€'.['.: e-^ft, <?ss^is: CF0000058048 ^KII-189/(Jail) C.J.P.R. 11/94/2,000 Cf> .^ APPEAL OF PRISONER Division Bench (Crimha!); ;r'-._ »••••••*•••••fr-;^^^,v^»^••i^.y^i •••••••••••• l^iaDlC •^ •i*^ •.•••i\*^t.**/1***^***^:^;* :v* •••*>••••••••••-^ •••«•••• Father's name •^^.^^•..^^^^{^^^^^•.^v^-^^^^^.^..-.-- Residence ^^.^ ^^^.,^. Age ....^^^............. .......^ ......... Sentenced to ^(^•^^..^^.^Y^........... On..^.^.^.^..^^ ..... ......... .......... Under section ...•^.^.^.^.;.^.;^.,.... by^^^^;^^,y^^^^.^.^.^ It is explained to the prisoner that ifhe states or wishes to be represented by legal practitioner the Appellate ( ourt will not proceed with the base for seven days unless the legal practitioner appears - Ifthe legal practitioner does not appear within seven days he may not heard at all If ihe prisoner states that fae does not wish to be repre- sented by legalpractitioner the court may proceed at once with tbe case andwill not be obliged to give a hearing to any legal practitioner vvho should appear . 1 2 3 4 Date of Application for copy of Judgement ... ..^LtV^.[^>.$~. Date on which copyreceived ..................... ... \-^,.\ <cj\-^^- •• Date onwhichAppealseot...... ....... ............. .....^^.^ ^-.. . Whether the prisoDer wishes to be represented or fiet - Yes / No No....'^-..^ST'^.].\^.'>')...................... Name .1.,.,^. in ••••••-•••^^•sJ^\ ^•,.«,•••••••••••Jail '•••»•>-v^"<j;—»^« •/^^•^•^^^•••••».•••••»...••••••••• ^V^" -y '^v^~:wp-^3i'<" •^•.«•»••••••••••• •IdJA <•• No....^9^.. •...7^^f-Dated... ............. ^99^.....^.^^j.^^.^^... Forwarded to the ^UB^UDIGIAl^fAGIS^ATO^^.^ togatherwhich a copy ofjudgement or order passed in the case for favour of trans- mission to the proper Appellate Court. » ^jCA ^) ^^^r^1 fh^-^(2foAl. (^ Sup^l^ent iM...... : • !.^ <4>V-y^^^ S^)1 "3>H<2?^^f? .N ^ Date of receipt in... ........ ... ................ office Date of receipt record to accompany the Memo ofAppeal to ihe Appellate court No Forwarded to the .yft-y': <is,/lii, :^'it-:^r ^- ^4.'n. ^^,t Date ofreceipt in Appellate Court ./...?^.No»^_,^...3^ ^^^""•f'. • .<p-T-a:>: •SS^2£^.,/' ' • . f XI-HC-22 ^Ti^r^i R^ti4»^?^T st»*ii<=?»^f^a •~{ f-.^. y- ~f- •S^ ^tttJM^ ^1W<o. t«<tK-ty ^INCll^Nlch sni^r 'CRI^ Oz.^^£32tf '^ 200 . DlVlSiONBENGH: MON'BU &HON'B CRIiVIINAL APP6AL N0. 953 of199§ Appellant : Ra(n Prasad KaIaF Vs. St^Se of iVSadhya Pradesh Respondent Shri Abhay Tiwari, Advocat^ counsei forthe appeHant. Shri U.N.S.Deo, tearned Adc(i !yi,P.S. Bhatia, iearned Panei Lawyerj ORXL J L.C.Bhadoo.J (08. By this appea! under Sectio|i Procedure the appeiiant has questiQ|ied the judgment of convictibn and on whereby learned Additionai Sessionsj the accused/appellant guilty under S< gentenced him tb undergo imprisonml 2. The case of the prosecution, + P.W. 1 Juganlal along with accu; deceased) went tov^rds th.e forest f of them cooked meai, took the meal ct»t€ifa4l<!t*$i*f<nf ~$ ?^^ ifa^K ^N^^ii^r SHRJL.C.BHADpO ESHRI DHIRENDRA IVilSHRA, JJ with Smt. Savita Ti^^ri, learned jtlonal Pubiic Prosecutor with Shri ifor the respondent/State. UDGiViENT 2.2006) 374(2) of the Code of Criminai the iegality and correctness of •ller of sentence dated 24.05.1995 |Judge, Manendragarh afterhoiding^ ktton 302 of the Indian Penal Code ifent for life. in brief, is that on the fateful day ^ed and his wife Bootibai (since '<|r coiiecting wood. First of all three Ind thereafter accused Ram Prasad . ['4^ ^fo^ F Xl-HC-22 •S^'^RI^R, '^J^PIS, 'f^TRi^ 3n§E¥T'^i Hl^^8T»NE€»5 3fft'?T TET^? ^.^..2^3^ ^ •^^' <^i^fa<iit ^it^^t? '?fe<^ ^fa^$K '^3[t^3^T along with hiswifewent'^6 ti^'on^_side ^of the forest to Goilect wood whereas P.W 1 JuganJai went ^Tth^ other side !n the evening Juganial returned to his house and when the Mohanlal (P.W.2) enquired from Ju accused and his wife. Juganlal dis{closed to him that the accused has ran away after commltting murder c|f his wife Bootjbai and while/he was. running he informedhim about that |act and asked himto inform you aiso about th e inddent , on wh ich M 6h 2 Police Station- Manendragarh. R OfficeF, Manendragarh Jeft 'for th Panchanama (P-2) of the dead b< possession the piain soit and bl< oecurrence under P-3. -Based on th he recovered the weapon of offe BGotibaJ \A^S senf for postmortem Manendragarh where Dr. Suresh Ti w4ijch he opined that the cauSe o.f severe bjeeding from the injun'es officer aiso prepared the site plan ( intimation (P-8) was given by M investigation charge sheet was filed to the Sessions Judge, Ambikap Sessions Judge, Manendragarh rec< Eaccused and hi,s wife did not return, lianlal about the whereabouts of the |n!al lodged the report (P-1) in the iceiving this report Station House [e scene of occurrence, prepared |»dy of BoQtibai. He also took into ?odstained soil from the place of ? memorandum oftheaccused (P-4) tice-axe under P-5., The body of examination <o the Govt. Mospital, wari (P.W.4) conducted postmortem on the body of Bootbai and prep|ired the postmortem repot (P-,6) in yeath is shock (hemorrhage) due to on neck vessels. The investigating P-7) of the place of incident. Merg Qhaniai. After completion of the against the accused in the Courl: of Chief Judjdai IVIagistrate, Manendr^arh who in turn committed the case ur fromi where iearned Additionai iivedthe case 6n transferfortriat. ['?ft^ 3tRg^ + XI-HC-22 %^F ^? R^tiffr '3l^?T s?>*tis?» ^t[^a c, ^^ v<41^t<rt^ ^i^t^'fa^^^ _.^.A:.J^^^ _ ^"""""""^ ^»- ^IINCPIl%W% •ig^r- ^ST '^RIi^T ^I^F &-. 3. The prosecution in order t accused examined six wjtnesses. cfrl€?fo^t't ^(*iX?ff ^ 1^^ ^Rg'R ^^lfe^SiJ^I |) establish the crime against the Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 ofthe <?ode ofCriminal Procedure in which he stated that in the first instance Julganialand his wife went to the forest and he reached thereafter. He ttas further stated thaUie had not committed the murder of his wife, s|ie died on account offjaLjiing oftre on her and as a resutt of which hel informed about the incident to ChouJl 4. Learned Additional Sesslons advanced by iearned Addjtjonal Pu Eand Jugny became terrified and he lidar and heis innocent. IJudge, after hearing the arguments t •'••"• . . ' . blic Prosecutor and leamed counsei for the accused/appellant convict^d and sentenced the acctised as mentionedin paragraph -1 ofthis ju^gment. '{ :1 •'• ' '-; ' .•''' 5. We have heard learned cou iearned counsel for the State/resporiJent. 6. Homicidal death of Bootibai is Insei fbr the accused/appeiiant an.d not in dispute. 7. As far as invoivement of |he accused/appejlant in crime in question is concerned, there is no df-ect evidence 1n this case. The case of the prosecution rests on circumsf^ntiai evldence which js as follows- i) That P.W.1 Juganlal.theac! " together in the morning for fhat purpose accused and pused and the deceased ieft lorest to bring wopd and for SJeceased went towards one side ofthe forest whereas Ju^anlal went to the other side; |T^ Sfe^ ^ F <? . ~ '. I XI-HC-22 ^5^ ^ii^m4, ^Awi<o, i^<vi^^ + w^r'^i ^N?-^?F 5n*<i<»»^ii^es -4- ^' 3n^r ^i^% *tl*f^tt 5h*ll^ '"^ -2or- ^li^T '^clt^lT 4i($€t —. 4- ii) That wh.en Juganlal was co| on the Vi@y and informed that| IH tftH^tf^ fe^ ifa^R {^I^Sii^ ning bacK accusea mei nim he has committed murder of iii) 8. his wife Bootibai with the axet and asted him to inform his iandiord Mohanlal about the ^ame; Th.at the weapon ofoffence ^s recovered at the jnstance of the accused. In orderto base conviction o| the settled principies laid down by Court can record conviction, it must! sAitiich an inference of guilt could fcj unimpQachable evidence ied by | the circymstantial evidence as per |he Hon'bie Apex Court, before the satisfy itselfthat circumstahces from a drawn have been estabiished by the prosecution and that aii the circumstances put together are notjoniy of a conclusive nature but aiso complete the chain so fuliy as to accuse'd and are not capable ofan with th-e hypothesjs ofthe guiit ofth 9. Leamecj couns.ei for the apj witness in this case and conviction P.W. 1 Juganiai. The evidence of tl| does not inspire confidence of th^ house he did not disclose the fact| he has committed murder of hss v^! •when iandiord of the accused Mohi Eunerringly point to the guiit of the ^ expianatiqn v^iich is not consistent 5 accused, leilant arguedthat there is oniy one has been based %(ri the evidence of |is witness is not worth reliance and it ^ Court as v^ien he returned to his |of infbrming him by the accused that Ife Bootibai and only on the next day inlai enquired from him, he disciosed that fact, therefore, the above conjduct of Juganlal makes his evidence doubtful as in the normal course w|en Juganlal was having knowieclge of [Tft^ cRa^ ^ XI-HC-22 -3^-^Ri^r. •^tens. I^ERiy ^^A.A^^^^ ^CT^T^HI^ '^^" 3Ii^T^i R^tiq»%^F ^^rw^^i^ci 3?i^r^<$i^i^r ^ ^— such a heinous crime committed by| informed the police or Mohanlal- the lar| 4»l^fa4l^'RF^^ 'fe^ ifa^K i^ ^Fa*i ^ti^si the accused, he ought to have dlord pf the accused. 10. . tt is true that in the first instanc^ Juganlal did not inform anybody aboutthe extra judicial confessjon jrj regarding commission of murder of his j paragraph 3 ofhis statement that he terrified and when on the next day Moh] and his wife, then oniy he disclosed thj ade by the accused before him wife Boptibai and he has stated in 1-emained sitent because he was [anlalehquiredabouttheaccused fe fact that accused had informed him that he committed murder of his ^fe Bobtibai with the axe and he saw him running wth the axe. The ab not be doubted for the reason that bve conduct of this wtaess couid |n the cross-examination of this witness nbthing has come on recordtto show thatthis witriess vias having any animosity against the accu^ed. Moreover, he has explained that hewas terrified on that day, therefl |to Mohantal. However, the fact th^: this person accompanted the |accused to the forest has not been disrfuted. Even bythe aceused in his re, he couid not disclose this fact statement under Sectjon 313 ofthe Cr. and this \Mtness Juganlal alongwith thje deceased Vireht together in the JTorest and he raised a faise plea that hi^ |ree on her and that is v^hy h@ and Jug^nlal were temfied and informed febout the same to Choukidar but GhoL P.C. it has been admittedthat he wife died on account offa!!ing of kidar has not been examined in lciefence, therefore, the presence of Jijgania! v^th the accused on the |:atefui day is not disputed and as such |he evidence of JuganSa! inspires bonfidence, ' r -^ *\f^ ."\ i^^R^ F XI-HC-22 ^^ ^t4^i^ ^WT^. ^{R^G 3^?T 'cs^^ ^P^ff^TO^ • M ' ^^Pt ^2W-. 'f^re^" V., . / if- ^^T^t 'f^^T-^l^F 8»*ii<^ -^1^1. |j 1. Moreover, the extra judidal corj tnedical evidence. Dr. Tiwari ,(P,W. 4] ^ostmortem on the body of Bootibai onj 1^/as a cut inju?"y on the neck in the sizej jbeiow the injury N6. 1 in the iength of ^/esseJs were found cut, even the winfci |found cyt and the jnjuries were causedj Ideath was homicidal in nature, therlfore IJuganla! that accused made extra judic|at jhas committed murder of his wfe, fui tmedical evidence also. Even the trecoverad at the instance of'the Imemorandum (P-4) given by the acci|sed. lcircumstantial evidence the crime agajrjst Ito the hi!t and,the»circumstantiaf evicfer |the author ofcrime in question and th< Iperson has committed the crime. 12. tnview of the foregoing r^ason^ jnfirmity in the judgment of the trial C|oUrt interference wflth the findings ofthe trial|Court 13. in the result, the appeal being dismissed and the same is accordingiytlismissed ^t^fo^U 41^<A "^fe^ ifa^K ^^TO^^I jfession iends support from the has staied that he conducted 115.06.1994ahd found that there |of5 c.m. and another injury was cm., the muscles and the blood pipe and the neck bone were |by sharp edgecJWeapon and the the evidence of P.W. T confessjon before him that he |:her stands coiToborated by the, |weapon of offence - axe was laccused in pursyance of the Therefore, from the above the accused has been proved lence showthat the accused was |re is no possibiSJty thaf any third , we do not find any iijegallty or and there is np grounci for cievoid of merits desen/es to be Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge [^if^ /T