”G25 i¥ 47;:jk[§za CF0000059492 ‘ @ mCo‘b) APPEAL PalsONEa arm-mm kN " J” Nama E§ Nka ”‘ Faers th Name ‘% ..;w‘u—W _ ,.., Residentme 1mg p €57 qayegr ‘l%° 'AgewL Sentencedtom mm x21 g 2:1 Under Section é grarkég 1g: WM”? WHMK%V . It ls explamed to the pnsoner that 1f he states orm¥gbe represented by a legal practltloner the Appellate Court Willnot proceed w1th the base for seven days unless the legalpraetmoner appears If the legal practrtroner does not arenMr w1th1n seven days he may be heard at all 1f legal praetmoner the court ay proeeed at once wrth the case and w1llnot be obhged to grve a bearmg to practmoner who should appear. ‘ ' Date of applrcatlon for copy of Judgement - NO ex V-Z; . Date of;which‘copy reeelved z— l‘? w, e v “Tl ’6; v 3 r—S'rtr 4. Whether the prisoner wished tobe 3. Date on which appealsent :- 7v represented or not 2- Yes / Ne. No. . #32w Name m‘%%€i “KlQwéE‘i‘ aggrcm Jail es mn H Dated Q'yi 3L_ Forwarded to the CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 3%®l%1 f0 Continued in with a oopv of Judgement or order passed 1n the case for favour of ’ / 1 transmissron to the proper Applleate Court \ej J g _ t Superintendeéww gW-Jail. Date of'rrcceipt in .C- J. M. 0%0‘6. 26/W/ rf’) Date of receipt of record to accompany. ,_ Memo of Appealeof the Appellate Court. r- khya x ‘n *ift‘eaf, N0. 1C 9 dated 2?{q[9‘) Forwardedto the H’W-L $e£slbwf> S’ue%/£ 00& Q R. -MAGISTRATE Date of receipt in Applie‘ate Court ,W_MV V' ; m ¥ l l p )1 ,, Division Emir - Hon'ble Mn L c. Bhadoa and ‘ Hm’bie M! Dhifgngta Mkhm J4, 3-2-2006 Mr Rajesh Jain counsel farthe appellant Mr U N S Dec Addltlonal PL bllc Prosecutor for the State/tespondent Oral judgment dictated on D41 PerLc ammo”: - By lhls alspeali accusedfa ant Madvi Budhu has queslioned lhe‘ legality of lhe judgment of ,convi ion and order of sénlence dated 17" $eptember. 19W, passed by lhe ons Judge, Jagdalpur, in Sessions‘Trial No 300/96 whereby leamed Ses ions Judge after hblding the accusedi . appellant guilty for commission uf l e murder of hrs wnfe Budhn convrcted hu under Section 302 of thel P C an Case of the prosecutron Is th Madvr Aaytu (PW-4) lodged reporr Ex P—8 Police Station Dantewada to ihe efienl trial on 27-2-1996 (Tuesday) nigh! ai bout 12 0’ clock his younger bro her Budhu came Willi his girl child to his i residence and while handing aver lh child lo his wife Madvi Lakhi stated that he has murdered his wife Budhri by all cking With Badge (Mahuwa slick) now “ycu lake care of the child” lelt the child i the lap of his Wife and relumed beck lo his wrfe He along Wllh his Wife also l to the house of Budhu, they saw lhal he was sifting on the main door near: e firepot. body of his wife was lying there, blood Was oozing oul of mouth & of Budhri and she was dead. He went lo the house of neighbourers Baggu, dhram, Masa & Budhram Sic Guddi and informed them. They also came saw the body‘of Budhrl, there on enquiry, Budhu informed that he demanded food from Budhri, she refused fo give him Wherefore he ahacked h with Mahuwa slick. The-body remained ' lenced/to undergo lmprisonmenl for life p‘ l S i m d n m a 'r n u a' X‘HC-2 I2 ,W mm Cb A 7’17 qg W W WWI?%Q%W aqmnm mmmm , ¢ 2“ there fer wgwle night. m ihe morning Sarpa‘nch & Panch were informed, they came and before ihe'm also Budhu made extra judicial coniession. After rragistering the case under Section 302 of the l.P.C., the investigating Officer'ieft for the soe of occurrence and prepared Panchnama of the body of Bu‘dhri ELF-1'. Mahu a stick was taken into possession under Ex.P.2, one read cioth stained wit blood was taken into possession under Ex.P=3, blood stained soil & plain so l were taken into possessibn under EXP-l and cioihesoi the accused were ta n into possession under Ex.P-5. Body oi ‘ Budhri was sent for posi-moriem examination to Primary Heaith Centre, Dantewada; where Dr. BK. Tirki ( 1) oonducted postmortem and prepared post-modem report EXP-7. Aner completion of lnvestigai n‘ charge sheet was med in the Court o ' Judicial Magrsirale First Class Dan ewada, who in tum committed the case to the Sessions Judge Jagdalpur fortr' l establish crime ,againsi the accused examined seven witnesses. State ent of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which h denied the prosecution evidenee; ~ Learned Sessions Judge fter hearing the arguments of Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accu ed oonvrcted and sentenoed the accused as mentioned in para 1 of this judgm nt The prosecution in order The homicidai death of Budhri is not in dispute. As far as the involvement of t eeccueed in committing the murder of his wrfe Budhn rs concerned oonvrction sts on the extra rudrcral confession made by the accused before his brothe i Aaytu (PW4) “and Madvi Lakhi (PW-5). MadVi Lakhi (PW—5) has turned host le and has not supported the prosecution ' case. it is settled law that conviction can be based on eidra judiciai confession [View n P - f r v XI-HC— 22 3a W, Em, W31 331w m WW...3.9% WWW WW WW .. 3” agwm pmvided same'is voiumaty; true am prompi, Madvi Aaytu - , r of the accused. even mough in examinationiin chief has not supported me prosecution evidence, but oneross- xamination by me Public Picsewior has staied that ii is caries: in say that the accused came with-girl child to his resudence and staied "keep the giri s I have murdered my Wife Budhn with a club” it is aiso irue that on anqurry y the wiiagers Budhu made extra judicial confessmn that when Budhn did not provide him food he assauiied her with a ciub and on this he lodged the r (ELF-8) m ihe Peirce Statlcn He iurther stated that since he forget about this fact thereiore he was not able to disciose the same. The F.i.R. (Ex.P.8) con'o rates the ahove ewdence of this Witness and in the same, this witness ment ed that the accused made extra judicial confession betore him. Further, the vidence of this witness lends support from the medical evidence in which BK. Tirid (PW«1) has stated that he conducted post-modem on the b of Budhn‘ on 29-2-1996 there was one abraswn on left eyebrow in the size f 3 x 2 x 1 ems haematoma on left parietal region in the size cf 7 x 5 cms., ated wound on the right parietal regmn above the rtghtear in the sizes x cms. deep up to the bonefnd teit & right parietai bones were fractured. injuries were ante-modem in nature, and death was homicidai as the causeaof death was asphyxia due to head injury. His report is EXP-7. Madvi Aayiu (PW-4) is the ‘rother of the accused and there was no reason for this witness‘to impiicat his brother in a false case. Moreover, nothing has come in the cross-axe inaticnthat on accountof animosity or for any other reason this witness .ha implicated his brother in a false case. Therefore. it is estabiished that th accused was the author of the crime in ' question. [stew e i n e ta r XI-HC‘22 Spma As far as the questibn wh‘é 1her' in'the given circumsta’nces offence under, ~ Section 392_cf the LP.C. was mac e out against the accused !eamed counsef for thé‘appellam argued that on the given facts and circumstances offence against ‘ the accused does nm travel bey Sectren304 Panel! cf the LEG. ' ln Lb'rder to aphreciale the rgumem advanced by iearned counsei fcr ihe eppeham we have perused the evrdence h has come en record thai when Budhrl refused r0 provide food to he accused that enraged the accused and al! of a sudden he picked up the uwa suck and assauhed on the head of his Wife Budhn as e result of whrc she received’injuries There is nothing on record which shows that the a used assaulted Budhn wrth the intention to cause her death He attacked Bu hn ali of a sudden Without ore-meditation in a sudden quarrei Thereicrgoffe against‘ihe accused does not travel beyond ‘ Seetian 304 Pen-tirofme' me. in the result. the appeal-is partty aiiowed. Conviction and sentence awarded to the accusedlappellan under Section 302 of the l P C are set aside instead thereof the accused ls nvicted under Section 304 Part-ii of the t P C and sentenced mundergo’impr ment already undergone, as the accused has already undergone the sent nce of nine years and eleven months The accused be set at libeny forthwrth if not required in any other case I . Parties are emitted for cerhhed copy of this orden a? r l Stu- \ l 7 L.C.BHAD00 ‘ i I Judge a \- . sm— ; DHtRENDRA MISHRA Judge weaves o d h n i n _‘"