Ul-189 (JaiI)G. J. P.R./1-91 ^- A M.} ^^-h • lllll«l!"»""H!w &-.S A •\k:-^'-fj^ ! """ cFb'000057851 ^vi^^v^ w ; i;{E"", Naae ^o^^- O)»Y'-^ Father's name _. . _. /T ^ (\> ^ . ' . .. -^\A^.-)' ^vi^ -^- ^3^0-1 ^ ^\'if c^^v-o ^ -\ Residence. C . ,. _..^ •. - Agc __^,_^_^_ j^j^}' -^^^-5.7 "'_ ~^'s^-^^~~~~~^T~ncTw-'H3 Sentenced to Ov' ~~" ^ ;' on_^,^ \^ ; .. • / •> ' !slu l^-^'l- MV»\\c\-Y -2»t<V^T^— ~"—^=&taT^S3-^ Under Section r\ •^03- »VYT^^T by[\ ^. . . ' _ •''<^<*^-'Ml\ < <"-^'tl>tt">l!'{ " \ < -' ,1) 3ii It is explained to the prisoner that if he states he wishes to be represented by a legal practitioaer the appsllate Court will not prj.:s;d witti the ca<e f.ir ss/si diys uiiess thi iegal practitioner appears eariier. If tbe legal practitioaer does not appear within seven ^i'' he may not heard at all. iftbe prisoser states that he does not wish to be repre- i,,^.j,;g;|g|8flted by legal practitioner the court may proceed ai once with the case aod will not be obliged to give a hearingto any legal practitioner who should appear. Date of Application for copy ofjudgemeat ";-' Date on which copy received ., . \l^{l':s\a1^ Date on which Appealsent_ f icS5l~j CT sa 13M WSltlier the prisoneT wishes to be rcpresented oraot.T"^ l_-2-'L(a-jLl^ -3.) .3^.^^,' -3<<Tb Crt3-"t^' Confined in ^-^^ .Jail %\»1<t,<>'('»1^:) S,s^ l.e>^\ Oated w^-^^r^ ^ f^! •\ .L-, 'T' Forwarded to the fs ^••U^is^ S^^^'B, >-.te|^^'-A-^-^'"-^v^ic-i^~-pK*^,<(J»;^y ^^gcther with a copy of judgement or order passed in the case for favour of tiransmission to the proper Appellate court. C!ate cf recsipt in Office Date oif receipt of record to accompany the M*ao @f Appeal to the Appeflqife court. / No. •iorwarded to tbe. ^^^3'^ B T i^?r^?. ^oR?Tls-, l&.!?ifu^.:' ;HEIR3S8®K '.r '''iia^^s'^i^t^- 3??3j'?i~ ^ TC3p?^ ...Q...^..-.Q'ls:...lfc&5J N if'^fe^T'tfedR ^; 3it;(iii gn^sr Smt. Savita.Tivsari, learned Shri U.N.S. Deo, learned G. tounseifcrthe A.foriheSts 23.09.1994 passed in S.T. isi iy this appsai 'under Sec|ion 374(2) of ths Cade of.Criminal Procedure accused/appell^nt Jagat Ram has questioned and order of sentence dated Second Additionai Sessions Judge, ^/93 v/hereby, the tearned Additional Sessions Judge after holiping the accysed/appeiiant guiity for i|s father nameiy Lakhan convicted him under Section 302 ofthe intiian Penal Code and sentenced him io ['^'-<Ra^ g^- ^jTCTi^i7T, 'girrvFM, raCTWp ^ '^ ^l^ SIRST^ ^^|e7 311^1 '^~^[^"?H^fT ^.^igg^^i 'te^w.'ssssS^ K^ "-'""'"-'" ' ^i^en^&M^e^ ••^•J%S1U •<° 2. Case of the prosecution, in the First information'Report on 28.02.1993 at 6.50 p.m. he wenf for grazing the attend the marriage Ibrief, is that P.W.1 Bhagatram iodged (P-1) in the Po!ice Station-Lakhanpur |to the effect that on 27.02.1993 v/hen cdfw, 'his famiiy members had gone to ceremjony and onty his father was at ths 'fe of his father and rushed tov/ards She saw that accused Jagat Ram Vi»as s iying on the gfjound near the door. Blood was oozing of head <y his father and there was an injury on his father Lakhan informed that Jagat side theback also. On'enquiry and calledthe Panchayat. had a'ssaulted father but he d| this ider Section into posse; ier P-2 and prepared th^ ilven to his i.00 a.m. post mortem charge sheet '-18). Class, Ambikap ^TFfeiN-qrn?ff •? feat • '^3tPOT3IlS?[ Station House Officer registere< p02 of the IPC, ieft for the scene o ilsion the blood stained Dhoti of Lakhar ^ site plan (P-11). He atso prepan i^ypur vrfiera Dr. A.K.Pande; conducted the postmortem 0)1 the body of Lakhan and pre( Aftsr compietion of the ijhe Court of Judicial Magistrate iurh commftted the case to the Sessions [^ir^ife? \ •-::"-'?"• ^n-'l^ T;?T^ 3TE?f 1 T^'^'^ft^T | vss. b^s.SSS^ 3^f ^!NR"T, a'flWIS, Tff"?I XR% ft^^iife^.....G^..^-..^n^ ',2£S^- CiSi •sn^i^giw ^rtsa ' .3- .1 Judge, Ambikapur from whe Judge received the casS on • aiso re ecution in oraer ;d 13 witne under Section evidence has been •qrcRif ^ frst ^reere ^aiipgiiant^T e iearned Second Additional Sessions ransferfortriai. |o establish the charge against >ses. Statement ofthe accused 1313 ofthe Cr.P.C. in wiiich he den apjjiearing against him and stated that Fals^ly implicated in the crime jn questii Judge after hearing the arguments of the Additional Pubiic P|- accused/appellant convicte.cj i-1 oflhis iudi ita Tivrari, learned counse! We have heard Smt. Savl accused/appe!iant and Shri Ip.N.S.Deo, learned G.A. on behaif of theState.. S. Homiddal deathofLakhan is |iot in dispute. As far as Lakhan is invotvernent of L.akhan discl assaulted hif vAnesses their stat'ements Sai and, d, that accusi Jathi. thi ised/appeilant in assaultini deciaration was made by Lakhari before P.W.1 Bhagatilam, P.W.10 Jagdish, P.W.11 Phuimet ofthem have stated that on enquiry id Jagat Ram- son of the deceased In the cross-examination of these abls to elicit.anvthing to make iable. The evidence of the [TT^tf^ I; :n!^^! CP! Tffi an^T T!i'F'Hl60 sS ^l^l' ^T^^' ^^TE'S^,....&4.-.£i-l^ .1/1 ^ls ira^ss?' sn^i e^tiiwslN "EITtRfi'?'fe'A ^? sifsgii siltw above witnesses stands corr was seen running away frorr| his hand by none else thani declaration 'further stands c| 3iven by P.W.8 DF..A.K.! body of Lakhan and stated fractured. Even the weap<( instanee of the accused, we are of the considered accused in assaulting his fat] extent we are of the infirmity or iltegality in.the jud^ to the question' by the accused, learned cou to the effect of his father. in order to appreciate the ar| for the accused/appellant we] witnssses. Almost everywitr informedthese wttnesses th^ lathi on his head and as doctor's,eyidence one injury iborated by the fact that the accused the piace of oecurrence his brother P.W.1 Bhas arroborated by the medicai evidence there Vi/as a lacerated wound on the and occipital bone was found to bs in of offence was recovered at the •efore, in-view ofthe above evidence, ppinion that the involvement of the her lakhan stands estabiished and to considered opinion that there is no ise of offence comrnitted for the accused/appeltant argued ing forth any evidence that accused wa|s having any intention to cause death rjess'has st; lt his son the Iwas found w •^^ ;ed by iearned counsel the evidence of a!l the ited that on enquiry Lakhan aaat attacked him with the report and the on the parietal region and bones were fractured. ['qT^'^t^t n ii w t; 3=3 -^qi^s,, s^T^PTs, R^wy CT?;(; 'EiiT i yc^ ^iter ^.^ !S3re?TT'%W%' ^[f^yi;' ^^ls;i ..(^A.^(°:....it^te RRi^ai sn^i •FRnwHts^ Ing has come on reco •^rafepit=T-wRffi'? 'fe^t A^K •^Sri^Pt 311^1 d to show that the accused was pre- planned or having an^ aniijnosity against his father to cause his death and from fhe evidenl 'stablished that the accused e of the prosecution it has not been attacked his fatherwth an infention to <~ t^ cause his death. But frorfi the fact^SSet the knovi<edge of accused can be inferredfroifi the manner in which he assaulted father with the dub on his .&. beer, abte to establish WSt tH <il, C<»a-"'^>\->^ts-t-e- 6. e offencelunder section 302 ofthe IPC is made out agalnst the aci^used. However, from the evidence can safeiy be inferred that tHe accused was having knovrfedge tt he may cause death by ass4uiting vath the ciub on the head of 1 father, therefore, the offenc^ against the accused undsr secti jy succeeds. Conviction under section awarded under thatsection are set fe accused is convicied under seciion i^ed to undergo Rl forten years. Since 302 ofthe !PC and sentenc 304-llofthe IPC and senten le accused is in cus already compieted the sehter from' 2.5.1993 and therei the accused be set. at libertyl case. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge ce jmposed on him, 'S. is directed that forthwth if not required In any other Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge •'J- •••' [1Tt^' 4 ^ i'