Kosi Podiyami vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1021 Chatt

                                                                    NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            CRA No. 974 of 2016

      Kosi Podiyami W/o Lamdi Podiyami Aged About 42 Years Caste
       Madiya, R/o Patelpara, Metapal, Police Station Katekalyan,
       District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.

                                                             ---- Appellant

                                   Versus

      State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office, Police
       Station Katekalyan, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.

                                                         ---- Respondent

  For Appellant                   :Ms. Sofia Khan, Advocate.
  For State/Respondent            :Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, G.A.


                Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
                           Judgment on Board
09.07.2021

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated

30.05.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No.94/2013 by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, South

Baster, Dantewada (C.G.) wherein, the Appellant has been

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II

of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years.

2. In this case, name of deceased is Kosi Podiyami and

Appellant name is also Kosi Podiyami. Both are wife of the

Appellant. According to the case of prosecution Lamdi

Podiyami lodged a report in concerned Police Station against

the Appellant alleging therein that on 11.02.2013, when he along with his elder wife Kosi Podiyami consuming liquor in

their house at that time, the Appellant came there from jungle,

some dispute taken place between the Appellant and the

deceased, therefore, the Appellant assaulted the deceased

with the help of club due to which the deceased died on spot.

On the basis of said report, offence has been registered

against the Appellant vide (Ex. P-6). Postmortem of the

deceased was conducted by Dr. AD Bara (PW-12) his report

is (Ex.P-12). Later on statements of the complainant and

witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After

completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the

Police under Section 302 of the IPC. Trial Court framed the

charges under Section 302 of the IPC against the Appellant.

To robe the Appellant in the crime-in-question, the prosecution

has examined as many as 13 witnesses. In the statement of

the Appellant recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he has

pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter,

however, no defence witness was examined by the Appellant.

After completion of trial, Trial Court convicted and sentenced

the Appellant as mentioned in Para 01 of this judgment.

Hence, this appeal.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that

without there being any clinching and sufficient evidence

available on record, the Trial Court has convicted the

Appellant. She further submits that eye-witness of the case, Lamdi Podiyami has not been examined before the Trial

Court, inspite of that the Trial Court has wrongly convicted the

Appellant only on the basis of presumption, therefore,

conviction of the Appellant is not sustainable. Alternatively, the

Counsel further submits that out of ten years of jail sentence,

the Appellant has already undergone about 8 years 4 months

in jail. She has no criminal antecedent and has facing the lis

since 2013. The Counsel lastly submits that if the conviction

of the Appellant may be affirmed, it is prayed that the

sentence awarded to the Appellant may be reduced to the

period already undergone by her.

4. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the appeal

and supported the impugned judgment. He submits that eye-

witness of the case has not been examined before the Trial

Court but, extra judicial confession of the Appellant made

before witnesses, is duly proved. Therefore, the Trial Court

has rightly convicted the Appellant.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

parties and perused the record minutely. I have also gone

through the statements of the witnesses.

6. In the examination chief, Bomda (PW-1) son of the deceased

deposed that after consuming liquor, a dispute was taken

place between his mother/deceased and the Appellant,

therefore, the Appellant assaulted the deceased with the help of club due to which the deceased died on spot. But, during

cross-examination, this witness admitted the fact that at the

time of incident neither he was present on spot nor witnessed

the incident. Vijjo Podiyam (PW-2) Sarpanch of the Village

and Madvi Lakhma (PW-5), both the witnesses have

categorically deposed that after the incident, a village meeting

was conducted wherein, the Appellant has admitted the fact

that she assaulted the deceased with the help of club due to

which, the deceased died on spot. The above statements of

these witnesses have not been rebutted during their cross-

examination. In cross-examination of Vijjo Podiyam (PW-2), in

para 12 & 13, defence has admitted the fact that the Appellant

assaulted the deceased with the help of club due to which,

the deceased died on spot.

7. Looking to the statements of the above witnesses and

evidence available on record. In my considered view, the Trial

Court has rightly convicted the Appellant.

8. The conviction of the Appellant under Section 304 Part-II of

the IPC is affirmed and with regard to the sentence part,

considering the fact that out of 10 years of jail sentence, the

Appellant has already undergone about 8 years 4 months in

jail. She has no criminal antecedent and has facing the lis

since 2013. I am of the view that the ends of justice would be

met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the Appellant, the jail sentence awarded to her is reduced to the

period already undergone by her. The fine sentence for the

aforementioned Section is also affirmed.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.

10. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of

this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Shubham