^ ^ -^, ^ -<^ \^ ^ ft , XI?i-i.88/(Jai}) C.J.P.R.—5,000-9-81 ^ < c, ax^ No. Father's iiiame —< iidence- -J^A-.. ^7 Name ~^^n^r -^r W^^f, (^7-^qHi Senteaced ^--^^^^^ Under section .—^—Age -—^O-—— - ~^~(3 T^'vr ^-^^s. '^^sz^^^-ypW ~^)r^f^T^^^~^sv^~^^_ ^""yi'R'f'3'fi^ it is explained to the prisoner tl.at if lie states or wishes to be represented b\ a legal practitioner the Appelate Coun will not proceed .with thebase for seven dQys iniess the legai practitioner appears. If tfae legal practilioner does not appear wiLh in seven days he may not be heard at alj If the prisoner^states that he does not wish to be represeated by legal practitioner the court may proceed at once vvith the case and will not be obliged to give a hearing to any legal practitioner who should appear. 1 2 3 4 Date of Application for copy of Judgement Date ofwhich copy received —- -^4^^- ^u-4^ Date on which Appeal sent ————^^)-4-lL--{—i-^——— Whether the prisoner wishes to be represented or not- Yes/No. No.—Ai&-_— Continued in-—— — No.-— Name— -^r——Jail-Gy-^^7-^ -dated—<i W@?frST—^7?R,7%fl^- Forwarded to the CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE —————/— ^o-ftTf^y^^ ^-'' ^ to gather with a copy of judgement or order passed in the oisi^-r, tran^mission to the proper Appil'liate Court. t- Superintei .(^^ ^^ t :. Date ofreceipt in C. J. M.'S Gffice—————— Date of receipt of record to accompany———— Memo of the^Apj>eliaJ^ Court. —-——--^—————•— •——-°——— le^^Qe^^£^^^^J\^^IZl~l~Z^ ;1 ^ated——-L^:s--^--^--I98^--l-----~--ts^----^n , , r, ^-Z^ES$^1^2^^^^^?<U^!^ Date of receipt in Appliate Coiirt——- CJ.Maf-istrate (P.T.O.) _r ? •-.„ ^ __..^d^iw^.^ XI-HC-22 3:n^?T'^T ^ich 3T|^T 5h^i<=h <if^a -.^.,. (zp '3'^T ^II^Kn^l, ^Tll^^Ko, i^<ni^< 3T^?T XRT^ _J^^.M:./.^Q HI^Cfr ^hHlcb 200 ^rexp' W^T ^[T^R 'HftU DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. L.C.BHAD00 HON'Bl^ BiR.VIJAY.je. SltRIVASTAVA^JJ Lav^yer appe^l OT.12»20Q5 Mr. Shravan K Chand^ for the appellaiit. Mr. G.K. Beriwal, Raviadra Agaiwal, Panel Qi^d judg32icnt. Bv this crimmal Jashpumagar, District Rai^aj legality of judgment of cou^ 1994 passed by leamed District Raigarh ia S.TJ / Sessions Judge after commission of offence und4r sentenced him to unef accused/appeUaiit has also i.mdcr Sectiori 354 of thc I. imprisonment for one year, The prosecutipn stotyj Sule Bai lodged a report (E^ the aUegations that in tlie") went for slcep, at about l^, her room with aii mtenticljgi pressmg her breast. She tjc started cn^iaff, therefore, {ilwith Mr, Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, counsel 4ddittonal PubMc Prosecutor with Mr. fortheStafe. <^N(<rt<fl'l 'RR^f "^ Fs^ <rai<^« ^T^Tf;<W3?n^T ^aigarJ A^ditional .Nb hol^mg through the Superinteudent, Sub-jaU, SJarh appellant Lalsed has questioued the l/iction and senteuce dated 6th October, Sessions Judge, Jashpiiniagar, i.133/93 whcrcby lcanicd Additional the accused/appellant guilty for Section 302 of flie Indiaii Penal Code lergo iaiprisoniQent for life, The been coxivicted for coinmissioii ofojffence |P.C, a3id seiitenced to luidcrgo rigorous m brief, is tiiat on 5.1,1993 deceased :.P-4) in the Police Station Kuukuri wifli night of 1,1.1993 after taking food she |,OQ p.ni. fhc accuscd/appcllaiit cntercd to outrage her modesly and started sfused to oblige accused/appeUaiit mid accused/appellant after takiag out [^it'^'^Ri^ XI-HC-22 ^iT^r'^r f<tii?b 3n^r 5bHi<^^Ra © '3~^T ^IHId^, ^Tlt^^Ko, f®(<y11XHy an^r Ti^ra? ^IH^I ^q^*--—-——•—'—•—••••—-^^ 200 'I^^T' matchbox frora hi& poclcet laatchbox aad raa away. C^n hearing Side Bai?s cries, Dineshram (PW-5), Itwari Bai (PW-7) & room aad they extmguishe| account of fire fh.e sad. & u^ lower part of Iier body was phnicshwar (PW-8) came ranunig to hcr (1 the fire wifli the help of water. On i|dergaruieats ofSule Baiwere bunit and [also burQ.t On 2,1,1993 a ineeting was convened iii fhe vittage a4d accused-Lalsai was asked to niake arrasigeHients for treatisicn anangement for her treatme^it till 2nd, 3rd, & 4th January, 1993. On receivmg tfais report, the po|ice ofi&cer registered fhe F.I.R. and Sule Bai was sent to tlie Primanr laedicallv exaoiiaed aild doc on 18.2.1993 Sule Bai d-icd Postaiortem was conducted he opmed that cause of de; 37% bum ranging 2nd to 3rd The Investigating Offi< the charge shcct agamst leamed Judicial Magistratej committed tlie case to leant leamed Additioual Session^ case on transfer for trial, Thc prosecution iii CM<4f<yt<i1t1 ^!^<ylT^ FS^I ipsl-^K ^srf^m^Tt^r. ^t her on fire wifh the help of stick of of Sulc Bai, but he did uot makc Healfh Centrea, Kunkuri wiiere she was ^pr prepared the report Ex, P-5. However, m thc Priman^ Health Ccutre, Kzinkiiri. |3y Dr. Jai Singh Sahu (PW-10) mwlilcli ^ih was cardio respiratory arrest due to |g^a<le, |er after coinpletion of investigation filed ^hc accused/appcllaat ia the Court of 1st Class, JashpmTiagai' who m tura .ed Sessions Jiidge, Raigarh from where Judge/Jashpuro.agai' has rcceived fhe inler to provc fhc oficnce agaiast ihc accused/appellant examia^d 11 witnesses. On the other haiid, statement ofaccused/appellautwasrecordedimde.rSection 313 of the Cr.P.C. by leamed A^ditional Sessions Judge m which fhe [Tft^'^fe^r XI-HC-22 ^o? 1;?TT£n^lzT, ^Tit^^Ko, [®i<ni<i^< 3T7^r'^r f<-ii<=h 5h^ict> ^i^a 3^?t ''T^? *11^^11 5bHJc»)* ^**'*'*<*""*fc**'*'*'***'*'*'*'^p^ 200 " •(N^y""""""""""""""'" ^n^T '^nsjT 'Hf^cT accused/appellaat denied agamsf hiai aiid stated tihLat fhe prosecution evidence appearing be had not went to the hoiise ofSule Bai aad he has bccn falscly imp^cated ta. the criine. Learaed Additional: Additional PubUc Prosecutor sentenced the accused/appeplant herein iti Uxe laafiner as Bientk)ued aboye. Wc have hcard Mr. C^iandcl with Mr, Bajpai, counscl for the appellant & Mr, Beriwal, Agarwal, Paiiel Lawyer for ffa< Mditional PubUc Prosecutor with Mr. State. . from thc cvidcncc of PW-1 report (Ex.P-6) it is establis bura iajuries aad her death aad that is m thc tbrm of 4 her death ifi which sl]t< and tried fo outrage her ino<| heariiig her cri.es DiiieshraiG| CM^t<n<flti 'RW^ff ^ f^sf <fa^i< ^3Tf;OTW^T Sessions Judge, after hearmg the & counselfor fhe accused coiivicted aad Learaed couusel for tt|e accused/appellaiit did npt dispute fhe fact fhat deatli of Sule Bai ^as hoimcidal ia natiire, Apart frora that Dr, Jai Siagh Saliu and postsaortcBi tied that Sule Bal was died on account Ivas homicidal in natiire, As far as the iavolveiiajent ofthe accused/appeliaiit ia crmie in. question is concemed, dece^sed Siile Bai herself affcer receiving biim tiijuilcs wcnt to fhc Policc S-|]ation Kunkuri, lodgcd the rcport (Ex,P-4) ymg declaration relatmg to the cause of has categoricaUy mentioned that accusfed/appellaiit hercin e4tered herrooxxi in fhe rdght about llpxn esty aad when she refiised to obUge the aceused/appellaBt aad lais^d cries, hc took out the niatclibc^x froia his pocket aiid set her on fil|e.wiUi the help of stick pf mafchbox, as a result of which her Sad 4ncl undergaiinents were bumt aiid on Bhiaeshwar & Itwari Bai caxae aad they [Tit^ ^fe^ XI-HC-22 STI^T'^T t^ri^F^n^T '^IW^Tf^T '^ ^, B) 's^ ^ii^Kn^, ^Til^^Ko, facni^y SV^ '^fSR +11^011 jSb^icb*'***"****'***"***"*'*"*'**'*^'*^?^ 200 'l^^"""""""""" ^TT^r'^IT^R:'Hf^r -^' GbHfcn<iii ^i^<riT '?VFsl<i1 <p3it^K '^^ri^w^n^T extiuguished fhe fire with 1 stated in his evidence tliat o: that accused LaJlsai entercd 4^r ro^si witii an intention fo outrage her modesly but Wheu she rejEil.sed, he set her ou fire, In the cross: exammation, this witness hah stated fhat Sule Bai disclosed tliis fa.et to hiin after 5-6 days froixi fh^ date ofincident PW-5 Diaeshrain ha^ stated in his evidence that Sifcle Bai was his Biother aiicl she has clied, Ou thc fateful day after cclc] tiieii' respective rooms, at ab^ tiie room. of his niofher, tril refti^al, the accused set h^r d inadc ,the oraJ dviD.g declara fhat the tower part ofthebol biuii iiijuries wcrc raagiiig Saliu has furthcr stated tfaatl cn the body of Sule Bai aii^ he help of water, PW~3 Koflaraxxi has a enqitiry fhe deceased disclosed to him bratirig:New. YeaT,;they wci^'sk'epiiig iii ?ut II p.iii. inthenightLalsaleiitered iii ?d to outmge her modesty aiid on her u fire,. Similar was fhe evidence ofPW-6 Jainatli, PW~7 Ife^ari Bai^ P^V-8 Blliiieshwar before whoni Sule Bai ^iou rcgardio.g fhc fact of scttiag her ou fii'e by tiie accused/appella^t hereia aiid tiie above'evideiice of the wiuiesses is corroborated lj|y the evidence of Ds\ Jai Siagh Saliu (PW-10) who niedicatly exa4iiiied Sule Bai on 5,1,1993 aad found iy of Sule Bai was biinit upto 37% and 2nd to 3rd dcgrcc. PW-10 Dr. Jai Smgh bn 19.2.1993 hc conducted postmortem found that Sule Bai died on account of bura uijuries. Postaiorteni x^port is Ex.P-6, There is nothuig in the cross--exaiaination of tliese ^itnesses to slxow that Szile Bai ia order to implicate the accuscd/a|)pellaat iii a falsc casc gavc the dym.g declai'ation. Therelbre, Uie itivolvement of accusecl/appellaiit m the crime in question is estabUs| niedical evidence, hed based on fhe dyiag declaration and ^Ra^l I- XI-HC-22- 3?IT^T^T ^icb ^n^r 5^^icb <if^a ^"oEf ^i<4id<4, ^Til^li<o, fa<ni^i<i< 3n^?T 'q^ra? ^l^cil^b^icb ****'****"*****'"****'**** "*^F^ 200 .^^....................,. -sn^r ^TTW'nfN -^ Leamed counsel for tpie accused/ appellaxit argued tiiat froni the evidence on record it h4s not been estabUshed tliat the accused had committed the criine w^th fhe iatention to cause deafh of Sule Bal. Sule Bal died m the hoi| the date of mcident, Had th4 was every chaace of her su^ival? Thercfprc, ihe offence agairist fhe accused/appellant doea not jh-avel beyorid 304 Part-1 oftlie I,P,C. On the other haiid, lc4r2i€dAdditional PubUc Prosccutor for thc State supported ttie judgme^ Iti order to apprecial counsel for fhe parties tf we| evidence addiiced in fhj lower part of her body was cM^f<n<iii 'Rpi^f ^ f^^i <rsi^i< '^'^rf^PTSH^T - pital after one montli eighteeu days froni proper treatment given to Sule Baiffaere t of tlie trial court. |:e the arguments advanced by leamed llook uito fhe facts .& circunistaa.ces atid [s case^ it is estabUshed tliat fhe accused/appenaat entercd tjtic rooBi of Sulc Baiwith fhe intention to outoage her modesly aad wl|ieu she declmed to accede fiie request of accusecl Lalsai, he set her o|a fu-e with ihe help of sticK of matchbox, as a result ofwhich underg^naients & sari of SuU Bai were bumt aud also bumt upto 37%. Fromi the above cvidencc it is clear that wfadn Suli Bai refused to accede the deDian.d of accused Lalsai, he beca4ie farious aad set SuU Bai on fire. Tliis conduct shows that mtentic|n of the accused/appellaiit was to finish Su4 Bai ^s he became so fu|rious on accoxxnt of refasal on fhe part of Siili Bai to oblige him and tpierefore^ he set her 011 fire^ as a reszilt of wliich she bumt upto 3?°<), Explanation 2 of Sect^on 299 of tiie I. P. C. is the aiiswei- to fhe ai'guments of leamed coi^nsel for tlie accused/ appellao.t, which envisages fhat " w?iere dec^^i is caused by bodily injury, tJze person [Tft^ ^Rsi^ XI-HC-22 ^n^T^r 'f^ri^F^n^T s^^icb ^f^a Roshan/- "^'y -^ ^T ^H|<nq, ^Tli^^Ko, f®((rtl^y an^r•q^? ^l^^l ^b^ich " """""""""*"**'*^F^ 200 '1^8r""""""""""""-" ^TI^T ^^H^R'Hf^T —^- wtio cazises suc?i bodily injv death, aUhough by resorting the deaih might have been pj set SuM Bal on flre was kno^ tbe deafh is bound to be fhe caii be ioferred fhat fhe in.tentti Suil Bai OB. flre for coiaiaitfio^ fhe witacsscs beforc whoBi ^ accused Lalsai, in thc first Sule Bai, pressed her breas offence under Section 354 of lu the result, we do n^ fiiidiB.g of the trial court, Thi^ liable to be dismissed aad it Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge CM<([<rt<fl-i ^i^t<riT 4 f^1^) <H»1^|< ^T 3Tf^TH ^T^T ijry s}ialJ be deefned to have cansed the (o proper remedies and skilful ^reatment ^svenied^ Thc accused/appeUaiit whc?n •|ing fuUy well that setting Suli Bai on fire 5|rc., tliercfore, from the circumstaaces it i|tiion of fhe accused/appeUaiit was to set her iniirder, As has been disclosed by |ule Bai isiadc the dyiiig declaration that istance, tried to outrage tlic modesty of aiid caught her by haiids, fliereforc, pie IPC was also m.ade out against hioi. >t fiad aiiy ground to inferfere witli the ^ appcal is dcvoid of aiiy nicrit, samc is herebv dismissed. Sd/- V.K. Shrivatava Judge [^^ ^p^^