{C5 mm m 200 mm (W) WWW WW WW azaimaméw ESVision §ench Hen’bie 5hr? Ehiremifa Mish'a 3, HOV} me a?!” IJ". Snafma, Jd. CRWHNAL APP“AL N$. 2W5 cf 20132 Anueiiant Biawaram, Aged about 3D vears 53/0 .wr‘uaram Nagasia, éccupétion: in"t'§i! Cuiiwaiion, Rio Wiage Mahua Kapuioii‘ Poke Station Smina, Teh$i§ Bagicha, Di$hict Ja$hvun Chhaiikgal'n. Versus State 3f Chhattisgarh. Through: Station Housh Cfficer Pc§ico Station Sanna Distruh Ja$n9u Criminai Aggeai uncier Section 3?4€2} o? me code of Climinai o re 1& Pfe$ent MQ Nlramam Sim RdneSh Staie. RESPGNDENT Wo ‘ u 73 Bagpm, counsr-‘l for t‘w aopeuant a J im uepuLy Gum Advocate ‘0; t’e GRAL UDGMENT (Passed on (38—02-20E38) Per Honbie $hri Dhirendra “ms: ra J. ‘ mm,m,W 9/0é OH4N9‘ W m Ei 2007/ . R9, anam$rfaai$ ammm mwm mm 1§ém $31ma11é¥r T A minai ameai is i a CYh n; mg” ag'cimsi éhe §uc§ament s3?“ canviction and order of sentence dated 24-1 2-2UG1 passed in $essions Trial N0.153/2U01 whereby the Jashpur has canvicied the appelie causing homicida! death of hi$ dagg‘hter Guddi, aged 10 momh impfisonment arid ta pay a fine 1S. £Case 0f the prosecmon Karmaram ’PW/2) were proceed peeiren‘i—Bigwerem, on ine w . leamed Adaitionai $eseione Judge mt under Sectian 302 of fhe LRC. for wife namely, Guiapi "Bai and his ; ane sentenced him t0 undergo life fma, additional RA. :‘or three mom} 3f Rs.500i—, in defauit of payment of n brief is ihat Ealu Ram (PWM) é? ng towards Village eanne they met e murdered his wife-Gulepi Bei an an axe at about 2.63 RM. clcsed ihe door ofnie house and \ After hearing tms Beirur' Kotwar and informed him as Ratanx’am. They an wenz'to the l' deer and saw ‘i‘ne eeed bediee ef appeilant) lying on the fleor‘ Thelr had received lnjairies eve; 2 or 3 Gazing. Eajruram lodged the re fact. ained‘ clothing and bioed stained \hed-sheet under the dead bodies were taken into possession vide He informed them tha he has . 10 monine oid eeughier Guddi with in n 3: During investigation, blood st home. He also stated that he hae vae going te Senna. am and Karmeiem. went to viliege also to 5annuram Jadeiem erd ouee of :he accused and eeened the Buiepi Bei and Guddi (daughter of the bodiee were cevered with cloih. They piaees on their head and biood also nort of EXP-1 mentioning the above anew-am (W) t \ -3/ Ex .f; mwe$t a ExkP-S 8: P- were memated ever ths pefscms m” ‘ deceased-Guiapi Bai & Gudéi, n1 weciiveky. Dead bodies were sent $1M" autopsy i0 Priman; Heai‘ih Cemye, Sarina where BL F. K§$povxa {PWIES} conducted postmortem arm geye his report vide ExsP-m & P41 pm of EXP-5 cf the agpeiiant, weapon Fof offence axe wa$ taken into u f ‘respectivew. On time memorand essessian Vide EXP-6. Biood stained llungi of the appenani was aisot ken into possessicn vide EXP-7. Piam ‘3Gi3 & blood stainami sci! from t e piace where dead bodie$ were §ying iwastteken into eossession vide xP-fr. i After corneieting investi etion, charge-sheet was fiied in the \ Court of Chief Judicial: Magi traie, Jashpur Nagar, who in tam committed the case to the Cou lsame was received on tranefer Sfor ts‘iai. Dunng tnai, proeecw‘ien examined 7 Witnesses in aii 2W} wee recerded under Section 313 ot‘ the meteriei appearing against him in the Fci innocenoe and false impiication. ering iearneci couneei for the reepeotive ii the appeiiant as mentioned in pare i of $e$sions Jndge, Regan, and ihe by £eamec§ Additionai Sessions Judge ‘therea‘i‘ier statement of accused Cr.P.C. in which he denied the pmeecu‘t’ion ease am meadé Ham/ever. the tnel Court aitef he parties, convieied and sentence of this judgment. Homicidal deaths of Gui dieeute. Even otherwise from ti‘ conducted postmortem over the his reports of Exs.P-1Q & P-ii i boi Bai & daughter (Guddi) are not in e eviaence of Dr. Kispotta (WM/5), who a persons of the deoeaeed and waved n wnieh he found foiiowing iniuries and C: WW,WE,W Q§ CA. #» Nv‘ 7/ué m m In 200» WW (W) mmfzwia; mumm WWW WW§WW awmm . C)‘#M hé m m Hi 2002’ mm (W) wwggm m m- mafzam ' WM§WW agaimm .—L1/ .x/ owned that cause cf death c4” Gufipi BaQ was coma am! shock as a resuit of fraciure of tempos'ai and occipii’ai bone and excessive weeding €ue to internai injury of chest exiema? injury and the death was homicidai in nature. CauSe ef eafh of daughter of Guiagi Bai wa3 épined as the death was coma and shock as a resuit‘bf fracture of from?! bone and bfun: injwy of _ nest hemorrhage and the same was hg‘m}o§dal in na‘iure, the homici a; deaths of Guiapi Bai & Guddi is i established. - ‘3 s The foilowing injuries wer found on the dead bodies of Guiapi 5a: &Gudq‘i. r ‘ V m Bai ‘uyies susmined kw deceaeed (Eugen? 1.. Leoerated wound o left forehearj 1 cm iatera! to eyebrow 2 x 1 x 1/2 cm (Horiz ntai) 2. Lacereted wound H‘t max§!iary {egion bebw ieft !aterai angie of eye horizo ? in the size of2 x 2 x ’i cm. Laceraied wound ir temporai region 4 cm from iefi ear above obiique 7 x 2 K 2 cm 4i Lacerated wound n temporai region above iei‘i ear. Dietance was 2 cm \i eriicai 5V2 x 4 x 2 om. 5. Lacerated wound on occipiiei region 5 x 2 x 2 cm horizonrai. 6. Lecerated wound 2 um posterior to right ear horizontai 2 x ixicm \ 7. Lacerated wound in eft ehouider obiique 3 x ’i x 1 cm 50. a d n a W 3am, WW, C/x, A. Na 2/cé m m 111 200x WW (WW) WWW WWW mm1iwm ayaimm Sanimias susjaénizai by deceased Gudcii 1. Contusion in ie?t side of cheek abiique 2 cm fmm ang§e of meuth 'i‘x “/z x V2 cm, 2i Red discoioration cf throat in right side and upper "/2 pan: in Ieft‘side. ‘ 3. ‘ Contusion in ieh side of chest obiique 5 x 1/2 om. Tongue xivgs p349. $ Learned Eounsei fer thg eyewitness to the incident ai circumstantiai evideace. The Cir: that: e the deceased nameiv, GU the appellant, as they are o The appeliant made extr (PW/1):, Karmaram (PW/2 (PW/4) and the dead b witnesses only after they were interment by the appeiiant. a Qn the memorandum of discovered from his house vide EX. P-6 and P-Y. Reierring to the stateme aepeiiam submits that there is no id the cenvictien is based on the umstences reiied by the triai Court are iapi Sai & Guddi resided togethet With- wife & daughter 0f the appeliant. a judiciai confessieh befote Baimram I): Jagturam (P\WJ3) and Bigwe Ureon adiee were discovered bx! the aeove the aeeeilant, biood steihed axe was 1t of Eajruram! it was argued that Bajwram (F’Wf’i) hae not suppmted the case of the prosecution and he has turned hostile and oniv on ieao‘ing questiens out by the a, I i mw,m,m W ma41aé W 2002’ mm (W) mmw mm f€ém WWW %Wm »g, Gwemmem Pmacja ihe f5 G? exwgmdmg aw‘kszmon “1% gee?! bmught in his eviaence. Simiiarhx, Karmaram has aisa stated in Drmed him abxmt the deaih of Guiapi gai gram (PWB) has admitted in his cross made exira judiciai conféssion befere the incident m the pciica atation and poiice d has k§iied his wife and daughier and naram told him the above fact. Bigwa gha‘z it is correct i0 5ay that Bajru:'arn and He police that the accused has murctered t a . , t . ‘abeve mtormatton wae given by Batrutam p3 further atgued that there is evidence :he ttme of incident, the aepetiant was J55, as ts evictent ttom the evidence 'et tam and Eigwa Utaon and in these ought to have extended the benefit ot’ the {P.C. Cm the othe¥ hand, §ea impugned judgmeni We have heard learr‘led counsei for the parties. We have gerused the record as aiso the it is not in dispute that of the appe§iant, they ail resid dead bodies sf Gmagi §Eai & paragraph 2 ihat pe‘nne had in? and her daughter. Even Jagh examination that the appenam wptice andvhe :eamt about the informed him ihat the accuse thereafter, Bajmram and Kan Ux‘aon (PWf4§ has: also stated Karmaram we‘re infmmed byt his Wife and daughter and the 3?: w; and Karmayam t0 him. avai!able en recei‘d, that at 'suffefing fmm mental sickne Bajwram, Karmaram, Jagiu civcum$tances, the triai cam Exception uncier Section 84 0f med cauneei tor the State suppetted the t impugned judgment. Sutapi Bai and Gudcti are wife & daughter ed together in the same house where the her daughtet were first ttme discovered by Q< ’L/‘l . C/\./~L~~w 7/56 W m m 200L Wm (W) ‘mmfaaia; Emmamia? WW WTW WWW I $aimm b’), J n Wémes3e$ $§ajmam Kafmaam, $§wa ’Uracm am Jaaatmm. A}: iche above fem witnesses were exal‘nined by the pmsecuiion ancz‘ they have categoricaily stated ihis fact theif examinaiion-in-chief that after receiving infarmation from the ppeISant they went to his house aiong with accused aad Kotwar of the viiiage and d§scovered th‘e dead bodies i ‘ef u Gulapi .: Bai and her ciaughter ng on the floor in injured cendition anti the bedies were covered with white sheet. Thereafter, they went to iodqe report in the poiice st tion. Above evidence has not been cha§enged bv the defence in th ir cross examination. it is true‘that Eejrurem, PWlt has not supported the case of {prosecution and he hes turn d hastile. it is aiso true that poiice meteonhei toid that Gwapi Bei her daughter are dead, however, the i ‘ebove admission of this witne is irretevaht and meahihgiess ane’ the ?seme is out of Context and in v ew of his statement in his examination- ‘ in-chtef no importance can b attached to such admission Simiiar statement has been made PWIZ in paragraph 5 of his cross— vexamihation, however,'these witnesses have not been questioned by the defence that the aepeiiht did not make any extra judicial confession betcte them befo they went to poiice station to iodge report and they iearnt about ti e incident oniy after they reached the police station and in absenc. of any specific suggestion to these witnesses regarding extra judi iai confession made by the appellant their stray admission, as reterr d above; is of no consequence and the same is of no help to the app iianti Moreover, his memorandum has \\ ‘ i d s b‘ r been recmdm‘ bv €he Pa§ise in lJagturam {PW/3). Beth the :pi'osecution on this count and have admitted their signatures ;& ‘ EXP—4 and inve5tigaiing Offi ?& seizure of Ex. P-3 and P-4 w i V f axe was, seized at the instam defence has aiso been taker examining Jagturam (PW/3) ti‘ Eillicit i'eiaiionship‘with Guiapi Ba ithe appeiiant for iQ to 15 day‘ ;cenvened and in the said eanci ii’iis Wife Guiapi’s honour was itherefore, they together kiiied ( Ehas been adduced by the def defence in his statement und Proeedure and in the absence the evidence against the apeeaant by way of extra judiciai confession cannot be brushed aside. Las y, it was argued that the appeiiant was sufferind from unsoundness i ihe presence e? Bigwa Ui'eon (i3W/4} & Witnesses have not supgaonied ihe inev have tumed hostiie, however, they n the memorandum & seizure of EXP-3 oer PWJ has proved the"memorandum wereby biood stained weapon of offence e of the aooeiiant from his house. A i by the appenant by way of cross- ‘at Naghiya & Narka'of the viilege hed i and because of this thev had confined ; in their house, a panchayat was aiso ayat the deceased had compiained that robed by the above two persons and Suiapi $ai. However. no such evidence ence not" tne appeiiant has taken this r Section 313 of the Code of Criminai of any positive evidence in this regard, f mind at the time of incident and therefore, he was not aware a out the consequences of the act which he has committed and therefor ., he was entitied for benefit of Section 84; of the i.P.C. However, fr m perusai of the statement of above witnesses, we observe that the e witnesses have oniy stated that once 0x9 Nv hL ' W m 'G'i 2001 Wm (W) WWW wnmmia; mwm r—g, WW‘§WW $afi=<mm W 3am, Wm, 6? .gi 200 awm few WWW 3mm (W) mmwi‘fg‘am mmqm the appeliant had géne mad a Ho’Wever, there i$ n0 evidena‘e a‘ \ incidént, the agpeliant was stjfem maiua'e €§1ai he wa$ iacagawg sf 9 v:ihat he i3 daing is wrwg or Ct cbmswered opiniori on tha basis apf3’éaant {S not antitied for any be: 1d at t§mes he becomes magi like. x'aiiabie an racord ihat at the time of *g from any menta: sickness of such a (newing ths nature of ihe act m’ that {ma’ary ‘ke iaw and theréfore, in Qur 3f evidence avai!ab!e 0n resora, the efé under $ecti0n 84 of the LPE. On the basis of afmesaid amaiysis, we are of the consia’efed cwed the case sgainst the appsHani re is no megamy or infirmiiy in the J Court axwd ihs appea! preferred by od and i% is accordi:1g¥y, dismissed. ry’ Sdk I T.P. Sharma Judge Opimog that the grosecution has bieyend ais r‘easoaabie dcums, in'jupugned judgmeht‘sf Qeamed trir th‘e apgeiiant is §iabie t9 be dismis- Sd/— " " DHIkENDRA MIsHRA Judge ym Q’‘. m , ‘