© ^e^^WvW, ®T{ly'i(S p|(?41+l^ ^Wvt\ *^|cb W^ 200 ss^ ^ra^ (ijci^ijiir) GRPRJ— FS/24&—2/2007— 50.000.' 311^1.W Rl-li* WTSfl^r ^qR? WITW ^Tf^l 311^1, <=hi<f[^<i1TT im^ff ^f ^^t ^R^n ^ sffOT SIT^I CRIMINAL tPPEAL N0.1055/2000 APPELLANT Ka! (In Jail) agi AAe re' Ba; Vs SPON&ENT The faruram son of Baishakhu Lohar, jd about 40 yeors, resident of ^•guda-para, Jagdalpur, at present jiding at Sargipalparo, Kondagaon, ttar, Distt. Bastar (M.P) State of Madhya Pradesh, Through fce Station Kondagaon, Distt, Bastar te for the appellant. ?or the respondent-State. JU &6 ME NT Poiii (AA.f Present: Miss Shannila Singhai, Advocc^ M.r. N.K. AAehta, Panel Lawyer OR ALl (301 Perbhirendra Mishra. J: August, 2007) Heard. This appealunder Sec^i the judgmentof conviction m^ 2000 passed in Sessions ^dditional Sessions Judge, Jc|; Section 304 CII) ofthe IPC years and to pay a fine of R^ furt-her undergo R.I, for 1 ye4i ion 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against order of sentence dated 17*^ February, 'rial No.124/99 whereby ieorned 2nd jdalpur has cqnvicted the appel!ant under ind sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 1( .500/-, in defautt of payment of fine to < ^' 3^?T '^ww-tf, ^xfly'KS, Ricil'M^ 'W^IT *MI* --•-••- •—•-••••• •••--•-••••^ 200 av^v 'V^K (Tpf^?a) sn^i.'w h-w'fi wnsii^r shii<* TOIRR ^lto Sil^I =niilci<i1l iiii!if'iffttzt<r3iyi< ^r STRTET sn^r The allegnf-ion against t|ie appeliant is that on 19.1.1999 at about 5.00 p.m. he assauh'ed deceas^d Budhram with a burning iog ovsr his head as a resuh- of which he difed on 26.1.1999. Convict-ion of the appeljant is based on the statements of eye- witnesses namety Smt. Anupa^na (PW-3), Panchram (PW-5) & Manish Shrivastava (PW-8) as also on|the statement of Dr. R.K. Singh (PW-1), who examined the injured on 1R.1.1999 and gave injury report of Ex.P-1. This witness has stated that ^eceased Budhram was brought to him in on unconsciouscondition. The^ sku!! bone of Budhram was depressed, however, there was no bleedin^ and he had advised fpr X-ray. Budhram was hospitalized and he died ^in 26.1.1999 ot about 5.30 p.m. His dying deciaration could not be recorfcled, as he was unconscious and was not in a fit condition to give the s^crt'ement. After his death he conduet'ed postmortem examination orj his body and in the postmortem examination he found thfflt pd'ietal & occipital bones were depressed, however, he did not observe a(iy bony injury. Afl-er opening ofthe skutt he found clotted blood ben^oth parietal & occipital region and the above injuries were depress^d. The deceased died because of the depressed bone of parietcjl & occipital region due to interna! haemorrhage and his death wcjs homicidal in nnture. Smt. Anupama (PW-3), i((ho is the eyewitness of the incident, has stated that on the date of in^ident she was returning from duty in the GRPRJ — FS/24&—2/2007— 50.000. XI-HC—78 3rcT •^l^lci^, anfl+l'Ko, [ejc'iiyy 3i1$?[ ?il i^iR? 'cTSTT SrH^T sh-iiqft an^?rwi% (ipf^g^i: ^grw ^ifei 3H^i sttri-ed statenlent evidelnee svsTiiny^ un nsuf-iny ine curi] the appetlant assaulting Bud| Sudhram sustained injurie^ separoted the two. teanisi^ police. She has further them, Kaharu also assau| corroboroted by the the appellont assaulting tl^ AAanish Shrivastava ffW-8). | Thus, from the of the appellant in crime in Learned counsel for consideration the fact thntl the deceased and further c< week of the incident 'm tl cannot be attributed to against the appeltant does On the other hnnd, the impugnedjudgment, I have heard learned Argument advanced be occepted, as the appellai '^i^id-iTI'l 414<^f '^,tS1^ <f<^l< ^; 3ifa*r 3D^f riutiun Shc fci.inie uuS u| her ^sou^s Qnd SflW iram with a burning log as a result of which over his person. She went there and also came there and he telephoned the that whife she was trying to separcrt'e hed her once. Her stcEtement is duly ent of Panchram (PW-5), who has atso seen deceased as also by the statement of of above eyewitnesses the involvement tuestion is established. the appellant argued that takmg into |there was no bony injury over the sku't of ^nsidering that the deceased died after one le hospital, the intention to cause death Ifie appeltant and therefore, the offence n^t travel beyond Section 324 oft.he IPC. jarned Pane! Lawyer for the State supports ):ounse! for the pari'ies. (y learned counse! for the appellant cannot ^t caused injuries by a burning !og oveFlhe XI-HC—78 3rcT ^i^i^," oTfly'Ko, Ric''i'yy ^ sn^r^iifs'iw 'cTSH' 317^¥T %i*i!ch an^w ^RTO (' 'pEgiWBfer sn^r head of the deceased aj depressed bone injuries res[ which the deceased died o| opinion of this Courl- the tr| infirmity in convict-ing and s| II of the IPC. However, ta( injail since 20.1.1999 and asj months of jail sentence, justice will be served if 304-11 of the IPC, the ja| reduced to the period alreac^ In the r-esult, the a( appellant under Section sentence imposed upon him jail sentence aiready foM-hwith, ifnot required in this 304II undergbne qmferiN iimai•if.fs^t'?^5R ^?3ifiFI3Tlt?I a result of which deceased sustained liting in inter-na! haemorrhage as a resufr of 26.1,1999. Therefore, in the considered |al court' has not commitf'ed any illegatity or intencing the appellant under Secl-ion 304- ^ing irrto considercrt-ion that the appetlant is such he has already compteted 8 years &8 L|iis Court is of the opinion that ends of |e maintaining the conviction under Section sentence imposed upon the appellant is jy undergone by him. peal is partly allouved. Conviction of the fl-II of the IPC is maintained, however, the LJna'er thdt sec+ion is hereby reduced to the by him. The appeltant be set at tiberty any other case.