APPEALOFPRI^QN^R , '(5Yr^';'izfeTC) & -Name- ^. -~F?T':R:H?f No- Father's Name—————Tcc-s Residence----------^^^-^v--------------------------------Age------Si Crime No—-————'-P6fice station- Sentenced to- Under section- ^ -Session Trial No.-a3-^/--'s -s 01. ©§'2.606 -u7a^^^5t^Ria^-----7;~~o-o",HJf51' -3<5^'5^T&~~'Hp'^o'^"~"""'"Dy^.^4r;<3^-^)5rt=n Q -'!?T3@^-33?si3?T!?W.<^^ 'yfffr^ 'u^'4&fS'?- %.aT.' It is expained to the prisoner that if he states or wisties'to be repr'es§itted1)y legai'practitioner the Appellate Court will not proceed with the base for seven days unless the legal practitioner appears.lf the legal practitioner-does not wish to be represented by leagle practitioner the court may proceed at once with the case and will not be obliged to give a hearing to any tegai practjtioner who should appear. 1- Date ofApplication for copy ofjudgement——-—sfcl;!3—————•-- 2- Date on wich copy recieved-------At-'-&€-'-2-<3-<S6- ^ Date on wich Appeal sen(—.————-fl^.i-fia.^2Afifi—..—-—„. 4- Whether the prisoner wishes te be represented or not - Yes1}& /hether The Judgement Copy snd Progress Report of The case has given to Ippellant / Counselor of the appellant No,^--2>2-S^----Name----:^^-. Confined in --^y^g—— -Jail-—--^^j^----- No-2>2&-/g35^g.'^ated----fl^-^-3-^OU6r-^>. Forwarde^ tofhe'CrilEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-. to gather tothe proper Appellate Court. ^^-^ (^^^f^T^s^ ®a.gt3iaVr—-,-?^n No,-J4J.-.^s-U-c2-M-?-a€)3tQd----,--a--^3---l------;-201?4-,tt--T?-r--------7--^,. ^g^o to the.----U^^J^----H^-X<^-^--CM^^A&L43< )'^p'A;2-^ .F_Qf"a9rded to the.-—N--0-'^'- Date of receipt in Appellate Court »^.!Wr».s'ssW~S,i.SSBTi -?WK):-u5£)'B»:unA" ^) \y ^^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar IVBshra .4PPELLANT (In JaU) Criminal Appeal No. 690/2006 Sonsai Versus NQN-APPLJCANT State ofChhatdsgarh Appearance: Shri Viprasen Agrawal, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sumit Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. JUDGMENT (25.07.2011) Appellant has been convicted for committing offence under Section 304 Part (II) of IPC and has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment of7 years. (2) The appellant could not engage any defense counsel before the trial court and he was provided legal aid. In this court also the present appeal has been reeeived from jail and leamed counsel appearing for the appetlant has been appointed fi-om the High Court Legal Aid Committee. (3) Case of the prosecution, in short, is that one Sadaram Diwan lodged a report at about 8:15 p.m. on to the effect that in the evening of 19/08/2005 fhere was altercation and marpeet between the appellant and deceased Jeem S/o Laxman. (4) In the said altercation the appellant assaulted Jeem by means of hand and fist as also by a small bamboo stick. As a result ofthe said ^assault the deceased died on the spot. After recording merg intimation z and FIR the dead body was sent for autopsy. In Ihe autopsy report it was mentioned that the deceased had several abrasion and swelling on his chest and on right ear and the death has taken place on account of traumatic asphyxia and the death was hojnicidal in nature. The appellant was airested 6n 21/08/2005 and on his memorandum the bamboo stick was seized. After completing the investigation charge sheet was filed and on committal the matter was sent to ifae Sessions Court, wherein the prosecution examined PW-1 J.S. Dhurve, PW-2 Patwari Ninnal Kumar Baghel, PW-3 Sadaram Diwan (first informant), PW-4 Shambati, PW-5 Phool Singh and PW-6 Dr. S. Lonhare. (5) The appellant abjured his guilt and stated that he has not committed any of&nce. (6) Trial court found that though death ofthe deceased has taken place on account ofassault made by the appellant on the person oftfae deceased, however, according to the trial court the appellant had no intention to cause death, ifaerefore he is aot guilty of committing offence under Section 302 ofIPC but is guilty ofcommitting offence under Section 304 Part (II) ofIPC. (7) Leamed counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is not challenging the convictioa part and has restricted his argument only on the sentence part. In this connection he would 'v-- v submit that the appellant has already remained in jail for last about six years i.e. from 21/08/2005 and ftus completed about six years of .3. • L.-' substantive jail sentence, therefore the jail sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undei^one. (8) Leamed State counsel has opposed the prayer by submitting that the enough leniency has already been shown by the trial court and the appellant who has caused death of person deserves fall sentence as awarded by the trialcourt. (9) In the statement ofPW-3 Sadaram Diwan, who lodged the first infonnation report has stated tfiat his wife infomied him that Jeem was assaulted by the appellant and his dead body is lying in front of their house. PW-4 Shamb^ti wife ofSadaram has made statement that the deceased Jeeru was sitring in fi-ont of her house and suddenly appellant Sonsai started assaulting the deceased by hand and fist. According to this witness Sonsai was requesting Jeeru to accompany him and on his refasal he was assaulted by hand. This witness is an eye witness, however she does not say that the appellant has used bamboo stick at the time of assault. PW-5 Phool Singh, has tumed hostile and has not supported Ifae prosecution case. (10) From the statement of eye witness, it would clearly appear that the appellant has assaulted the deceased by hand and had infact slapped him, however, it appears there was no previous enmity between the appellant and the deceased nor Ae ofience has taken place in a pre-meditated or planned way. The appellant belongs to '' Bhatra tribal commumty in Bastar District. v -^ (11) Theappellantisinjailsince 21/08/2005 and has fhus remained injail forlast about sixyears. (12) The fact that no weapon has been used m the offence and it is already found proved that there was no intejition on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased, this court is inclined to accept the prayer made by the appellant. (13) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. (14) Ifthe appellant is not needed in any other case he be released forthwith. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge