.|i^pg|g|2:t1tgy^^ K^T]89/(Jail) C.^VP.R. 11/9472,000 "CFb'000060847 ^»:.il^'U^. APPEAL OFPRISONER .:.^. .. ^ 9Nsio"Be^ ^ rmtt!^ '»••• •••vsf y«^^»• • » »•• •»••••••••»•••»••••••••• J.'^CI.AAAS/ ••• »t~%»<v^fl• ?*cr<r*???^fy?* • •••••• •*• ••••••••••••••••• "^" »»' Father's name •••^^^....^^-f-^w-- ^sillw<s ^^^Tj^vwr--^^^ ...ss^^..^..... -......- Sentencedto<.^^^.^^^^........0n....^.^ Under section ......^^^..^.^^... by ^^^^^^,^,^.^^^....... It is explained to the prisoner that ifhe states or wishesto be represented by legal practitioner the Appellate Court will not proceed with the base for seven days untess the legal practitioner~appears . If the legal practitioner does not appear within seven days h^sfta^pot heard^at all ifihe prisoner states that he does not wish to be repre- sefat^d IS^riegirpracrtitj^Ojer t^e court may proceed at once with the case and will nct be oBliged to give^^^^^tcf^ny legal practitioner vvho should appear . \ s\r ~ obllged to give ?"y N~ \2^^ ^teof Application for copy ofJudgement .^.t.5^:.(/€....^...^..dofyy......... (^^vhich copyreceived ............... ...... .^..\S^ <^..€...... ............. m which AppealseQt.......... . ..........f.^x^.^..^ ... .................... ^6 4-^Whether the prispner wishes to be represented or not -^e^7 Nol^"^ ^_ No.... ........^^ Confinedin .............. ....^2^^^....... Jail "Fjf^T" No.......^....^-0'0^.... .........Dated. •••;"----Name"^7^7^- ^srsp7%~p*'^i"O^'<^^<- 199. Forwarded to the CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE .. ^..^^ ^ togather which a copy of judgement or order passed in the case for favour of trans- mission to the proper Appellate Court. •^•^.-.-^^•^^^- upe?ffl%l?dei ^^TW3(' Jail [%c4— Date of receipt ia... ......<. ... L/..;...... ../. office Date of receipt record to accompaQythe Memo ofAppealtoihe Ap^ellate court !wr" -^- 'T" i'..-'^.. •^v^r'-l-^-^^ :^]J44--I 5^^^^^'^^"-i~: .. ±^.-^^.......-_......,.,, ...^.,^ _ ><Xto..3-^-^,'..u'^7 ' ,"*c<i^--.«-^L/f. - ..^, Date ofreceipt in Appefllate Court..,,.c .„....,...r,.....,.. ...^...^1 ^•t ^'N' -P. T. O. ) A^k . \ !'.i ';:€?:i-- XI-HC-22 "^? ^Fn^^/'^Tfte^/tN^ray 3^?T W?^ .' . , , IWI^ ^p-??^''^^^^*^^^^*^^^ ^ 'OT^r'^r 1^T?F^¥I ^^i^ ^ii^a -t. + ^I^T^^T^R^fpr DMSiONBENCH:- HQN'BLE MR: L.C. BHADOO AND HON'BLE MR. DHiRENDRA iVIISHRA,VJ. 13-1-2006 . Shri D.R. Sharmar Sr. Advocatel the appellant. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Addjtiona! Pu^iic Prceecutor vvith Shri Afchil h4ishra, 'Pane! Lawyerforthe State/responderit. Ora! judgmeot dlctated on DlaB. PERL.C.BHADOO.J. By this urider Section 31 Premsai has questioned the iegaiity of sentence dated 16th May 1998 whereb^ after holding the •accused/appeilant g| Section 302 ofthe J.P.C., sentenced hinl The prosecution case, in brief, younger brother of the accused fodgec| Lelunga to the effect that yesterday ev^ vvorkjng in hts kitchen garden. His ei4 and demanded food from his miother cn | ready. On hearlng this, the accysed attackedwith the axe twioe on the head v^hich she felf down, and wjthin short tjnf1 S,H.O. poEJoe station after registeringtt the j.P,C. proceeded-to the scesi.e of| Panchas, prepared Panchanama (Ex.-P| took :ioto possession blood ^sta.ined tjnle '^P?feRh'RTH^ ^ fe^ TfN^R ^ ^^P? ^Tf^T wtth Shri B.D. Badgaiyya, Advocate for Q^iilfy ?4- (2) of the CrP.C. accused/appeliant |the judgment of conviction and order of 1s Additjona! Sessions Judge, Raigarh for ODmmissJon of'offence under. to undergojmprisonment for life. |is4hat on 13-7-95 Karam Sai (RA^-1), the report Ex.8UP/1 in the poiice /^n'mg he was at his residence and was brother came after consuming liquor |which i?is mother repiied that food is not b^came enraged, picked up the axe and ^f-hls mother Budhani- Bai, as aresuit of she haddied. On receivjng this report, le crime No.84/95 under section 302 of occyrrence, after givlng' notice to the f2) offhe dead body of Budhanl Bal. He toil and plain soil from the olace of occurrence as a!so the cotton sari drenched with blood which Budh^flBSH^?as XI-HC-22 ^^^PTR;PT,^Tl1^^i^ I^TTffy OT^I^T ^ri^^¥i '^?NTT[^T 3?T^T TT^? ^8N^88 ^^8<3b -M 200 'f^^T' to the Primary Heaith Centre, Leiij •^fqf^^f^^ ^ fe^ I^^R ^ai^FT^i^T wearing. The dead body of Budh^ini Bai was sent for postniortem examination nga where Dr. Shailendra Upadhyay (PW-5) conducted postmortem cn the cjead body of the deceased and prepared postmortem report Ex.-P/4 in whic|i he opioed that cause of death was syncope due to-excessive haemorrhage a^ offerice, was'.taken into possessicj dootor for his opinion as to whethe| deceased could 'be caused by the| Ex.-P/S. The site pian Ex.<aP/7 was| of Judiciat Nagistrate, 1st Class, (^ the Sessions Jydge, Raigarh from| a resolt of head injury. The axe, vveapon. of ?n under Ex/-P/2 and'same was sent to the f injuries which were found on the body of the weapon of offeoce. The doctor gave opinion prepared by Patwan. After completion of the inv^stigation, charge sheet was flied in the Court (harghoda who inlum oommitted the case to 4St where iearned 1;>fc AdditEonaj Sessions Jydge received the case on transfer for triai. The prosecytion in prder t^) eslablish the charge against the accused examined 8 witoesses. The stat^ment of the accused was recorded by the /Additional Sessions Jydge undej' Section 313 of the CrP.C. in which the accysed deoied the prosecution e^idence and stated that he is innoceot and has been faiseiy jmpiicated in the cri<ne on account qf animosity with Ramji Lai. Learned Addltiona! Sessions Judg^ after hearing arguments of Addltional PybSic Pfosecutor and counsel for the act?used, convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned in paraBa1 ofthisjudg|nent. We have heard leamed coi|nsel for the parties. The hoinicidal nature ofde^thof Budhanj Bai js not in dispute. The crime witnessed by none eise thart the brother of the accused and son of the deceased nameiy PW-1 Karam ^ai who has stated thatpn 12-7-95 in the evening he was working in the kit| after consuming liquor and aske| When the deceased replied tha| )hen garden, at that time, the accused came for the food from his mother (deceased). food is not ready, the accused became ['nt^^f^ T~ _.....^-1.-.:-'-. XI-HC-22 ~^^ '^T^IM^T, ^taTt?^ fSi^l(^^< Wff^T'^Plt^* OT^l^T f^JW^l^I ^N-^i^ Barve +- /^.\' •M 200 ^^i^^T^^tn I, picked upthe axe and ass^u Shefei! down on the groynd and died| Learned counsel for the accusfc the accused and this witness were sfr< the accused In the crime. But, we do notJEnd any subst^nce in this argument, as jiothing has been ejicited in tbe cro^-examination of t| raised by counsel for the accused/apri Jaiiai Sidar that there was no dispul The evidence of Karam Sai (PW-I) made ex1ra judicjal confession before) his agricyltyral field before whom he has further that the accused ^ why Prem Sai and Karam Sai were n Ihls v^itness to iiTipIJcate the accused the accused. The extra judiciai con The manner In which the aoci the forehead of Budhanj Bai with sucl opinion that there is no jllegaiity and same Is based on the legai and ciinch In the result, we do not firici ai to Ke dismissed and jt is hereby dismi Sd/.- L.C, Bhadoo Judge ^mfer^ ^i^f ^ ^^ iN^K ^ • ilted her on her head, as a resuit of which spontaneously. ^d/appellant argued that as4he relations of ained, therefore, he has faisely impficated iis witness to make the defence piausibie ^dlanl. This fact has been denied by PW-2 betvveen the accused and this witness. ^nds support from the fact that the accused |R/V"3 Shankar Prasadwhp was working tn taid that "I have myrdered my mothe^ He l?as iri tbe habit of consuming iiquor that is ssiding separately. There is no reason for in a heinous crime iike murder of mother of fession made by the accused before this vvltness was voluntary, tme and proitnpt, as the samie lends support from the evidence of PW-1 -Karam Sai\ assaulted wlth the deadiy weapon on. a force that fronfal bone of right side was fractured, as a resuit of which she dieti spontaneousiy. Therefore, we are ofthe fnfirmity in the judgment ofthe trial Court, |ng evidence. |y substance in this appea!, same is iiable sed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge [^^I^