CFO (inMmumygw 3m; gulch (€Hzzm ‘ ; 3'1 1's” ,- Father's Name Age‘_ 4S” V Sentenced (t ’ V‘25 far 2km? ’ y. _ ' maderwg-zctmn au An v ‘ r ‘?r%;}lm x” " I ‘WW . ’ V x: y ,.,"‘ $ m I. -s‘~._." " Lvishes iéourt will‘ to If:’be‘nepxfesente’d is no'téplrOceedjM \expl’a‘inéd té by t‘%?pr?§o§fi{§4 alegal‘,p;actitioner h baz‘eiwfwer ‘matxim seven',;djay§ hestgm the unleis Ap':ellate or ‘thev-legal does not aear pyactitigner tin appe s‘ s If the lwbe legal heard practitioner at all 1f to be represented by d o heaii" t ‘tioner who should appear. t _ . gve a"’'irg repgegmgn to iany .légal the practi- case 1. Date of applicatio‘n;}‘§)fr+e.9;;y of: LJliiée’méznt g- M9 ‘ Date of Which copy receive ‘V ¢1~H %’9L 3. Date on which AppeéiVs'enti‘gSk' [$._ 9pykLyw" whether the prisoner wished to be represented orihpt, V \ . No. 1311i 3K” Name W 3P W .- Continued int's’vt‘g/W ‘43 2’1 ,g/i’g‘aiL 3‘ t V @ . Np. f78 t I/W l/9K oatedL/.577’7/¥ i3§0rwafded tp’ the mperintendept—€§§f§i¥@a “”5 ’ vww3é Date of receipt 1n c.J.M's Office. Date of receipt of record tor accomparfy. Memo of peal Of the .Appelli ate Court.” No m “WWW oat ed ’ Forwarde to the m gg Qa C. J. Magis traggg .Jggrgy; a gte _ {or rec eipti N0 o, ‘ V V V g th te ; - . pp with ‘ ev,’ a gay hemay ’ ‘ . ' ’ ' d ‘1 A r ’ ,_ It 3 il 1:, u o m ‘ M HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Griminal Amt! No. 539] 1993 Malia Mm'ia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) Comm :- Ho'n’ble 8hr! Fakhruddln & Hon’ble shtl Dilip Raosnheb Dahmukh, JJ. W men coum or cm'mm g: ngmwg L Griminal Agpeal No. 539/ 1993 Malla Muria I Vs. Stats of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhafti‘garh) Comm :- Hon’ble hri Fakhruddin a Hon’ble shri Dilip Raonheb Deshmukh. JJ. Present :- Shn' Akhil Mishra, Counscl for the appellant. Shri U.N.S.Deo, Govt. Advocate/Addiu'onal Public Prosecutor with M.P.S.Bhah’a, Panel Lawyer for the State. JUDGMENT ‘ (Denvered on 29-O9—20_02§) Per Dinp‘Raoisaheb Deshmukh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 24-08-1992 delivered by Shn' T.c. Yadu‘, Fimt Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No. 316/ 1991 whemby the appellant was convicted for the on‘ence punishable under section-302 of I.P.C. for committing murder of his Wife Mangli on 25-08-1991 and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. Brieily stated the prosecution stoty is that on 25-08- 1991 the appellant returned home nom his iield at about 12 noon and asked for food nom his wife Mangli. Mangli told him that since she was not feeling well, she did not prepaie the food. This annoyed the appellant.‘ The appellant assaulted Mangli by a club seveml times on the head and the chest. Mangli succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Soma PW—2 younger bmther of the appellant, lodged thc First information report in Police Statm'n—Suk‘ma on 26-08—1991 at about 9 P.M. vide Ex.P-1. Kushal Singh Chauhan, Head Constable PW—4 reached the spot and pmpamd inquest videEx.P-5. The dead body of Mam was sent’for posmlorwm. Dr. Devendra Krishan PW—6 conducted the postmortem and found that there was a contusion on right parieto occipital reg'on 3” x 2" in size semi—circular in size, shape and maxw'n. There was reddishness on the left side of chest. Upon internal examinanon, he found that 3xd an 4th n‘bs of left side of chest were h‘acturcd. There was an eEusion of blood on the surface of the brain. He opined that the injuries were ante mortem and cause of death was due to head injuxy and shock. Death was homicidal in nature. One club was r seized Vide Ex.P-3 on the memorandum of the appellant Ex.P—2. After completion of investigan'on, the appellant was prosecuted under section-302 of the I.P.C. The appellant abjured the guilt. The prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses. The Trial Judge relying upon the evidence of Raju Muria P’W-l, Soma PW-2, Raghuram PW-3 relating to extra judicial confession made by the appellant in Panchayat and the evidence of Dr. Devendra Krishan PW—6 convicted the accused- appellant under section-302 of the I.P.C. for commith'ng murder of Mangli. .. Shri Akhil Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant contended that the evidence led by the prosecution relah‘ng to extra judicial confession made by the appellant is not reliable. He has also argued in the alternative that the appellant did not have the motive to kill Mangli. Since the appellant was hwy and Mangli had not prepared the food for him, the appellant had upon a sudden annoyance inmcted the injuries on Manglii He also contended that considering the nature of injun'es sustained by Mangli, in the mts and circumstances of the case the appellant could, at the most be found guilty for an o§ence under secu‘on-304 Part—II of the I.P.C., since the mquisite inteniion to cause death of Mangli was lacking. 0n the other hand, learned counsel vfor the State Shri U.N.S.Deo argued in support of the impugned judgnent. 1A We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record of Sessions Trial No. 316/ 1991. As held in Guru gal; Vs. State of Rgsthan (2001) 2 SCC-205 extra judicial confession, if voluntary, being not obtained, by coercion, inducement or promise of favour can form sole basis for convicu'on. Applying the law laid- down by the Hon’ble Apex Court to the kets of the present case we find that Raju Muria PW-l, Soma PW-2, Raghnram PW-3 have testihed that in the Panchayat held on the same day, the appellant had made an extra judicial confession and stated that he had killed Mangli by assault'ng her by a Club since she did not give him food on being asked and said that she had not prepamd the food. We have gone through the evidence of the abovementioned witnesses and hnd that it is consistent, reliable and inspires conndence. There is nothing in cross-examination to infer that the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant was not voluntary or was obtained by coercion, inducement or promise of favour. Dr. Devendra Krishan PW—6 has proved the injuries sustained by Mangli menh’oned ‘by 118 in paragraph 3 supra. So far as the‘head injury sustained by Mangli is concerned there was no nacture nndemeath. Mangli had sustained hacture‘ of 3rd 85 4th rib on the left L / side of chest. It appears that the appellant who had “ w retumed after working mm the &1d in the afternoon was hungry and suddenly got annoyed when Mangli tok‘l him L' that due to illness she had not pmpared food for him and innicted the abovementioned injuries on Mangli. Considering the facts and cimnmstances of the case, the manner in and body parts on which the injuries were caused by the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the requisite intention for causing the death of Mangli could not be attributed to the appellant in this case, though the requisite knowledge that by causing the abovemenu'oned injuries the appellant was likely to cause the death of Mangli could be atuibuted to the appellant. Considering the evidence led by the prosecun‘on in its entirety and taking a dispassionate View we axe of the considered opinion that ohence committed by the ~ appellant does not travel beyond section-304 part-II of the I.P.C. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under sec1ion-302 of the l.P.C. and is instead convicted under section-304 Part-II 0f the I.P.C. and sentenced to Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The appellant is in jail since 29-08— 199i i.e. for a period over 14 years. Since the appellant has undergone the sentence awarded, we direct that the appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other ., In the end, we appreciate the valuable assismnce rendered by Shri Akhil Mishra appearing on behalf of the accused appellant under legal a1d Dll|p Raosaheb Deshmukh Fakhruddm ““7. Judge .6v Judge Sdl- / 3" W “H H ‘ ru Sd/- "‘ '[i i lq -09 2005 T / .