HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) . Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 2001 APPELLANT Kutta S/o Amasu VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh Ms. Nirupama Bajpai Counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava PL for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2! OF THE CODE OF \ CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. J U D G M E N T (31.03.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.12.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge; Jagdalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 280/2000 convicting the accused/appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 304 7(1) and 307 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay fine of Rs. 1000 u/s 304K513. and rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500 u/s 307 IPC plus default stipulations. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 20.6.2000 FIR Ex. P-1v was lodged by complainant Rupai Bai (PW-1) wife of the deceased Sahdeo that on account of tamarindrtree there used to be frequent disputes between the accused/appellant and her husband. On the date of incident when her husband Sahdeo had gone to the} house of the accused/appellant, he assaulted him with the axe thrice as a result of which he died on the spot. lt is also alleged by the complainant that she was also assaulted by the accused/appellant on her head with the blunt side of the axe. After investigation the challan was filed and the accused/appellant was prosecuted under Section 302 for causing the death of Sahdev and under Section 307 IPC for causing injuries to the complainant. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined ’06 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he. denied the charges levelled v2 _ against him ahd pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted the accused/appellant of the offence under Section 302 IPC but convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Section 304-I 'IPC for causing the death of husband of the complainant and under Section 307 for causing injuries to the complainant herself. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Letter 'dated 19.12.2009 received from Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Jagdalpur reflects that after undergoing the sentence imposed on him, the appellant has been released from jail on 9.5.2005. However, counsel for the appellant submits that she would like to argue the case on merits as regards conviction part of the impugned judgment. 7. According to the counsel for the appellant, present is a case here the deceased himself had entered the house of the accused/appellant and assaulted his wife and then in order to save his wife, the accused/appellant caused some injuries to him but unfortunately he succumbed to the same. She submits that injury sustained by complainant Rupai Bai was caused by the accused/appellant in exercise of the right of private defence which is clear from the fact that the accused had used blunt side of the axe in so doing. 8. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/Statesupports the judgment impugned and submits that apart from complainant Rupai Bai there are other witnesses also such as wife and son of the accused/appellant. himself namely Mugai (PW-4) and Goncha (PW-2) respectively and Dr. A.D. More (PW-5) and looking to their statements, the nndings recorded by the Court below appear to be / just and reasonable and do not warrant any interference in this appeal. 9. Rupai Bai (PW-1) —’ the wife of~the deceased has categorically stated that on the date of incident there was some dispute between w éiy ._3_ the accused/appeHant and her husband on account of some tamarind tree and when she went to the house of the accused/appeltant she saw him assaulting her husband with axe. When she tried to intervene, she was aiso assaulted by the accused/appeiiant on her head with the blunt side of the axe. She further stated that on account of the injuries, three in number, her husband died on the spot itself. ln cross examination also, this witneSs has not'stated anything new and remained firm to her statement made in the examination-in-chief. Goncha (PW-2) — son of the accused/appellant to whom the entire incident was narrated by Rupai Bai herself immediately after the incident, has categorically stated that there used to be dispute between the accused/appellant and the deceased. Betti Sahdeo (PW-3) is the witness of Panchayat who has stated that in the Panchayat the accused/appellant had admitted his guilt. Mugai (PW-4) the wife of the accused/appellant has categorically stated in her evidence that accused/appellant had caused injuries to the deceased. She has however stated that first the deceased had entered her house and started assaulting her and then the accused/appellant also assaulted him. Dr. A.D. More (PW- 5) who had conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased has found as many as six injuries on the vital parts of his body. Harinandan Singh (PW-6) is the investigating officer and he too has supported the case of the prosecution. 10. Thus from the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the injuries inflicted on the vital parts of the deceased, findings recorded by the trial Court convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant being well reasoned ones, do not call for any interference in the judgment impugned. 11. Appeal thus does not appear to have any substance in it. It is accordingly dismissed. Sdi- . PritinkEr Diwak.er r ‘ Judge i J‘ m“ W 35 ’ ;