AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Conviction,Sentence
Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,"Imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs.200, in default of
payment thereof, rigorous imprisonment for 1 month
Under Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna
Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005","Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.200, in
default of payment thereof, rigorous imprisonment for 1
month
Under Section 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna
Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005","Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.200, in
default of payment thereof, rigorous imprisonment for 1
month
Eyewitnesses Ku. Maya Netam (PW6) and Parmeshwari Netam (PW7) deposed that at the time of incident, they were present along with",
deceased Sumitrabai Netam. At that time, the Appellant came and dragged the deceased out of their house to near his house. Phoolbai (PW15),",
daughter-in-law of the deceased also corroborated the above statement of the two eyewitnesses. According to the statement of Ku. Maya Netam,
(PW6), at that time, the Appellant, saying to the deceased that she used to commit witchcraft, dragged her out. In paragraph 4 of her cross-",
examination, this witness further stated that the Appellant and his family members used to allege that the deceased used to commit witchcraft.",
According to the statements of Ku. Maya Netam (PW6), Parmeshwari Netam (PW7) and Phoolbai (PW15), the Appellant dragged the deceased to",
near his house and there he assaulted her by a big stone. Though Phoolbai (PW15) admitted that she did not witness the marpeet, she remained firm",
on the point that it was seen by her that the Appellant dragged the deceased to near his house. Ku. Maya Netam (PW6) and Parmeshwari Netam,
(PW7) categorically deposed that the Appellant, after dragging the deceased to near his house, assaulted her there on her head by a stone. On this",
point, both these witnesses remained firm during their cross-examination. Though they are grand daughters of the deceased, their statements cannot",
be disbelieved only on this ground.,
On the basis of the disclosure statement (Ex.P14) of the Appellant, 1 big stone weighing about 12 kgs. was seized from the Appellant vide Ex.P15.",
According to the Forensic Science Laboratory Report (Ex.P21), human blood stains were found on that stone. How human blood stains were found",
on that stone has not been explained by the Appellant.,
On a minute examination of the above evidence, it is clear that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. From the statements of Ku.",
Maya Netam (PW6), Parmeshwari Netam (PW7) and Phoolbai (PW15), it is well established that the Appellant dragged the deceased out of her",
house and took her to near his house. As stated by Ku. Maya Netam (PW6), the Appellant, saying to the deceased that she committed witchcraft,",
dragged her to near his house. From the statements of Ku. Maya Netam (PW6) and Parmeshwari Netam (PW7), it is also established that after",
dragging the deceased to near his house, the Appellant assaulted on her head by a big stone weighing about 12 kgs. and thereby killed her.",
Taking into consideration the fact that the weapon of assault was a big stone weighing about 12 kgs. and the target area of the assault by the stone,
was the head of the deceased, it is well established that the intention of the Appellant was to commit her murder. Therefore, in our considered view,",
the finding of the Trial Court is based upon the evidence available on record and the Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant for the offence,
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.,
As regards the offence committed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005, in her Court statement,",
Ku. Maya Netam (PW6) categorically deposed that at the time of incident, the Appellant, saying that the deceased used to commit witchcraft, came",
to their house and dragged her out of the house. Again in paragraph 4 of her cross-examination, she further deposed that whenever any villager fell ill,",
the Appellant and his family members blamed the deceased alleging that the deceased would have committed witchcraft. Her this statement is not,
duly rebutted during her cross-examination. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant for the offence",
punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005.",
As an outcome of the aforesaid discussion, we affirm the conviction of the Appellant imposed upon him by the Trial Court. The sentence imposed",
upon him also does not warrant any interference. The appeal is dismissed.,