r'5 IM THE HIGH COUKI OF arIHATTISGARH JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, Cr....No.. ..-.-:/./.. .2001. ; Kannath .3/0 Sukalu Gond, aged 53 yrs. a/o Village Ghoda Jhar ?S. Keshkal, Bastar (C.G.) ; APPELLAJ'IT Versus RESPOHDENrt 3tate of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Kesh'kal; Distt Bastar CC.G.) ^ CQNVICTION-LIJTE IMi?RISC lSNT PINE - NIL CRIMINAL .WPEAL V/S. 374(2) CR.P.C. iSsijaCLasanev&a by the iud:;!emsrit dated 22.2.2001 ^ XI-HC-78 *11+1^11 !tl*1|ch 3^'^tT2TRTO, OTfl+1'IS, fs|cfl<H^< ..c^^.-^^^-.^^ 200 sn^wra^ ("^fg^ET) 3I1^T?iT)^lN> (raTsn^Tgiqra; i^ii.i!s^t=.flt; S;W^Sff; :J CTTCKHf^rsn^r DIVISION BENCH: - HON'BLE MR. L.C. BHADOO AND| HON'BLE MR. DHIRENDRA^MISi-lftA.JJ, 12-12-2006 Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, counsef Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Addition^l respondent. Oral judgment dictated on Da|is. PER L.C. BHADOO, J. qii<<Ici41-f '-iiiciTff te^f <[ai«i< ^3rf^q'3(1^T for the appetlant. Public Prosecutor for the State/ This appeal is directed again^t the judgment of conviction and order of sentsnce dated 22 February 20(jl1 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, in S.T. No.430/2000 \|i?hereby learned Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appellant guilty|for commission of offence under Section 302 ofthe I.P.C., sentenced him to i^ndergo imprisonment for life. The case of the prosecutioi|i, in brief, is that FW-1 Pardeshi Ram lodged a report (Ex.-P/1) in the P|oiice Station Keshkal to the effect that Mangau Bai, daughter-in-law of the accused came to his house and informed him that yesterday evening her f^ther-in-law Ramnath has attacked her brother-in-law Bannuram with a plestle.aaa He is lying in the house in lis, he went to the house of Ramnath, at unconscious condition. On hearing that time, Ramnath was not presen|l in the house, but his'son Bularam was present at the house. When he w^nt near the body of Bannuram, he was breathing. He called villagers. Wh^n they were preparing to take Bannuram to the hospital, Bannuram succumb^d to the injuries at about 8 a.m. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 qi<4Ml sh*licb 3^ •<ii'!<id<<, teTn+f'ie, fs|cliy^< ..^:.^.^]^ ^ 200 STl^TT^g? (c^fg^^) sn^r ^ir R-<i+ (PIT 3TIW sBTTO *sSt ?^((TWllf?a'3[I^T -^' ^rafeF'ft^ wpyff ir'te^ (^FRR ^isri^iTsn^T Receiving this report, Statio|n House OfRcer registered the crime for commission of offence under Setjtion 302 of the I.P.C., left for scene of occurrence, after giving notice E)l (Ex.-P/4) on the body of Bannuram| was seized under Ex.-P/S. Site pl^in Ex.-P/S was prepared. Plain soil and blood stained soil was taken into pc turn committed the case to the prosecution examined 6 witnesses) under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. .-P/3 to the Panchas, prepared inquest Towel of the accused stained with blood ssession under Ex.-P/S. The postmortem on the body of deceased Bannipram was conducted by Dr. Subhash Chandra Dubey (PW-6), he prepar^d postmortem report Ex.-P/12 and opined that cause of death was head injur^ After completion of investig^tion, charge sheet was filed against the accused in the Court of Judicial l^agistrate, 1 Class, Kondagaon, who in Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur where the Statement of the accused was recorded n which he denied prosecution evidence appearing against him and stated |hat at the time of incident he was n&t at his residence, he was in the house |of his daughter. Learned Sessions Judge afler hearing counsel for respective parties, convicted and sentenced the accusled as aforementioned. We have heard learned c record. Learned counsel for the acc t>unsel for the parties and perused the used/appellant has not disputed homicidal death of Bannuram. Apart from th^t, PW-2 Mago Bai, daughter-in-law of the accused and sister-in-law of the ^eceased, has stated that at the time of incident she was present in the hotise. The accused attacked the deceased with a pestle on his head, as a ijesult of which he sustained injuries and became unconscious. The abov^ ocuiar evidence is corroborated by the 1 P.T.O. L. XI-HC-78 qiq^n aifliqi 'sss -^ww^, s-^ww, fsiciiy^i ^..^:.A...l2-^ 200 3T1^?TiraW (yii^(siq<T) 3T[^T^)TRFIR; (Wsn^rgiiTN; '-^^'^s s^aTWBf^rsn^r —^— medical evidence of PW-6 Dr. Sub he conducted postmortem on the the centre of head in the size of 3" Ex.-P/12. As per the postmortem Therefore, it is established that nature. ^Rfepft^ wRff ir'fei^ tRrcerc ^SlRlITSn^T Sub|iash Chandra Dubey, who has stated that t)ody of the deceased. There was injury in |x 4" x 1". He prepared postmortem report report, frontal bone was found fractured. (teath of the deceased was homicidal in As far as invotvement of th^ concerned, PW-2 Mago Bai had wj and sister-in-law of the deceased accused attacked fhe deceased accused/appellant in crime in question is tnessed the incident, who is close reiative ofthe accused as well as the dece^sed being daughter-in-law ofthe accused She has categorically stated that the with a pestle on his head. In cross- examination of this witness, defence has not been able to elicit any circumstance which discredit the ^vidence of this witness and her presence in the house being close relative cannot be doubted. established. Therefore had attacked the deceased only o of both the accused and the deceased involvement of the accused is also Learned counsel for the ac|cused/appellant argued that the accused lice with pestle, therefore, offence against the accused does nottravel beyon^l Section 304 Part-11 ofthe I.P.C. On the other hand, leai|ned counsel for the State/respondent supported the judgment ofthe trial pourt. Having heard learned coifnsel for the parties, we have perused evidence. PW-2 Mago Bai has| incident at about 4 p.m. in the ev^ categorically stated that at thetime of ning Bannuram was consuming "Page (a liqwrmade ofrice)", the accused ^ias atso atthe house, she was working in Varandah, at that time, the accus|ed came with axe, when he lifted axe in P.T.O. XI-HC-78 MIH<^T gitTT^i S^ET'qFTRisr, OTti+ris, (s|cfiy^< __.C,Y^.'^'77ls/ ^ 200 3TT^T <<a<*> (lyf^s|<S'ff) 3T[^Tq5TRRR; OTTSTI^TgWR; vssES^isiy ' jarve -^ <^'9% T«^'-/ ^aTWflfefsn^HT ^ snallchect picke]d order to attack Bannuram, she snaV in the meantime, the accused deceased with that pestle on his down. She tried to lift Bannuram, talking. Blood started oozing out of is established thatthe accused w4i the first attempt, he attempted to was snatehed by his daughter-in-1^' deceased with that pestle on his which skuil bone was fractured an<l intention ofthe accused to cause d( WEIS Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge Wlfa^T WR?f ^'fe^t (fSlTZH ^aTf^Tan^r the axe and threw It out. However, up pestle lying nearby and attacked the •tead, as a result of which Bannuram feli Ibut he was not able to sit. He was not the injury. From the above evidence, it determined to finish the deceased. in ^ttack the deceased with axe, when axe ^w, he picked up pestle and attacked the i.e. vital part ofthe body, as a resuft of brain material was crushed. Therefore, sath of his own son was writ large. h^ad in the circumstances, ws c<o not find any substance in this appeal. There is no reason before us to tbke a different view from what has beeri taken by the trial Court. The ap|j>eal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissedand it is hereby dismiss^d. - — ~.—-——-- P.T.O.