,, >3 XII-189nm) ' " s I k“ ‘ "HIM lllllllilllll lillllli , ($1 P R.11/94/2ooo - f I : 00061092 ‘ V _l ‘V r wégk §§nch @rsmmai}. N XE» 7g. pg Name Q\gw g «ggw' .0 3 Fathers name ‘ "marry a“ f‘évs \ g.“ $1 {max i 51:4; 003w awqcx‘g,‘ H Res1dence {:1 'H 4*(‘9K i5d Q16) Age 3t q *0 _ ' Sentenced Vto ‘3 u K Xmuivn‘ waHidMi on -:;@V O ‘AJK *1 qndgr section (3;; e‘ . .95 by em t‘»\t$ \uw3 q QkggsxQw) l ‘3 3‘ 2am \uw3 QkggsxQw) e‘ 1 It- is explained to the prisoner that if he states orwishesto be represented bylegal practmoner the Appellate Court w111 not proceed w1th the base for seven days unless ‘ the legal practmoner appears If the legal pract1t10ner does not appear w1th1n seven days he may not heard at all fthe prlsoner states that he does not Wlsh to be repre— v sented by legal, “gaetltloner the court may proceed at once w1th the case and W111 not be ' ‘heanng to any legal practmoner who should appear ‘1 _ Date of Applicationfor cppy of Judgement gab] \a.\5w;mm ..; . w.“ 2 ‘ Date on which copy received ...?3&\.UW¢Z\ . l ‘ 3 Date on which Appeal sent ' .. l lg 4 , Whether the prisoner Wishes to be represented or not Y/ / No No 7 ?> W7 ..~ NametC \>\\nc ”$13VRC‘ éaSbK...‘.\.‘. <l$VL r 7r Confined 1n ’% g kav Jall QI%...E"3.D. . u... ’ -ca t’; \Len “v’. Dated 1995 \j Alaf Forwarded the 6H} to 3&W ~\ awn aErwd “’HWKAq W3: togather which a copy of Judgement or order passed 1n the case for favour ¢\0\c-\‘b« of trans-Kvo) F mlsdton to the proper Appellate Court A” / 7/ . ‘ Date of receipt in... office ‘ Date of receipt record to accompany the £ Memo of Appeal to‘tthe Appellate court , " No Forwarded to the v glgk L'sm mane; a“ , ‘Dat‘e of receipt in Appellate Court j? dA$ALPua t ‘ ....... . ... The homicidal dea'rh of Singam B i is nofin dispg're. XI-HC-‘22 W ‘ m (:2...§...’zg§é ‘7 é ‘ _.. .................Wu .............................................. mm WWftWW Wm mw mmmm _ Z. L é;m 311%31 Whi!e in police éusfady, fherpccused gaye memorandum (Ex P-2) regarding fhe pl ca where he kepf The axe, weapon bf offence and m pursuance of fhaf fhe‘ erwas go? recovered under EXP-,3. Barnyan of The accused sfamed wrrh blood wLs faken info possession under Ex.P-4 Plam sod and blood s‘ramed soxl were “raken‘ info possessionJgorm fhe place of occurrence under Ex P-5 The sife plan- (E)g‘P.8) was prepared by rhe Pafwar! The body of the deceased was sen? for ‘ f pos‘r—mor‘rem exammafxon To Communm' HeaHh Cenfre, Wadraffnagar, under Ex P-9 where Dr Arvmd Kumar Bhaff (PW—15) conducted posf-morfem on the body of Smgaro Ba: and prepared fhe pouf—morfem reporf'EEx‘.P¥13), Affer comple‘hon of mveshga‘hon charge shee'f was filed in The Cour’r of Judlcla! Magrsfra‘re Firs? Chss Surmpur who in Turn commif'l‘ed The case To .a The Sessmns Judge SurguJa from where 1earned Addh‘ional Sessions Judge, F §ura4pur, received The case on fransfer for friaiL The prosecufion in order To esfab’iish charge ’againsf fhe accused ’ ' examined '15 wifnesses; On fhe ofher hand, s‘ra‘remenf of ihe accused was recorded under 5ec+ion 313 of The Cr.F.C. in which he denied fhe prosecufion, z evidence and s‘l-afed fha’r he has been féIlsely impiica‘l'ed in fhe crifne. Learned EjAddifional Sessions Judge offer hearing fhe argumenfs of 'respeci'ive counsel, honvicfed and senfenced ‘rhe accused as nenfioned in paga‘l of fhis Judgment We have heard Mr J A Lohani Iearned counsel for fhe appellanf and Mr U N 5 Deo learned Addmonal Public Prosecu'ror wrrh Mr Ravmdra Agrawal ' ilearned Panel Lawyer on behalf of fhe 5 are/respondenf “F :“g ‘As' far as invqivemerif \cf fhe co acernéd, fHe iricidenf was wifneésed b ' hc use and he saw thaf The accusedpss away. ,TFIereaffer, he cameVd-o‘wn‘from p1aZ£TMhere §ing§ro BaiV's bqdy Was lying i _ 7 The accused made exTra judicial who has sfafed mher‘ ewdence fhw the of her mofher' came To her and smd Tha she used To prachce Wifchcraff 0n he her mofher and saw fhat she was already i Juan Sal (PW-4) has sfa‘fed m convened l on accounf of drspufe baween accused used ‘fo ca” Smgaro Bm as Witch I quarrel l Therefore in view of The above laccused used fa call Smgaro Bar as wufc land on accounf of That Panchayaf was al inof To quarrel. l . ‘ The accused made ek‘rra Judicial In cross-examinafiari of This wiTnesks,‘ d circumsfance 'in order To make The e‘ W accused in‘The crime iniquesTion is y Ram Vriksha (PW 2) who has sTaTed ‘I inhis evidence ThaT aT The Time of incldenT he was working on The roof of his :ulTed‘The deceased wrl‘h axe and ran The roof ol‘ his house/‘Iahd wenT To The :md saw ThaT she was already deadf confession before .Sion Kunwar (PW-3), accused afTer commiTTing The murder T he has murdered Singara Bai because aring This, she WenT near The body of I dead. his evidence ThaT a'‘hPranchayaT was The deceased and The‘accused, as The ‘ ' and oh which boTh were advised noT To evidence ‘iT is esTablished ThaT Te h There was dispuTe beTween The Two m convened In which boTh were adVIsed ' ’ 0 confession before Son Kunwar (PW 3) efence has noT been able To ellciT any ridence of This wriTness’unreliable or V [new orden h Ram Vr'iksha {PW-2) is we per: a‘nd his evidenca inspires confidence. i. timi‘ in para 4 of his examinafian, Ram i ojf occurrence was a? a chsfance o‘f" foux‘ View of fhis avidance i‘i' was nof possib .i V ‘. . ' m quesfioni Buf a? fhe and of fhe evidenw fhe Courf had spemficaily m order ascerfam fhe disfance of place of occurrence from his house Then This wriness has sfafed 'I'hof fhe digfcmce of The plo Thereoffer, The Courf noted down fho‘r , fhe digfonce of road from fhe Court fhe disfonce befween The CourT and T'hs. fhaf a person working on a roof of fhe of o disfance of 150 ft, as’ fhe incidei during The day iighf. Therefore, we dc of iearned counse! for The oppeiian‘i. ‘ For The foregoing reasons, we finding of fhe frialf Courf regarding im quesTiohdoes noT suffer from any iiiegi A5 per fhe evidence of Dr. Ar seven injuries viz., 5 incised wounds oi Bai and The accused assouiTed The dece on who wiTnessed The crime in quesTion earned counse! for: ‘i‘he appellanf argued ’riksho (PW-2) has sTaTedThaT The ploce furiongs frbm his house. Therefore, in le for This wiTness To wiTness The crime i . af ihis wi‘rness {Ram Vriksha (PW-2)} To clear fhe douE‘i‘ pu‘r a quesfien’fo D ,e of occurrence from his house was lme ’ road is 150 ff. If is common knowiedge muse con wifness The incidem happening 1T is said To hove happened a1" 4.30 pm. noT find any substance in The argumenT are of The considered opinion ThcT The 'olvemenT-of The accused in The crime in & :liTy or infirmiTW/éi vind Kumar BhaTT (PW-15) There were wo sTob wounds on The bodv of $ingaro ased wITh axe on ViTal porT of The organ [no edge XI-HC-22 Soma o‘commi‘? fh’e murder of Singaro Bai is ‘ Therefore, infenfion of *fhe accused i i a!so es+ablished4 ‘ . For ‘i‘he foregcing discussion, I devoid wf mzr‘if, same is liable fo be di \ Sd/. ‘ u L-C- Bhadoo Judge. i\, ‘ are of We opinion 1‘ha? This appea! is ’ issed and if is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge A x: .-