F* \ I! (INIIIIIIIIIIIIIII)”Mill/l g4 13"‘488/(Jall) R —-5 000 9 $1 E“? K? (J i _ ‘ Resideneamés t§é¢ <3? §§ Santenecd to ’ x S 0%.~~~~~ Under secuen ———g ~_ w§mgwq wt W 5mm: r 1t Js explamed to the prlscncr Emit 1f he states 01: vashcs to he represented b\ a legaf practitioner the legal practitioner the Appelate appears. Cour: will If not the proceed legal with practilioner the'base does for .sevcn not appear days \.nles\ will; in sevendays he may not be heard at all If‘lhe prisoner states that he doesrnot Msh 1;; be representegi by le‘ggl practitioner the court may proceed at once with the case and will not beto‘bliged to give a hearing to anyleg'aipraotitioner who should appear. Q 1 Date of Appircauixn for copy ‘of Judgement _* Q [3 Q “i ‘ __.H,_h 2 Date of which copy received 3 Ddte on which Appeal <ent 3$ T; 4 Whether the prisoner Wishes to be represented r not — Yes/ ‘ .‘z N oe-aQ&———m—————~~ I\ama x Contmuedm~~ H’ §$im — gm to gather with a copy of Judgement or order passed 1n the transmission to the proper Appilliate Court. ate ofreceipt in C. Ji MV’S Ofr’ice . - & j) .2 Date of receipt of record to accompany _ ’ 0\ ~ "'\ e Li- .4» ,wm," Memo of Appeal of the Appeli te Court )Lwgx .a .z a ,V wvNx No. ~— Dated %L gr— Forwarded to the —39 3‘ ‘;T\\\W_\_) “7E Date of receipt in Appliate Court~—r (pro) « ; w “ W2W l g \ D Xl-HC-78 ©H kzé mmma; “3 m%a& mm 111% 311w mwm'é'wm $Wms‘r Hon’ble Mr. L.C. Bhadbo and Hon’ble Mr. Dhirendra Mishra, J.._. 8-2-2006 Mr. Ratindra Mishra. co‘unse Mr. U.N.S. Deo,’Additional Pubfic Prosecutor with Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, z ‘* Panel Lawyer for the State/respont Om! judgment dictated on D alS. Per L.C; Bhédoo, J: - 'n 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. the accueed/ appellant has questioned the leg lity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentenc dated 30‘" June, 1993, passed by the - Additional Sessions Judge, Man ndragarh, in Sessions Trial No.127/92, whereby learned Additional Ses ions Judge after holding the accused! appellant guilty for commission o offence under Section 302 of the l.P.C. sentenced him to undergo impriso ment for life. By this appeal under .Sec the accused was attacking his Ramcharan (PW-2) saw the InC the accused stopped assaulting. of Village Patel Satyanarayan that ‘ime, night was aiready 59m :s, , '/W \ i """“ airéam mamas) ‘I for the appellant. lent. Case of the prosecution In brlef Is that on 3-3-1 992 at about 4 p m le Chain Singh wrth club at that time t from road as he was going to his in- law‘s house, on which he asked t e accused not to assault Chain Singh and ereafter the accused wenzto the house ngh (PW-1) and Informed (that he has committed the murder of his un le and the body is lying in the house. Satyanarayan S’ingh asked him t inform to the Sarpanch & Chowkidar. By and in the morning, the accused again I o c n h i ' WWW1§WW mmmafé’vr fa" %WHI%¥T E i r of Judlmal Magistrate Manendraga Sessrons Judge, Surgura, from wh re Iearned Additionai Sessrons Judge i ’The prosecution examined even witnesses in order to establish charge against the accused/appeti Statement of the accused/appeiiant was recorded under Section 313 f the CrPC in which he denied the prosecution evrdence and explained that he has been falsely Implicated In the crime and the deceased while razing cattle in the field, fell down and received the injuries. of Addrtronat Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused learned A dltronai Sessrons Judge convrcted and sentenced the accused as mentrone In para 1 of this Judgment. went to Satyanarayan Singh on which he took Chowkidar & ‘Sarpanch and went to the house Of the accused where they saw that Vthe body of Chain Singh-was lying in a room. Repott EXP—1 was made to Police Station: Khadgawan. Poiioe Inspector Jaya Verma (PW-10) reached to the scene of occurrence prepared Panchana a (EXP-10) of the body and took into possession the ciub (weapon of off nce) from the accused. The body of €hain Singh was sent for post-mort m examination where Dr K.L. Banjare (PW-8) conducted post-mortem. He found that bones of left hand and thigh were broken, pelvis bone was fra tured andron account of shock and excessive bleeding Chain Singh died Post-modem report is Ex.P—8. After completion of Investigati n charge sheet was tiled in the Court . who 1n turn committed the case to the received the case on transfer for tria / l a t After hearing the argumen [stew 1 i r XI-Hc—22 W CD4 ......(.6 mm r mmmm mm1iwm f3 — émmm a ‘ We have heard Mr. Ratindra Mishra,» Ie’amed counsel for the appellant ‘ and Mr. U.N.S. Deo, learned Addi‘ional Public Prosecutor with Mr. MRS. 1 1 Bhatia, learned Pane! Lawyer forth State/respondent. ¥ ,_ The homicidal death of Chai Singh is not in dispute. As far as Involvement of t e accused/appellant In committing the .gnme rn question Is concerned R mcharan (PW 2) rs the eyewrtness who ' has stated thatathe fateful trme h was gorng to hrs In-laws place and from ‘ road he saw that the accused wa attacking deceased Charn Smgh wrth a 1 club on whrch‘he rntervened and a ked the accused notto Indulge rn harprt. z The accused stoppedbeatlng. Th above evrdence ls corroborated by the 1 evidence of Satyanarayan Singhv -1) before wh'om the accused made extra judicial confession immediat ly after the incident, as he went to the house of Satyanarayan Singh and informed him thatlhe has murdered his uncle and the body is lying in e house. As night was already set-in therefore, he 'came next day mor ing and saw the dead body thereafter, report Ex P-1‘ was lodged The bove evidence of eyewitness and extra judrcral confessron further stand c rroborated by the evrdence of Dr KL : Banjare (PW-8) who has stated th he conducted post-mortem on the body a of Charn Srngh and found 11 Imun s on his body. Hrs bone of left hand & l right hand as well as pelvis bone ere found fractured and femoral artery was also found— ruptured; .The ceasedrdied on account of excessive bleeding and shock. gr. Therefore In vrew of the ab ve Involvement of the accused/appellant In commrttrng the murder of Chain rngh rs establrshed lute sleet XI-Hc—22 mm‘t‘iwma E ; Learned counsel for the appenant argued that off‘enca against the § appeHa‘nt does‘ not travel beyond Sec ion 304 Part-II of the LP‘C. But, we are 1 not satisfied With the argument a vanced by Iearned counsel' for the iappellant for the reason that as man as eleven injuries were found on the . body of the deceased and bone of h nd & pelvis bone were found fractured; 1 The manner in which the accused a cked the deceased makes it clear that ’ the accused attacked the deceased ith intention to cause his death. ln view, of the foregoing discussién, we do not find any illegality or 75 infirmity in the‘judgment of the trial Court. The appeal is devoid of merit, ‘ same is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly, dismissed. Sdl- i. Sit/- L.C.BHADOO l l . DmNDRA MISHRAI Judge Judge ‘I Soma l