XII-188/(Jail) ESCJ.P.R.—5,000-9-81 ^3l^y;3..g9:-^o-i-t.»^'*;~?<" liss'ss B:",nsi> /C:*tiR»n^8 No. 9 V&fSer'swme-i—^-^-^ Residesee- Steateneed'to^ ,:,.,Under;sectiQtt m^ss^^i^^^^¥^S. ........'s»^,u_^.., n; is expIaine<itOL eprisGnerih^tif]3estatg J?g^p ^ piraetitioner tlie-AgpeIate Coyri will not proceed wttjh /tlie^^e fbr seven dav^ ^tlie "legajt praefitiDber\ apjpears. Jff ^tlie . tegal" practiiioner does fTtot^ppe|^,;witK insevenday^liema^QQt^e heard.at alJIf't^epasone^^ Iie doesiiot wisli io be repFeseufed by^egal pFactitipner tlie CQTirt.may proceed at bhee Lwith tiie '7case ahd WiU^t be ofeliged'to give a hearmg to aHy^egat^raetttioi^rwhosfasuldappear, !«f:y f^] Pi 1 :-i:h& I" 1 I 2 3 4 Date of A^i^stibh^fpr cbp^ pf Ju^gemenf -^sz^4-?-^--- Date of whicli copy received.'-—— Date on which Appeal sent ^~-—--^=i<^--L-l^—^--~i ;;..] • .'..... ....; Whether the prisoiier wishes to be rep'resented or riot—Yes/No. Name—' J^ Forwardcd to the CHIEF JUDICIA1. MAGISTS&TE to gather with a copy of judgement or order ~ passed- i transmissiQji to tfte proper AppiIIiafe CQurt. ~^T^^[ J Sfr~ -lfi8——-- Supea -•^ ! t.1- 'Date ofreeeipt in C. J. M.'S Gffic^—-~...;:•---•,\--~~-—-—--———— ;Date. of receipt pf^cQrd^to^&ccompany--"--^ ,;— —-—— ^^yt^a'SS^miim~^ No.- Eorward^j^-^lo^ Date :o£j[^eip^in'AppIiate Cpur^—-—-:- "fe'-s •\K wS\^ Ci.T.Maeistrate .--'^— :'^iffi.::B...S^B(S(fe :)i; )-G)an-j«aian-:sngTtiime r3TBH'p;usi»'i":<?' :..%s(p.1:@^ »gse^ :,^..y^M^S^i^^%: ^^N^^^-'^^ffi^:^'^ ^^SllMN^-^ ••y,^'.'^.i :%:.::. '^si XI-HC-22 ® ^3 -41'i||i*l'll, axil-y'is, f°«'ll'Ml.< 3TR^T •t|3Tg? / '.;..&?..^:.1^®/^. .„ ^' -300^ WHWI %iira> l^^tT' SII^TqiT ~Sti.a> -311^1 st>^ -Hfia sn^i ^giwgfftT ct)1^4iT1 'RW^ff-^ 'fecst 1(,^1^1< '^^PgHaii^i Djvision Bench: - Hori'ble Mr. L.C. Bhadoo and Hon'ble Mr. Dhirendra MisHra. JJ 1.2-2M6 Mrs. Savita Thwari, counsel Mr. U.N.S. De&, Additionaf Panel Lawyer for ttieState/respon|ent forths appettant. PubBc Prosecutor with.Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Oral judgment dictated on pais Per L.C. Bhadoo, J: - Appellant Naresh has prefe(red (2) of the Cr.P.C. through the questioning the legalityofthe judj dated29-9-1994 passed by the A<(crrtional Sessions Trlal No.70/94, whereb^ holding the accused/appellant guilty for committing Rai convicted hjm under Section 3p2 imprisonmentfor Irfe. ttiiscriminalappeal under Sectton 374 ISuperintendent, Sub Jail, Jashpumagar, kment of conviction and order of sentence Sessions Judge, Jashpumagw, ih leamed AddtUonal Sessions Judge after the myrder of Sarveshwar P2 of the I.P.G. and sentenced to undergo The^prosecution case, in report Ex.P-1 in Potice Station: N4 11-2-1994 atabout 7 p.m. BhutkE) Naresh, Tanku & Baale have atta{ On hearing this, he along with Sarveshwar and saw that the inft tfnef frief, is ttat Viphalram (PW-1) lodged tfie jirainpur on 12-2-1^4 tQ the effeet that on jram came to his hoyseand informed that ;ked his nephewSarveshwarwitha knife. his wife Bihantt>ai werrt to ttie house of of Sarveshwar was coming out pn in^stine account ofthe stab injury on stc|mach and Sarveshwar died. Ori enquiry from his sister-in-law Kuntibai.sh^ informed ttiat Naresh has stabbed wth a [^^Rrt XI-HC-22 ail^f^l 'R'IR? 311^1 w^i^ ^rf??( zsi ^irqRPT, ^fRms, facii'yy 3Ti^?r inra? NIHWI 9il|l<»i sn^i ?^iiw Hl%n s-- toiife and Uie incident was witnessed by Kuntibai & Ropnibal. After registration of ttie case, thd linjestigatirig Offi(^r left for the place where the body of Sarveshwar vras lying| prepared the Panchnama of th| possession plain soil and bloo(i stained soil uncteT Ex.P-4. Whtle in police custody, the accused gave m^morandum under Section 27 of the Indian pursuance of that memorandum he got P-6. The body of Sarwshwar was sent for ^ Priinary Health Centre, Kunkuri, where Dr. ^mon the body of Sarveshwar and prepared Magistrate, Rrst Class, Jashpui] Sessions Judge, Raigarh, front Jashpurnagar, received the cas^ Section 313of the Cr.P.C. have] prosecutton eWdence appearing| tbnvicted ttie accused/appellan also convicted and sentenced Seeflon 34/of the I.P.C., howe' '*i'4i<'i''ii-i iwfff'?fe^<r°i«i< ^T3ifig<T sri^i and after gh/ing notice to ttie Panctps, he e body (rfSaryeshwar Ex.P-3. He took into Evidence Act .(Ex.P-5) and i< recovered the knife under Ex.l post-mortem examination to th^ S, Toppo conductBd post-mort^ the post-mortem report Ex.P-7. After completion of inv|esUgation,charge sheet was filed against accused/appellarit Naresh, Jal{;lhar & Baleshvreir in the Court of Judicial nagar, who in turn committ^d the case to the where tearned AcUJBorwl Sessions Judge, s^ on tran^er for trial. The prosecutton in ordejr to establish ehaiges against the accused persons examined 11 witnesse^. Statements ef the accused pereons under atso been recorded in which ttiey denied the against them. After hearing the arguitients of Addifonal PubHc Proseeutor and counset for the accused pei|sons, leamed Additional Sessions Judge as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment and iccused Jaklhar underSection 302 read witti i|rer,acquBted accused Baleshwar. Accused ['T^ ^R^ <f T @ XI-HC—78 ^S? •<fl'i11<v1<l, »Tl1'M<lfi, fslcll'H^ fo.-ft-IS^?^ """"""r" sfl^n^? (' ^.•aWKv' "?T Sfl^I gh^fW that appeal and therefore, that appea We have heard Mrs. Savita Ti| and ft4r. U.N.S. Deo, teamed Additio|nal Bhada, teamed Panel Lawyer on behi (nari, teamed counsel for the appeltant Public Prosecutor with Mr. M.P.S. (If of the State/respondOTt. thle (tl scrbam The homicidal ctoth <rf Sarve^hwar invoh^ement of fte accusecl/appe| Sarveshwar is eoncerned, the conviclion (PW-2), wife of the deeeased. In that on the fatefut day at about 7 p.i attend the call of nature. When stabbed wlth a knife in the stomaehl caught hold of her. On account of ft^ she raised scream, hearhig her came to the scene and Vhey took hl^i examinatton, she has not been able witnessed by her. She has stated shewent tcwards soutti side, whereals, When she was retumlng after atten(fl also retumlngaflsr attending the ttiat he was holding his stomach. S| residence with great difRculty. Sh^j coming out from the stomach, Saroe^hwar unconscious and the viltagers came tfliere. ^i<4f<n<il'i ^wv^ ^ fe^ <fjR^R. ^•aiRnan^i wever, he died during the pendency of "^7' hasy@^»KsAated. is not in dispute. As far as the |lant in cwnmUUng fte murder of resls on the evklenee of Ropnibai examination-in-chtef, she tas stated i. she atong with her husband went to <hey were returning, accused Naresh of her husband and accused Jaldhar stab injury, her hustend fell down and his mother-in-law & father-in-law i|i tothe residence. However, in cross- ^) state ttiat ttie crime In qu^ticm was in order to attend the call <rf rerture, i, Sarveshwar went towanls wast sicte. fng the call of nature, Saiveshwar was frf nature, she met Sarveshwar and saw he was able to take Sarveshwar to her |saw that her husbaral's intesUne was was not abte to talk, he became triat .^" •^- XI-HC-22 ^sf •^M\v\-ii, »ial'y<is, fawi'yy ^mw 9>wa» sn^yr T^SK ..(h..A:/S® <=2oe— te^ST' 3i1^[^;I r<-ti°b snt?r s^^t -af?-fl sn^i ^Riiwtrfta .4- ^t<<I<"i<^i +iiHcif'^ f^t' <f^-(-^i< ^siPwan^r ^rom the above evklence, not wtoiessed by her. ShAcame| when she met her husband and s4 took her husband to the residenc|e coming put from the stomach. i]t appears that the efime in question was i" '.' . . • •-:•• to know about the tect of stabbing onty |iw that he was hoktbig his stomach. She •» . • •' i, there, shesaw that e int^tine was Kuntibai (PW-3), moVher Ropnibai (PW-2) has stated in h^ stabbing by the accused on beinj 0:W-2) has not been able to esp quesUon, therefore, the evidence doubthil and does not inspire eyewibiess in the case. frf the deceased and mottier-in-law 6f he^ evidence ftat she came to know about tofd by Ropnibai (FW-2): As Ropnibai esltablish that she wltnessed Uie crhne in |>f Kuntibai (PW-^ automatically becomes corlfidence of the Court. There/ is no other As far as the recovery of kn^ ^cience Laboratory's report Ex.Pf mentioned that the knife in questjon order to connect ttie stab injury wit^i the stomach of Sarveshwar, therel question was stained with humarj deceased Sarveshwar. Therefore,i connected with the murder of Sarvt For fte foregoing reasbnsj accused/appellant for committingl stistained. . - : Fe isconcerned, even though tte Forensic 12 has been filed in which jt has been was foundstained wth blood, but in the knife in question whteh'was found on Is no Serologist's reportthatthe knife in Mood, that too with ttie bloqd grwp of from the knifealso the accused cannot be sshwar. » finding of the Wal Court eonvtethig the the murder of Sarveshwar cannot be [^^firt T :a-HC-22 3Tli?T'?iI ., ?!ri«6'sn^T' ^HT=h- ^f%fl . "tt. TST -i^HWHf »Tfl1'y<is, ('iwi-yy aiTC^rtra^. W4WTShtIT°b 200—. fc)'b<{8T'""'" aii^t ^OTSR'gfN 5- tb In the resutt, fte appeal ConvicUon and senten<% awafded SOZofthe I.P.C. aresetaside. Th4 Section 302 of the I.P.G. He be set other case. iucceeds and <he same is anowed. the accused/appetont under Section appetent Isacquitted of charge under |at liberty forttwwth, jf not required in any In view of this order, M.(Cri.] 2313/2005 stand disposgd of. Parties are entiUed fci»-pertified SdA ., v L.C.BHADOO f Judge l^i^^i41ri TrmcTf ^ 'f^st <f^i^.i<' '^aiPtnsn^i P.No.1192/2003, I.A.Nos.1(»5/2003& Gopyofthisoreler. Sd/- Dhu'endra Mishra Judge