WW,W,W Wm 1:1 200 WWW ammm maia‘am WMiwm amifarrm DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. T.F. $HARMA. J'J HON'BLE MR DHiiENDRA MI$HRA CRIMINAL AWEAL NO 870/2002 Mrs. Savi‘l’a Tiwari, Advocate f0 the appellant Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Addifiona! Publ c Prosecufor' for- fhe 5mm. Par! Dhimndrn Mishm .T- This criminal appeai is (13* February, zoos) rec‘red against me judgmem‘ of convicfion and order of sentence dated 7m August, 2002 passed by learned 2 nd Addifional sessions Judge, Am ikapur, Camp Cour? Ramanujgqnj in Sessions Tria! No.247/2001 whereby iearned Addifionai Sessions Judge has convicted The appeilanf under ecfion 302 of the IPC and senTenced him wi‘rh iife imprisonmen‘i' and fine Rs.100/-, in defauh‘ of paymem of fine To furfher undergo RE. for one m h. é Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that appellant Sohan went to the police sfafion on 11.3.2001 wif his nephew & ofhers and lodged a report \mag on 10.3.2001 he and his wi e had consumed liquor, at about 1.00 in the WW (W) i APPELLANT Sohan, 5/0 Tukun Bhuihar, aged-50 yrs, R/o (In jail) ’Jaraha ee, Dish‘. Sarguja Vs RESPGNDENT‘ Sfm‘e o CG. Presenf: Kama, m, W WaT W 'R‘L 200 mm (W) WWW "6mmW Wmm WWW nighT his wife fell on The frame of 1he door and susrained injuries and died. Ca fhe basis of above inform ri'ion, merg infimafion of Ex.P-11 was regisfered and The poiice proceedkd for fhe place of occurrence. Inquest over- ihe person of The deceased was prepared vide EXP-10. Dead body was senf/ for aufopsy To Community lTh Cen‘h‘e, Bairampur where Dr. N.K. Duffa (PW-1) conducted posfmorf m and gave his repor‘r of Ex.P-1. Affer merg enquiry, offence under 5e ion 302 of The IPC was registered on 12.3.2001. On the memorandum f ‘the appellam‘ of EXP-4 weapon of offence, club was faken in‘to poss ssion vide EXP-5 and The same was senT for examinaTion To Dr. N.K DuTT (PW-1), who vide his reporT of EXP-2 inTimaTed Tha‘t The injury pres over The face of The deceased was possible by The club in quesTion. oT map of Ex.P-3 was goT prepared by Halka PaTwari. Sealed packeT co aining blood stained wearing apparels of The deceased was Taken inTo posse sion vide EXP-7. STa‘tion House Officer prepared siTe plan of The place incidenT vide EXP-14. ArTicles seized during inves‘l'igaTion including weari g apparels of The deceased and weapon of offence, club were sent for c emical examinaTion To Forensic Science LaboraTory, Sagar and The report of FSL is EXP-19, according To which blood was found on The club seized rom The appellanT. AfTer completing invesTigaTi n, charge sheeT was filed againsT The A appellanT herein in 'the CourT of Ju icial MagisTraTe 1“ Class, Ramanujgonj, who in Turn commifted The case To learned Sessions Judge, Ambikapur and a e p o war W 1a 200 WW,W,W Wm (13W) WWW ammm WWW mamiwm amff‘emm N2, The same was received by l ed Addi‘rioml Sessions Judge on Transfer for Trial. During Trial, 1'he p csecu‘i'ion examined eigh‘r witnesses in ail. Thereaffer, sfa‘remen‘l' of ap ellan‘r was recorded in which he denied The evidence appearing againsT m in The prosecuTian case and pleaded innocence and false implicaTio However, learned AddiTional Sessions Judge afTer hearing argumenTs learned counsel for respecTive par-Ties, convicTed & senTenced The app llanT, as aforemenTioned. Learned counsel for Th appellam‘ submiTs ThaT The appellanT himself gave merg inTimaTion inTimaT ng The circumsfance under which his wife deceased Fudneva Bai susTa head injuries, as she fall on The frame of The door. in a drunken condiTi n. His version also finds supporT from The evidence of Jokhan (PW-4) so of The deceased, who has also sTaTed ThaT he saw her lying on The floor f om head side and blood was oozing from her head. Dr. N.K. DuTTa (PW-1) h s also admiTTed in Para-10 of his examinaTion That even injuries could be c sed by forceful fall over The frame of The door and Therefore, The findin of The Trial courT ThaT deaTh of Fudneva Bai was homicidal in naTure is co rary To The evidence available on record and The prosecuTion has failed To rove homicidal deaTh of The deceased. She furTher submiTs ThaT There is o direcT or circumsTanTial evidence regarding The involvemenT of The appel nT in The crime in quesTion and The courT below oughT To have exTended he benefiT of doubT To The appellanT. e m i o i d w iS; On ‘rhe oTher hand, learn‘ad counsel for The Sfa‘l'e supporting fhe impugned judgmem' argued fha‘l' Lonvic‘rion of The appeHanT is based on The circumsfamiai evidence and ‘l'he ircumsfances presen'r in The instant“ case are Thai The appellanT and The d ceased are husband & wife and They were residing TogeTher in The house rom where dead body of deceased was found: The expianaTion given by he appellanT abouT The deaTh of his wife sTands falsified from The posTmo em report which has been proved by Dr. also gave faise explannTion To his son Jokhan (PW-4) ThaT The decease died due To fall on The frame of The door; and on The basis of The memor dum of The appelIanT weapon of offence club of Sarai wood was seized, T e same was senT for chemical examinaTion and FSL reporT confirms The nce of blood over The weapon of offence, Though amounf of blood presenT as insufficienT for serological analysis. We have heard learned co nsel for The parTies. We have perused The record as also The impugned judg enT. We propose To consider he firsT argumenT advanced by learned counsel for The appellanT Thar de h of The deceased was accidenTal and noT homicidal as held by The Trial co . ce of Dr. N.K. DuTTa (PW-1), who has ‘condu'cTed The posTmorTem and oTiced following injuries, we observe ThaT The deceased susTained Three inear abrasions over upper parT of The i sTomach —l\H and one abrasion over u From perusal of The evi righT cheek. She also susTained various r p e n waT W 'Gi 200 Wm (13W) WWW ammm WWW WW %@W $§mm ,bc/ k WW, Wig, W confusions on her righ‘l’ & {eff near Ieff eye and eyebrow. Dr. coma due To cerebra! haemorrhl The deu‘l‘h was homicidal in na‘h were sufficiem‘ To cause deaf examination he has surfed The deceased had consumed liquor presenT over The head could n T be caused by fail Though he has again sTaTed ThaT if a person fall forc fully over The frame of The door from head side such injuries could be cau d. On re-examinaTlon by The prosecuTion, he has clarified ThaT all The :heeks and one iacera‘red wound over head Dmfa has opined fha’r cause of deafh was Ige on accoun‘i' of injury over The head and ire, as The injuries presenT over The head 1 in The ordinary course. In The cross- T he did noT find any sympTom ThaT The d he has caTegoricoiiy opined ThaT injury deceased could noT be caused by injuries presenT over The person of The The injuries noTiced by Dr . N.K. DuTTa (PW-1) are as under:- 3 linear abrasion over The sTomach of size 3" long To 2%" long. ' cheek of size 1cm long. CloTTed blood was Abrasion over righi presenT. MulTiple small conTL sions over righT cheek. Diffused conTusion LaceraTed wound o‘ 1n size 1" X x SUPI‘OUN All The injuries are On dissecTion of sc cloTs present fall. over lefT cheek. Ier lefT side of forehead near eyebrow of ded by diffused swelling. anTimorTem in naTure. alp, below chin on IefT parieTal region blood WW 'FFL 209 W m (W) mmiéafen ammm Wee-vim _§, mWf‘wm aminrqanan V Since we have already hel that explanation offered by the appellant about the death of his wife is f Ise and death of Fudneva Bai was homicidal in nature, following circumstan es present in the instant case leads to irresistibie conclusion about the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question:- rt' The appeilant and he deceased were together in their house in the intervening n ght of 10*“ & 11m March, 2001. @ W mu....n.n; Hi 200 anaw m (W) awgaqg ' w W a“ “f3“m mm ..@m $ am 3m _ “é ’/ Apar’f from The above inion given by The doctor, looking jl'o the number of injuries sustained by the deceased on various parts of the body Le. stomach, both cheeks and h ad, the defence of the appellant that the deceased died because she fa" n the frame of the door from the head side appears to be faise explanatio . The appeiiant in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has taken defence that the injury present over the head of the deceased was caus d as she coliided against the frame of the door. Apart from lodging the m rg intimation of EXP-11, when Jokhan (PW- 4), son of the deceased, enqui about his mother from him, then also the appellant gave false explanation that she died because of injury sustained by her from her collusion with t e frame of the door. Therefore, in view of a ove, it is established that the death of Fudneva Bai was homicidal in nat re. W3? 3%a:maR$m§£ HW@ WWW ammm mmm 7/ WW ’@W Qa‘affcmm {e The appeHarrr gave Jokhan (PW-) fho‘r by her! as she col condition. ‘3 On fhe memorandur was seized and acc posiTive for presence of The biood. .Oa Expicmafion offere. Fudneva Bai was fais . Dr. N.K. DuTTa (PW-L). In The result, The appeal filed by The appellanT has no subsTance, The d iT is accordingly dismissed. ‘ i T. P. Sham” Judge same deserves To be dismissed an Sd/— Dhirendra Mishra ' Judge merg infimoi'ion as also informed his son Fudneva Bai died due To injuries sustained ided wifh frame of The door in drunken n of The appeIIanT weapon of offence ciub ording To F5L reporT seized club Tesi'ed i by The appeilonT regarding deaTh of :e as per- her posTmorTem reporT proved by / Sdl- l i l i m€$ m wt 200 mm (W)