- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the "IPC ). The accused persons were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and for two years respectively for the said offences.
(3.) Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows: Mahgin Bai (PW-1) lodged the F.I.R (Ex. P-1) in the Police Station Bhairamgarh on 4.2.1993 at about 12.30 p.m. to the effect that on 3.2.1993 she was thrashing paddy in the house. At that time her mother-in-law Gangadei (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased ) was preparing page. Accused Laxminath who is husband of her sister-in-law, came and demanded page. Her mother-in-law gave page to the accused. He thereafter demanded tobacco, on which her mother-in-law gave him tobacco also and accused left the house. Thereafter, the accused came with bow & arrow and shot the arrow on her, which hit on her left upper arm and blood started oozing out of it. Accused also shot an arrow on her mother-in-law, which hit on chest, blood started oozing out of the injury and accused ran away. Her uncle-in-law Dhaniram (PW2) witnessed the incident, brought the villagers and by that time, her mother-in-law was alive. Arrow was stuck in the chest of her mother-in-law. Villagers took her mother-in-law to Police Station Bhairamgarh from where they took her to Jagdalpur Hospital, but on the way near Mawlibhata Gangadei she succumbed to the injury. Receiving this report, the police registered the FIR (Ex. P-1). The Investigating Officer left for the scene of occurrence and took into possession the bow under Ex.P-2. The Investigating Officer gave a written request Ex. P-3 to the Assistant Surgeon, Primary Health Centre, Bhairamgarh for examination of the injuries of Mahgin Bai, on which doctor examined and prepared the injury report and mentioned that there was one incised wound over left upper arm. Arrow, weapon of offence was taken into possession under Ex.P-4 and the petticoat of deceased Gangadei was taken into possession under Ex.P-5. Blood stained soil and plain soil was taken into possession under Ex.P-6 from the place of occurrence. Arrow in question was examined by the doctor on the request of Station House Officer Ex.P-7 and doctor opined that the injury on the body of Mahgin Bai could be caused by the said arrow. Panchnama (Ex.P-10) of the body of Gangadei was prepared after giving notice Ex.P-9 to the Panchas. Postmortem on the body of deceased Gangadei was conducted by Dr. S.K. Naik and he prepared the post mortem report. There was a dying declaration before PW-6. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur, who in turn committed the case to learned Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur from where learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur received the case on transfer for trial. As accused pleaded innocence, trial was held. Learned trial Judge recorded conviction as noted above. Before the High Court the basic stand was that the evidence was not sufficient to fasten guilt on the accused. The oral dying declaration was not believable. It was also submitted that only one arrow was shot from a distance and, therefore, Section 302 IPC has no application. The High Court did not accept the plea and upheld the conviction and the sentence.;