® BWBSItSMS.iWr ^^ \o6-i 1 1 t *• •*- W APPEAI. PRISONER lfc-".;3iT Bsn^(ufm|n3^ ^ ^ s', T. Afo- 2-•^8/^5 ••^ 3'S Namc TTO^ 9?TsfF ~2^@T ResidentJWX- •SSPK -s_o._ ^r^f- T^^?^- n -^<» / / t£f~f ^-ei/J1-^-/' r~~r i-2. T'- f • by. TTV7 e-?irar» GT?T^9T5,^ air~ Tff-CI b;. S\ri: sn^. air It is explained to the prisoner that if he.states or wishes to be represeated a legal practitioner the Appellate Court willnot proceed with the base for sn days unless the legal practitioner appears I! the lega! practitioner does not »ear withiriseven days he may be beard at all if tegal practitioner thg court y proceed at once with the ease and will not be obliged to give abearing to legal practitioner who should appear. f :3', of application forcopy ofJudgement:- t'J a ' Date ofwhich copy received ;- '2-.S • / • / 7 Date on which appeal sent :- v>~' . 1; •<? 7 ^i'heiher the prisoner wished to be represented or not :- "k:: & ^ Name 3c.i6juued i.n ~T~Sit'^rr_ Mc ••'"••° ,'tirJS2S^/ Dated Jail ^TSPT' &. Yes/^Io-' o ^^pffT GTSTE^m.- _^/2/<?7 1 7 ?,: warded to the CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ^Tc^TTTsST^T s< ther vith a copy of Judgement or order passed in.-t^e case for favour of st .siuission to the proper Applleate Court. Istt./Sub-Jail. E- !e of rcceipt m C. J. M. Office. ;'s >e of receipt of record to accompany. M mo of Appeal of the Appellate Court. _ dated_U_5_a^; -y. ?o. rvajded totbeJSS^S.t^^F-^Sf-S*!!^'^"^^ y£F^3^~' 'v:^ ;gifi;i5 sniiaiil e.ft. MAGtSTRATB 14{"-I !,,. 3ig ?e <5f recelpi in Apptieate C6Urt_ XI-HC-22 -s^ ^MM«I,'^tftwis, feway 3il&?iqil fg'iwsii^ 'BHwgfi'g ;B^Sf .SlT^ e+fli^T^^ =frt^t(rTif!TT HW^ ^ 'feTST Tf^f^ ^sipgqsir^i DMSION BENCH: HON'BtE SHRI L.C.BHADOO - & HON'^LE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, JJ CRIMINAL AP(?EAL N0.1067 of 1997 Appellant : 'T^itee Bhema Vs. -1 ..„ .. _. . Respondent : Sjtate of Madhya Pradesh ;slfSS:®!y Shri R.KJain, learned couns^l for the appellant. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia learned R.L. forthe respondent/State. Dhirendra Mishra. J ORALl JUDGMENT ff1.02.2006r The appellant has preferred jlhis appeal against the judgment dated 28.01.1997 passed by the learned ?essions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in S.T.No. 228/89 by which the learfied Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appellant guilty under SeiFtion 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing homicidal death of Tat| imprisonment for life. Budra sentenced him to undergo 2. Case of the prosecution is ttjat on 20.04.1^9 at aboyt 4.00 p.m. on the basis of information given by T^ti Ganga (PW-4) that in frie intervening night of 19/20.04.1989 appelfant ^hot an arrow at the backof deceased Tati Budra as a result ofwhich hejdied, the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.was registered against th^ accused/appellant. On the same day r'cft^^fe^ 1 XI-HC-22 ^sr '^rFii??'!. »Ti'i«'is,i^irey ^.C^A...)..Q.fe^ 311^1 qff fe'ira'sn^; wi'wflfi'i. 3ii^r'?IgiW6T?g rii^:^^^ •^^^JK^^ B:?^!{BI:!S3i 4)i^^^ -Eii<^' ^ f^T£jTf^^n: •^sri^rean^ merg intimation P-9 was registered jn policestatiori Kirandul, Bastar, on the basis of information given b^ Tati Ganga and thereafter First Information Report P-10 was registeijed forthe offence under Section 302 ofthe 1PC.. After registering the £a^einvestigatingofficer proceeded to the place of occurrence. InvestigE^ing officer conducted inquest after giving due notice to the witnesses ^nd submitted the report P-5. Dead body of Tati Budrawassent forp^st mortem axamination vide P-1 to Govt. Hospital, Kirandul, Bastar. Dj-. A.K.Singh (PW-7) condycted post mortem examination on the body df the deceased and submitted the report P-13. tn his report the doctor f^asopined that cause of death ofTati Budra was shock and comma due (o hypo volumia and extensive pain caused by arrow injury. He further o()ined that the death was homicidal in nature. Bloodstained clQthing of thejdeceased and arrowcausing injury were seized under P-2. Bloodstaine<|l soil and plain soil was seized under P-6. lUlemorandum ofthe accused P^7 was recorded and on thebasis of the inform^tion given bytheaccused the accused as well as an arrow wefe seized under P-8. Clothing ofthe dsceased and arrowso seized were bow by which the arrowwas shot by sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Afterj completingtheinvestigation charge sheet was filed in the Court ofJudici^l Magistrate First Class, Dantewada who in tum committed the case to th^ Court of Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur. Learned Sessions Judgejframed charge under Section 302 of the IPC against the accused/appeli&nt. Accused/appellant abjured the guilt. ! ^. ^ l^ ^ r^ ^iis^ ^; ;'~^- XI-HC-22 s'l^i'qn Se;:li?; 3)lt?I iCTN7'Hf??t l>«-« ^^ ^iraRTa, 's^FiS, kwiuy 3 ...C^..A.;...l..D. sn^i^iw^ftd '+wfo-sih •WRff4 fezt ^IW^R ^; srfiOT sn^i 3. Prosecution in order to estafelish its case examined in all seven witnesses. Statement of theaccus^d/aDpellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Crimin|al Procedure in which the appellant denied the circumstances appearin^ ag&inst him in the prosecution case and pleaded his innocence and falsegimplication in the case. 4. Homicidal death of Tati Budiia is not in dispute. Even otherwise form the statement of Dr. A.K.Singh PW-7) who has stated that deceased died because of shock and comm^ occurred due to hypo volumia and ^uj*. extensive pain caused due to arrowjinjury and the ^ea^ was homicidal in ^ nature and further from the perusal 4f statementof PW-3 Tati Bhema who has stated that the appellant shot ai^ arrow at ttie deceased on his back, the homicidal nature of death is estaNished. 5. ' The second question to be cejnsidered by this Court is w^iether the prosecution has been able t^ establish invotvement of the accused/appellant in the aforesaid cpence? To establish the involvement of the accused/appellant in the cri^ne in question theprosecution has examined Tati Bhema (PW-3) wh* had witnessed the incident. Tati Bhema in his statement has statecS that on the data of ihcident he \was retumingin the night with the decea^ed Tati Budra after grazing cattle and when they reached near the hous^ of accused/appellant, the appellant came out of his house carrying his jbow and shot an arrow wfth it on the backof the deceased as a result ofiwhich he fell down on the ground and then accused/appellant fled away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, Me narrated the incident to his father Tati Ganga PW-4 who •• / i • . [^^4 Xi-HC-22 ^si ^i]^i<<i4, 'S^TTO, f'fwm Vmwi y»w> r<- ^ca..^2..l.l^ sn^l^l {^iN'.in^t a?qN;^ifei aii^F'^giWtlitii ^)ra^<4tTi 'iTFq^Tif ^ f^Zi' ^f^R^H came to the spot ahd called other persons of the village. However, Tati Budra died on the spot. In the cros^ examination he has stated that in fact • they had gone to search some mis^ing cattle in the forest and when they were returningtogether, deceasedjwas going aheadof him and he was behind him and when they re^che^l near the house of the appellant, the deceased received an arrow inju^y on his back and when he turned backward, hesawthe appsllant runhing away carryjng bow and arrowswith 1 ~. .' /. ~.. ' . . him. He, however, deniedthe sug^estion that he did not seethe accused shooting arrow. Statement of this| witness is fluly corroborated by the evidence of his father Tati Ganga ^W-4 who has statedthat his son Tati Bhema came and informed him tha): accused had assaulted Tati Budra by arrow on his back and on his infoitnation he vrent to the spot and found Tati Budra in injured condition. He plso informed the incident to Tati Kosa and Tati Joga, the Sarpanch ofth^ village. However, when they reached the spot they found that Tati Buc^-a had died. Statement of RW-3 Tati Bhema is further corroborated bytlle evidence of Muiyaram PW-5 and Dr. A.K. Singh PW-7. PW-7 Dr.Sing{) hasstated in his evidence that on examination of the dead body he f^und one arrow injury on the rjght side ofvertebral bone admeasuring 1x1?2"in size and he found that the other injury in the size of 3.5 x 5' was |?n the horizontal point. Thus frpm the statements of PW-3, PW-5 and FJW-7 it is established that the injuries present over the person of the c|eceased were in fact caused by the accused andthe defenee has not bpen ableto elicit anything which makes the evidence ofthese witnesses un •eliable or untrustworthy. 1-. ;.? T^'^f?^^ 1 i^ue h.B;jte ^ uSj£jiifs&f ^. saiiih. hiT'l->ib'ia' .eapi.i&iiaai^UE ^_ '- .ifeKn.M^lte >£Bi^tej.'aiit^as. '&i^uzUa ia£ ^^J . 1 ' . . --' pue tue||gdde/p3snooe syi usa»ieqjaindsip Aue SE»sjeqi ieqi PSIE}S pu OS|B 3AB4 SSSS8U}l JSl|}0 91)1 •sBpplMOU^ siy jgd se luspioui syt sjoj.sq pesesoep eqi pue }UB]|3dde 941 usateisq isiienb ou sem ajaqi }BIJI psieis SB4 uajiisodep siq ^o S'ON qdejBejB^ ui euisijg ftBi £-ft/yse jsqiojq umo sii| j.o 4}esp sq} ssneo 0} SAROIU Au^ pey )UB||3dde 94}}eqijo pesesosp i ' • •. •• : . pue iUE||adde sq) ussAhieq Aijsouugue Aue sem 8jsi|i teijt psqsiiqeisa j }OU Sj 11 pJOOSJ UO souspiAS 941 aio^ IGMI psindsip iou os|e si }| •sjei)iojq | |BSJ 8ja»pesBBOsp si|} pue pesnoie QI)} )E4} stndsip ui iou si }| •6 i •pJOOSJ UO SOUSplAS j ' ' 94} pssnjsd pue ssived 841 JQJ. issjunoo psiuesi pjesq SAei( 8% '8 j •vnoo siyi 0104 aousjejjeiuj Aue ssjinbsj qoitiM ynoo |eu} si)} p luaiuBpnf peuBndilii e'qi ui A}!|BB9||i ou si sjsqt ssun[u! | SAoqe 94} j.o MSIA ui pue pssde||oa p^y Bun| ys\ sqi pue Bun| 14611 eiii JSAO punow Suiojsid punoj. SBI| jopop 9i|< uojiBUiujexe |euJ9iuiyo }e\^ siiuuqns ®}Bis/luepuodssj841 w^ issunoo Ipsiuesi puey jsqio aqi UQ ',;. i •pssesosp sq} pue iue||9dde 341 usswqsq AIIUIUS ou s^m sjsqi teyi pue lueiiedde/pssnaoB j ©4tj.o yed 941 uo yiesp sq} ssn^o 0} SM}OLU ou se/n sjeyi se Qc|| 34Uo 11-WS uoipss puoAsq |eAej}^u ssop pssnooe sqi (suieBe eousyo | eyi qons se pue psseeosp 9i|ilo >)jie,fl •s'j pBd |B(!A uoy &t)t uo pssneo sem Ajnfu) •jel|}o qoes yiw Aijsotui^e Aue peq Asqi IBI|} moqs o) pjooej uo souspiAe ou si 8jei|j. 'sjsiitojq |e^J silt eje pssesoap ei|i pue (UB||edde i eqt yevf^ Stiiuqns lueiiadde/pssnoaje SMI -i0! issunbo'psiuesi -9 •'g®l|g^B!ti3 iltf.fi' s^aitt.^u S^OK <t>^y lai.ttSite LA ~r i~^'j T y, Al-tlL--^^ •31Rff%i i t?::Ii«5'3T!t?I | isin^^^r j ws s^i: *ij-' •^WM-tf, ~S^K!T!3, 'f^RTRPF a< ^ sf 8 vf, ^£^...!.o.fc^/^2 b 37i^i?»tiRre'Bfer ^N?pft:t IWRI?'ii fe]3t ^ Slf^iT; .311^1; ~lne aeceased before the ~1ncldent| PW-7~Dr. Singh has -atso stated in paragraph No.6 of his cross exariiination that if the patient was given immediate medical treatment, he c<>uld be saved. y ' 10. • Thus considering the overajl evidence on reeordand the faet that only one arrow injury that too on (he back of the deceased was caused, we are ofthe opinion that the int^ntion to cause death of the deceased cannot be attributed tothe appellajnt though form the medical evidence it is established that the appellant h^d the knowledge that the injury which he was causing with the arrow cou|d cause death ofthe deceased. 11. In the resutt, appeal partly ^ucceeds. Conviction under section 302 of the IPC and resultant sentence|of imprisonment for tife imposed on the appellant are set aside. The appepant is convicted undier section 304-11 of thelPC and sentenced to under^o Rl for 10 years. It is stated that the appellant is in detention since |1 years and 7 months viitiich is not disputed by the counsel for the re cass. Sd/- L.G-Bhadoo Judge pondent /State ancl thus he has already. undergone the sentence im|3osed on him. Accordingly, the accused/appellant be set at liberjy forthwith if not required in any other Sd/-. Dhirendra Mishra Judge -. / [^ifig^