SHOBHIRAM MANDAVI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Sec. 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the impugned judgment dtd. 27/02/2021 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kanker, District North Bastar, Kanker, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.30/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Sec. 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000.00, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional R.I. for 3 months.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief, is that on 17/09/2019 an FIR was lodged by one Uttamram Yadav vide Ex. P/8 that on 17/09/2019 while he was coming after grazing the cattle at that time,the appellant/accused was hurling different abuses to his father Jeevanlal on various counts. At that juncture his mother Jainbai and his wife Panchbati went near the house of the appellant to advise him to stop abusing. On being interrupted by Jainbai, the appellant ran back to his house came back with a spade and assaulted the deceased Jainbai and gave a blow on her neck and back. Due to such blow she fell down to the ground. Subsequently, the deceased was subjected to postmortem wherein the cause of death was shown as excessive hemorrhage due to injury inflicted on the body of the deceased and excessive bleeding. The postmortem suggested that death was homicidal in nature. The police recorded the various statements and the trial Court primarily relied on the statement of eyewitness Panchbai Yadav (PW-2) and convicted the accused as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the eye witness Panchbai Yadav (PW-2) is the relative of the deceased and she is an interested witness and the documents which are exhibited would show that the incident happened in a spur of moment and there was no intention to kill also it was not a premeditated. Learned counsel would place his reliance in the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh Versus State of Haryana {(2009) 15 SCC 635} and would submit that in the similar nature of incident the sentence was converted to under Sec. 304-II IPC, therefore, in the instant case, the similar treatment is required to be meted out by interfering in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.