CF0000059422 y I k11-189/(Jai1) _. I . C.J.P.R.11./94/2,ooo ' . rgv w Hgg g _‘\ . -‘ . APPEAL = _ _ F‘PRIS‘DNER‘ ~‘ ’gW\/’ Uiw'sion Bench (mum!) ’ . g N0393f . . . . . Name . . 9 Father’s name . Efflgw/x Residence .. V lgg ( j Agg )~D9§ 7cm? ‘7M... 3ax«wwby 3¢13?a—;€N)c7/egf vQJ$QW€WKw §am¢ on way/(7% ~ m. 2. fzfti wa (WE‘W/Zv -, ‘ Hf Sentenced to Under section 3 fr' €129 ‘ 5777mm» 107 95"?” r , ,‘Lrktlhe days legal he may practitioner notheard appears at all . . If will the not legal proceed practitioner with wishes the does base to not be for rep seven‘days esented by unless legal Ifrlhe prisoner states that he does n ' e court ny legal \ Vpractitioner Itr'is explained the Appellate to the prisoner Court that if he states or sented by legal practitioner th obliged to give a hearing to a Date ofvVApplication for copy/of Judgement ‘Date on which copyreceived i. .. Date on which Appeal sent:./.V......... .. .. Whether thel‘prlsoner . Wishesio . be represented or not - YesV /’No A 3554 Name wJ/E—PS/°(‘< ,Conhned‘in § Jail wag? "(:ayy No'ig /mr/9énated%Z/97‘ 199.. < , , r ‘24,?Ojy 3J‘%.QO x, qw%z5 ;%?7LG§T_‘ judgement or order passed in ca’se for favour of trans-/”V ‘ ' l \ I am 29h _ mission - airw} —:#-7avewTG—gw# to the yaw/(gr proper Appellate 733w. aw Court. @rg&1 w“ ‘Wmm l ’ ,-; ‘ .w ‘ V Cen%§fjgm ‘ '. . .. .,......,.-......u {Murat a (x / ; ’ . Date of ll receipt . - 1n.\.. . office I - > V l r {Forwarded to the‘GHfEF togather which a copy ofv the \ .......... Date of receipt record to accompany the ' Memo ofAppeal to the Appellate court ;who” No . ........... Lioated . Forwarded tothe . . ’“j giiii ‘ a Ennrt JABMLF‘UR til liaihga E‘wh' ' ,..,.....«. _ ' ‘ f “ . ' ourt.,.,.. " ~ r; w ggg i;9“&\1‘\ lvf.t.....a....’r ‘ A , alga-w: Reg mméécg$g €§e¢L‘ \ tsiyh ..~..; ..; .,. 199......... Date of receipt inNA‘ppella/fe l w ira :rr , wig m y . l . .’ . XI-HC-22 W amt maf€a life & rigorous imprisonmem for 1 :ive years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- respectively. All The semenoes- were directed to run . concurremly. . bi‘ief, is‘fhnf 6aitmm (PW1) and The case of the proszcufion, in his two daugh're'rs namely Shakun deceased), and husband of ‘Shakun‘ i - Mongol the accused/appellant were residing together in the house f Gaitram. Santoshi was married ' to Ramkumar a year before the incid 1' but die was residing with her 3.02.1995, ‘there was a fair in The . fu'l'her 1i" 1he du‘ie of incident. On 1. ‘ village. therefore, Gaitram left for tlhe fair to watch the dance in the night Shakun Bai md Sonfosh’i alst dance. However,"in “the wee hours Sanfod'ii did noi' re‘i'um. Then a :6ai-rmm returned 1’0 ‘Hneir ‘hbuse but A missing report - Ex.P/16-A of 1 search was mode 1'0 frace out her. Sm'rtoshi was lodged by Gai'rram af Po 7 i (PW2), and Sanfo§1i (since Lwenf 1’0 1he fair 1'0 watch 1'he of 14.02.1995, ‘Shokun Bni and ioe Sfa‘rion: Pa'rm on 15.02.1995. {113?} W XI—HC—ZZ Waww WW WMmw‘a—d ‘ WWW EQ?W éwfanm ‘ Another report - Ex.P/17-A was lod d on 17.02.1995. On 20.02.1995, Mnnnu Lal (PW8) saw n juw in The well, which was in his agricuhur'al field of Madia, and imima‘tion +0 'Hmt effect was given 'ro 'fhe Police Sfa‘rion: Kumhnri on 1h same day Af‘br receiving The mfor-mahon Police come and fhe fe bag was mken ou'f of 'the we“ On opening 'fhe bag if was found cf There was a female body and 'rhe same was Idenhfled of San shl upon which Deha'h NaliSI - Ex P/ZO and merg mhma‘hon ExP 19 were recorded Affer enqun'y, ’firsf informa‘rion repor¢ EXP/18 Bhilai on 21.02.1995 The case wds registered under Sections 302 and 201 of 1he IPC as crime No.13/95 The Panchanama (EXP/8) of the body of Santoshi and a site plan - x.P/7) (were prepared. Dead body ‘ of S‘antos'Ii was sent for postmor m to Dr.D.C Jain, Medical College, , Raipur who prepared postmortem report (Ex P/5) He opined that to strangulation During i the registered in the Police sfafion [‘ilééfan XI-HC-22 investiga‘rion, if was also‘sJspaded fha'r rape was commiHe‘d on Sanfoshi. \ The accused/appelaam was faken info cusfody on' 23.02.1995 a? about ‘ 10 p.m. During I Police cus1'ody, 'rhe acéused/appeihnf gave a memorandum (Ex.P{13) undav Secfion 27 of. fhg Indian Evidence Ac‘r regarding the ornamenfsA ofLfheideaeaszd Le. one pair silver pairpaffi (Ankle-rs), silvewSofi, silver Mangalsu-rra and Bichia and in7pur‘suance of inn-r memorandum, ihose ornamen'rs were recovered under EXP/14. After completion of “the invesfiga'l'ion, charge .shee'i was filed on 21.03.1995 in ihe Court of'J icial Magistrafe First Class; Durg, who. in iurn .commi‘H'ed fhe case to fhe\\5essionsVJudge Dung, from where the 3"“ Additional Sessions Judge received the oase for trial. ’ ' ‘ The prosecution in-order o establish the charge against the . accused/appellant exammed 11 itnesses. The statement of the a’ccused/ appellant has been recorded’underVSection 313'of'the Cr.P.C. R, i i i i “[‘1i%W . .....................................W 200 WWW ........:...................................'.. Wmuu..u..“mm..‘............’.' ........... \ -14, mam? mna‘f Wm %:aqfrdrqm ~ ’ I J XI-HC-22 ‘ mnalm . W 200 ‘% a . mmmm ‘ _S_ “, amwm ‘ in _which h; denied w proseg‘umn, evidence and ‘s‘med make has‘ falsgiy been implicgfed in 1he crimF‘. ‘\ormmenfs of fhé deoemed ‘were vered a1 the in's‘lmoe of the » accuséd dnd fhere isj’no evidenée on cord fo prave me fac'r ma? fhe omamen'rs whida Were recovered of e Insfance of fhe accuSed were of the deceased Sanfoshi. 1 % There is’ o direcf evudenoefo connect fhe ‘1 E +hJ XI—HC-22 fi'iimm mm accused with the crime; therefore, theconviction by the trial Court is On the other hand, 5hri A ok Bakshi, learned Additional Public Prosewtor supportedthe judgment of the trial Court. cular or direcf evidence in 1his case murder of Sanfoshi and commifrin§ _rape on her and also concealing her body to muse dis-appearance, in order- ‘to save himself from the . rests on the circumstantial evidence i.e. recovery of'the omaments of the deceased at the instance of the accused / appellant. While the ‘ accused l qopellant was in custo , he gave a memorandum (EXP/13) under Section 27 of +he Indian E of the deceased i.e. one pair ’: lilver pairpatti, silver Sati, silver Mangalsutrn and bichia and in pul ornamen‘l's were recovered under E x.P/1‘4. bad in law: If is true 'l'hdf fhere‘is no a To cohneef the accused wifh the- legal punishment The whole case denoe Ac? regarding ihe ornaments ~wance of 1hat'memorandum; those [WW$‘§%F@91 ‘ XI-HC-22 ma ‘W In order- fo convicf-fhe accu ‘d on‘ihe hasis of'cirhmsfanfial evidenoé 1he‘ prosecu'rion has to pro 1he offence as per The se'Hled ‘ prmcnples laid down by The Hon'bk pex Court In fhe raw of Msar 2416 a ce bme n rcmst t iden eo th r . i’e., in as d o ciu‘ ial evce, bfre e Cou? con record convicTion i‘r mus? so‘l'i Itself fhm' circumstances from which an Inference of gull? could be drawn have been established by unimpeachobleoevidence led by 1h prosecution and that all the cifcumstances put together are not only of o’conclusive nature but Halso complete the chum so fully as to unerrmgly pom? on1y f0 1'13 gunl'r of the accused and are not capable of any explanation, whwh Is not consistent wlth the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Now we shall proceed to examine the evidence adduced by the ’ prosecution in order to establish thi‘e charge against the accused / ' g appeliant. Mannu Lal (PW8) first saw the jute bag in the we" which l A [View n_ m XI—HC—22 WEI WW” was sifua'red in his agrictihuml field. He gave inform-rim fo 'Hw Police anddhe jute bug was hkenl w‘f from ‘rhe we“. ~When i'r was go? 'ope‘ned ‘rhe dead body.,of Sunfoshi was found in fhe 3bngr arid’ memorandum (ExP/B) 'ro 'l’hu'r effect was prepared: Marinu La! further sm'red #h'uf ~+heenccused ave memorandum ( EXP/13) fhaf he has kep'r 'fhe ornamen'fs of 5911+ shi in ‘H'Ie house, tha'rrmemorondum bears Mannu Lal's signature. In ursuanc'e of fha? memorandum, one pair silver pairpafli, silver i. and silver Mangalsu'lru were v T l recovered which were kepf onfl' ‘Pa‘lav" of his house and 'lhéy were h faken in'rb possession under Ex;P 14; Ofher witness Gokar'un Singh ' has no-r been examined. The Inve iga'l'ing Officer (PW/11) VS Mishra - r has s-l'a'red fha'l' while; in The p lice cusfodyf'l’he acctised gave a h memorandum (EXP/13) and in suanoe of- 1‘ha‘l one pair silver pairpa'H'i, silver Sufi, silver Manga fra and Bichia which were kepi on l [1%W 4*“. . r XI-HC—22 ‘ flue “Pa‘fnv” of fhe house of accused were recévemd cf ‘rhe inshnae of 1he accused and memorandum (Ex.P/14) was prepared. ‘ In order 1’0 establishWhaffhe said ornamenfs belohg‘fo ‘rhe ’ dPceased 5an1’oshi, fhe prose fion examined Ramkumarj (PW4), , husband of The deceased. He md 1haf 'Hwe‘ idenfifica'rion memo (EXP/1) bears his signature and in 'l'he. cross examina'l’ion, he has sfafed fha‘r he had no? identified e ornamenfs. He has nof stared in his evidence 'rhaf the ornaments longing to ‘San‘roshi were idenfified . ’byhim.‘ Even fafher-in-law of 'l’oshi, Panchuram ’(PW3) has nof shied any'rhing abouf ihe iden ify' of The .omamenis. Similar-bl; Shakuni Bai (PWZ), elder- sis‘rer f San‘roshi has been examined: in para 4 of_her evidence, she has fed +ha'r Santoshi weni' +0 'wa'rch 'l'he dance affer‘wearing 'I'he oma enfs: bu'f she has nof disclosed the idenfi'ry of fhose omamen'rs and at i‘he recovered ornaments were of Santoshi. Fatherof Santoshi itram ‘(PW1) has also not identified \‘\ . v i W§W L . V XI—HC—22 The ormmenfs; Theréfore, There is no legal evidence on record whidt shows. hat +he ornaments which. ere recovered a1 fhe insmnce cf w fhe accused were of Sanfoshi a in The absence 0f wan evidence, n , #he accused can no1' be connected wifh The crime'of 'rhe murder and . rape bf Sanfoshi. As per 'rhe prosecufion evid aei me accused was also residing » with 6a11’ram (PWI), bu't while lod mg missmg repor? of Sanfoshi if was no? mentioned inn? Mangal - accused [ appeHmfr was aiso i . 7 missing fr’om 1he house. Even in mentioned fha‘r deceased» San'l'osh was-wearing +he ornamenis when ‘ she wen? fo wa'ich ’1'he dancein' 1h m evidence, which connects the accused / appellant with the murder of I Santoshi. U ' 1" repori‘ Ex.P/16-A, if was not fair. Therefore, there is no legal Except the recovery of ornaments at the instanee of. the accused there is no other evidende to connect the accused with the 111% éfa'e e XI-HC»22