestatement.of |she;saw the incident should not! be 7. On Ihe other hand, 1< - impugned judgment Qf the We have heard leamed; perused fhff material avaiial T6 estafeljsli tKe involvemli crjrFi®in ,qu estion th e pros^i of PW-1 •Sukhyraro Bai wfi) and.wife of elcier brotheF stated that on the date.of that time she was in 'her h< her Dev/ar (brother-in-law)! assaujted him with tumbler; to how many Blows aceui Jnjuries oiveF' botfr1 sides of| Thereafter, :the accused receivin^g.the mjurjes.Jartgl c^.unsei ..oounsel focthe State supportSithe rial Gourt. , h i i for the respectjve parties le on record. • • . tnt of the accysed/appeRant in],lthe' |cution has reiied upon th& statemenf^ is daughteF-in-law of-the. deceaged.i |of;the appeliarit. .This w!tness|11as - [ncidgnt;wti]ch was a.festival :day,j ,at.. ^me ,w!th her •fafheMff-!awiJangliFa|rH,,^ Dayal^pushed ^ailgll and there%er^' Howeve^ she could;nof?recollec!t;jas|i; |edfgaye^o',Jangli;'dangii,recej'i(gjd^' |his forehead and:botn'th&'ef'ie^!ls;;'| an: away from' that- piaoe; er |;'fell: down ana after some tim^IKS !..! li;B 'iMiii !B ss lllil1' Mll tiil 1111 ffll' l;lil u XI-HC-22 311^1 ^iT R-fi'* 3^t sb*iitt) ^firi -i '3^';'(PII?]?t, a-nltne, i'iai'yy 3n^?i"q?ra, MI*ICTI aiMKO _.&£M.:..H.?^X 200 ^^»" aii^i ^aiwafet died. She has stated that sjie dQes' not knovi? as to why accus.ed assaulted Jangli^however, ishe has stated that herfather-in-law •'- ^!^ld'iil'i ^w'c^'^fs^ <f^i^'i ^aipgtisffl^i used to say that he will Wfe taking % share of the . land and remainina % share he viflll 8ie distributing'hetween'two brothiers but she does npt know thail because ofthis reason or other •accysed assaulted the decteasBd.' She has further.stated friat wtien;the accused assauitep Jangli there,WBS;no one to sefethe incident andlherhusband a|d Mangalsai,came afterthe incjdfint andTat'herpfMangalhadaltp comethere^pwhomsheharFated the incident.'and.thereafterj^Mangal Sai and Inda! Sai went ta lodge (he rgport.. in the cro^s sxaminatiort;a suggestion \5asiput Jo her. on;,beUaff of.the. ^ccused/appeliant that irf.: 1acti'^ husfctartd Oftthis swfness as^auited -her -fatheMn-iaw, whichlwas ' •denreyi-iaylhisMifltness. Tljfrsuggestion that th'e :accuse<i ^has been ^'Sisely imp!ieated in9\e above pffence so that he 'inay i be given'his share, has al^o been demed, PW-2 Mangal who jsl the cdmplairiant' ha^ lodged the report. He has: sSaited. fhafelcfer brother of'accus^d DHanmasi same to his house and informed that the accusedY|has itilled his father^ancl ran.ausy; whereupon fhey went tfftH^ yaee of Qccurrence and sawSiai Jarigli - father of Dhanma^i "was lying' dead in th'e verandjah.;: However, he has statedfhaiBhahmasi did not infonm him intl'i®,. nisht-astowittiwhiehweaptinlheaccusedassayftedhis'fatltgr;. therefore, he wss decla.redlhostile and corrfi-Dnted ,with thri •FJR wherein he had'named the ^ppellant Ss assailant^ ';' :! ;j ;|^,ry n m Yi-Hr-n XI-HC-22 ' (- 31]^%'^1 &•<[* sn^i *^N ^f^a 'K it <3. "3^ •^(•illd*l,-®n)wi6,l«l«iyy 3Ti^?r iRq? 4ittdr*ii!* ^ 208 3)1^1 (wiwofta <*wi<-i''fl-i iiiti?<T ffe'etxN^ ^?»iKtt|sn^T .- • .i goitie accilsed PW-3 Dhanmasi who is the brotN deceased and husband.of PW-2 at the time 6f incident he had paddy. After hearing the noise qf his wife informad that the tumbiet-^as :a result.of.which hei foujid' hjs -tether 'lying in the ve| .MangalFam, however, bythattim^ from the scene of oceurrenee., cienied'the.su.ggestion thatrhis wi'l) theassailant.' ^ ,^ .;' ;r of the appeliant, sbn 'of the pukhvaro Bai; has stated ttiM .to his fietd fp supemse'tiis weeping, he came back an.d assauited his fattier 6y ;has fallen unconsGious. rHe irandah anid .theFeafter called l.the accused .had already fled Ithe cross-examiriation he h^s not telt.him ttie name:pf sustainted Frpm.pej'usaj.ofthestatemsnt-sf •eyewitness to the in cident and PW| tl-iat PW-1 has. seen the appeilant| tumbier a§ a result of which dec) succumbe.d to the. injuries PW-1 is duly eorroborated jn statement of PW-3 Dhanniasi t6 incident;irrimediate!y after the inci|; .fu rth er corroborat.ed by the stal^ who coliducted postnnortemon thi ahd found Wree laceraied'wauri<| has not beeh abte'lo elicit anythir the above witnesses to make thei unrsliabie. Thfi deferice of the 'W-I Sukhyaro Bai who.is the ^-3 Dhanmasi, it is establis^ed-' assauitingtfte deceased with ;^asedje!! on the.ground.aBd by. him.' The statement jcf [material 'particuiars' by Jtt^B' Niom. she narrated fhe .wfigla inciyent. The evidenteof PW-IJIis t^'^ - • i.ll •• (ment of PW-4 Dr. M.K.Jairf, i^ body ofdeeeased.Jangiiijajn t over iiis head. .The'defeniee irjg' in the cross-exammatipi)i1]Q^ ,staf6ments:untrustwprtH"jf|joi". ^ppeilant'that^ in .faetihis own • i. •> i:;t:l XI-HC-22 ^^'^PTRPI, 8>fl1<d'is, fa«wy •-'/ . .. • • 3n^?r "cra^ ____C^Y:ff5:.. WWW9SW* 12. brother RW-3 Dhanmasi has asisgulted reflect -from the statemenf of the has not taken such deTence. In the light of the aforesaicj considered opimpn that the establish the invoh/ement of| commission ofthe .above offencle discussions, we are of fcrosecution . has been able the accused/appeil'ant ^ in Leamed: counse! ;f6r the aRp^! assumed thaf the. apcellant. deceased, sven then the offen'ct 3(34-! sr II .of'the IPC :as from. onTecord itis'evidenftKatttie.iil rnorafint, on {a.isudden. quarrel | tutnbler'ftom^he nearby;p!aee |, the tiead of.his fafher. and therel ofnis&therJangliranicannbtbt further submits that though the | the appeliant was causmg' tb; death^ean be ^ttribyte to tlte, agairist the appellant does not ofthelPC.' : • : ' .: ," Taking.info considerati&n .the offerice h as been com mitted <t»i^<n-4ii"w^ ^ l^st Tt^r^R ^BiPgqsii^i the deceased, does, aecused himself wherein N)t hle the fe tMe lant submits that even jf it: is the blow over the head of fhie ' dqes not travei beyon d sectjon p|erysal of the evidenceayailable .ii(qjctentiookplaceonthespurof and the appeliantjticked^up^a |and gave' thcee fbur'hlows-o'/sr fore, the intention to cause deaih a^ attributedtQ the appeBant. She [knov^edge that the injury wh|idh | e deceased, may. cau'se hjs ajipellant arid as such, the offsnoe trave! beyony sectiori 304-!,or;ll manner in wiiich the alleged ^ nd''ft!rther'considering ihe •l^ct:... ^ [T^^^^ .i.'il ^•''t ~- /•''-' XI-HC.22 ^^"MNIW'i, ,9.^<:l*ls) ?°<<'11'y1< '•».•' : . •qrawgmW"^'"'''7'""'"''''""'""--^ 3n^[;-^i K-\ svSxi. ^+iicfi^-iEi^a -1^,^^;^rtft4l,4fcUiiai SH^?T '^n^^t^ ,+l<iK<l41-( •WRB tfe^TfSRgTC "ii'•sn^rw sn^T it on his head, we are of the Ideath'ofthe deceased cannot be 15. that-the accused suddenly pjcl|ed up a tumbler lying nearby.and assaulted the deceased wsth 1 opiniQn' that intention to eayse | attributed'to.ttie appeflant anit|the offence againsfthe appeltant does not'travel beyondsectioit 304-11 ofthelPC arid the Cou'i't betow was n6t justified in hol^ing the accused/appellant gupty; underseetion 302 ofthe'IPe a|id senteneing hjm aoc&rdingly.. Iri the: result,- the appeal pa| sentencg'awarded.undersed Court are sef aside and ifisteai section ;304-11. Df the:, 1PC3 imprisflnTneirtifoF.ten years. 16. Learn.ed i,eounsel for ttie a< appellant is in' jaii s ince^OS.'l 2. completed: more than' 1.0 djsputed bylearned-oounse!fo 17. In'yiewofthfeabove.theaccu atliberty fcrthwth if not Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge rtly' succeects." .Conviction; ah-d tion 302 of the 1 PC by th& tFial the^appellant is convicted tinder • and sentenced to undergo ioc|used/appel!ant subrpits that 1994 and as such he has a! ye|ars' jail senterice which is il-lh.e'State. • . ^ the riat edfappellantis idirectedfo bie sst in ahy' other case. j!' ; ::; Sd/- DHIRENDRA MISHRA Judge ;-; I: •S'i III 1'?;:;i w^ 1:| II;. 3