’ APPEAL «0F PRISONER Nogf‘gf N)ame ¢%77\7717 Father’s name ~Q§§W :%H€“ I 91mm; - Ra; v umd‘) ‘3 ’ nu.. .” . «FEW “wry? Ev: .,.. .u@"é2ll‘§[._z¢2§zih %W(L§O%) Age A95; .-.........‘ . Sentenced 3g .3glm f1(0737“(/u onp2€@z9? ‘ . ' Under §éction CgMcW/z Q9é§1w§ V,%02W0F%${‘) @T‘v ‘r 8W ' WW7; byWf‘l 7‘ / 9.93W<J¥ , .4?‘L€"§7.W@W ’ QQJE/Egi 4’5 . practitioner It is explained the Apeellate to the priscner Court will that not if proceed he states with or wishes the, base to be for represented seven days by unless legal * ~34 A .t‘i h Lmj W wv Mr days the legal he may practitibner not heard appears at all i Ifthe a If the prisoner legal practitioner states that he does does not not appear‘within Wish to be repre- seven ‘ obliged sented by to legal give a practitioner hearing to the any court legal may practitioner proceed who at once should with appear the case . and will‘not be ’. . s . i _ l Date of Application for copy of Judgement Date on which copyreceived § a p.3‘ Date on which Appeal sent r. .. 4 Whether the prisoner wishes to be represented or not — Yes / No No 605’? Nameé’faera‘FH/ef8elf Confined in aybjég L7 JailS?J?/{g:@€[§€) . t Dated..‘....e‘?.°?..../.? f199%............. arded'to the CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE i W f. . .‘. ' b l «w \mx 1A: ’7 togather _ which I a acopy of Judgement . or order passjg'd 3V c in ffzifv the 6‘Jw casein 7a '§?'537a favour of UflC-d‘z’f tra;n - Y‘mission ‘Q to the‘proper r4 ‘1 T'l‘au~.l Appellate / Courtg t“ } r t 73:; V‘ W3 r4 WE“) 3: q \Q‘aé ‘1 59L} ill IT! } C l} SuperinpqndgQ Sty . u ‘ W ’ a ‘ Jail ..*....« Date of receipt in... ..........Ioffice .. ‘ Date of receipt record to accompany the _.. Memo ofAppeal to the the Appellate court g” No e ‘ . WV”. _ 5‘ zgwgk ; ,, ' . g ”fI e ' . ...:.’.;..............199...? a... .....3xmgiyffit“ Forwarded e to the. a . a 'r: ,4. > g i { ‘ z Date of i a Ratmnus Na?l reoeipt in Appellate Court ..... , ./.( .r l ._ f . S ifiléivé i'QLe-‘E? i}? {3%— £TTE$~§éi§§i $IL§1FU§x €r’imina} §§Qn2€$ Na23£§3 a"? i199? Dan Em'mm — Vargus ~ Efofsz 0'? Madhyca Pradash (now Chhaf’fisgarh) JUEé‘vMENT §0R €GN$EDE§2ATEGN Sdl- Lie. Bha‘oo Judge Q9i2écr§ “é Ei-EION'@LE 12W §U$VECE %.§. $E5H%&U%H Sdl- L.C.BHADOO Judge kg WzTo d §w (Sw mam *‘3gwai é‘eiagfifé‘é? a3?“ 3%}? E ‘ Dam §cm”r~a2m ~ Versug - 23h (mw Chha??i£gar~h) Psdaggm‘: « M“. Abhw' mm“ Arwoaafe V ‘ Mr. Cachm Smgh Ra‘mm’, 53mg! Lawygr: C g é,” “ma i Qpyeilaml. h J. Fax" The STa‘fe/respcmdem. Hw'ab w. L5 www AN; HQN‘gLE w. m; {Jeiivergd om 9% Sewambaz 2605} The §9iioun uc mwmém“ a W‘a Cour? was éahwwe by 1- C 8Jar1’3c7 J — 4 L. 3y ”rhis‘ appeai under $ec*’rian 3‘1741-(2) oi ‘i; Caca of £mmma‘ Qriacarjum 3am mrough The Eagperi'rt’i‘ag1d2n‘i‘, Cew‘rcl S’Qii, kamur ';‘he acsusad/GppeiEam‘f‘DaumJr:am hag quasi'iomeé “E’he n2 E; y c7 Ms camicfion under" Secfion 302 of 'Hma India PafmL (Sada mad a!so “Hm sem‘i‘emca avmmec l ‘ x !earnea § J. :3 *ro him by i‘he +h AcidizHoml Sessions Judge, burg in Sessions“ Triai NO L5 f§? whereby §earned Addi“§"iom1! 5essims Judge af‘kr hmam *he arcuued/appaJan‘r gmHy Jrcev Qes’riom 302 <31: The EPVC, for cemmi‘rfmg murder of his wife Sushiiu Bai by sei‘rimg har‘ m1 firéftgién‘rei’icggf him TO Lmdergo imprisorimari‘i e rmd i0 pay a game 0f Qs.2,000/n, in ceiaui’r QT” paymam e Jw furi'ner underga RI. Em“ £36 i1iom?r:$ ‘c is i‘ha? deceaEad fmshiia bai aimg Eviih her iamtmr‘a ‘ i Le. "ma pmgem J mm: ¢ i (Pix/*4?) \* 1 as a l ’)\i (mam Ci/w‘p?iicni i‘n W2 3 lnau$a of uLgknuiai I‘\ I i " ' l‘)u @nam" $mce ms? ”rwamfy chug/3:. On 8.2.1997 ‘i’he icmdiord JLmhuME \PW 4) Pecan/ac mm maven akou‘ fire m hm h use :1 raceévimg ?his infwma‘fiom ha Humedmxely rumad foamr‘dr: 'fhe remix where fh: accused/appe’IanT Jacetwed 5U” Ha $ai wara rasédhg. GH amer‘mgvfhe mom ha saw Wax? Eushikz 8a§ was Faying m burnf somdi‘rionl §10wever, a? fha‘? fima ghe was diva and was ‘raiking. He immadiafeiy @Had N&ras§1 (PW—1), bail? u‘ 0f fhem wen? ‘5‘0 'rhe PoHca STaTisn Mohan Nacar J am! L .xJ t #{wmeC avoul qe mcsczem‘ Wgammg aummg a7 ¢u£hHa Qai. Heaa VQnSTcmie namadhm Smgh {PW 10) mcwda hm saw? m Roznamchwwxha (EKD 11) and waged w Mm PW .‘H Umesw Amms?hi, Assigmm 5ub—In5pecfcr ragis‘rared a FIR. (ExP— 12) a? Crime NQ.38/97 under $zcfim1 307 0f The: EPC ami washed “h [he :pw ATTar mspbc‘mn af ke body o; EL mic ga, she was §am m we c9ovemmem'r ‘respnai Durg under F"? /g r v 9u?r"i, where Dr ‘J V 5cm (9W *1) e amined ushtm a1 0m! found ”ma? smel! of kamserze OH was emanafing “from har‘ bQ'dy, Her (saws 0f {1eud & eyebmws be? the uxHiary regizms cam! @Lgb%c hair- were burn? mm‘ “mama ware supgrficial cmd daep bum? wcLmd£ er) The ’3 d/ ) of usm 8m, her bod Y was 100% bum’r. Blood pressure was no“? vacgrdable bu“? she was in C, consciaus sm e‘ On in Q uir mada 1*» we decmr, Sushiia Bai Enfor'macf him ‘i'hm‘ a’r abem‘ ELM) am. “.ar hu bcma n fer pouring kerosena OH an her bcdy 5a? har on fire wHh a mmah— 330x sfick. Dow-m“ has hiso prepared ’rhe FapoM‘ (gxPn?) n'md advisad for "re 0 chng OT r'ymg demam? on ~y the ..><acuhw hAagésTmJra; mmxed aTe3y, PW~; Swi $6. Thaw?" Addmom: “ehsHém‘ urg cum Fxacm‘lve xvmmafr xe canw arc! remmmi "he dvum deflam"mn of uqhgl SGJ vicia ExP—B m” abau’r 123533.;7‘. m which Sh disbbsed M1 rhm“ she Wag $eT an fhw, hy‘ 12¢“ hugbcmd affer pauri‘mg Ravagehe aél ch ha“ l umh Q §30c§y. Tharaaffer', ghe dieci, fherefcra, i‘hg af%aace emu/(awed imrjer" Egcfimx 302 of fhg EPL'. The dead bady was sem‘ 7’0? 99$“? mamem axamma'hpn, DI". ?.K. RgarwaE candum‘ed The pas”? mwmm and prapared "the p051“ mor‘wm rapwi‘ EXP-M) in w‘mch he w‘pinac’s 'E'haf cause 9'? deaf’n 0‘? 5u3hiia Bai was smack rawl’rmg 35mm exfena‘ive an4‘emam‘em burmi‘ i - - x Q {gafé‘ar campkefém1 of ir1vesf§gafimq charge $22? was 'fElac§ / agains¢.fhg accuEed,’appaHanT m The Caur‘? of Judmial MagisWaw Firs? Cia33, Burg who m “‘{um commiffad ‘fhe ca$a Ta fha taamed $e$sioms Judge, Durg '10P Win! {Tom wheiw: iaamac‘ §+h Addi‘?iom1! Sessions Judge received The ca$e on 3..:ransgar. K MC '="‘ Ehe proaecuhun A .‘h 'm erder‘ To grave .rhe u, agains‘r i‘he acaus‘zci/appeHan‘? exammed m al‘; 12 wémess‘as. @a fha when“ hand, ‘x’aamad Addmomi Swsions Judga racorded ‘rhe shvmmem‘i‘ 0‘? accuseci/appeHmW under 5ac‘:i0rl 313 m? The CP.P.C. ’m wh€ch ha c¥amed The prasew‘fim3 avitlzrzce, maferial appgar’ing agains? him, ha piaaded' %nnacea"zce and gmfaci‘wa’r he haS 'rman fgkeiy impHca‘reci m ‘E’he cr‘éma, as or} fhe da‘re whar1 hi6, wife wag bumi'he Rad gorm Viliagz Thema amé whan ?he poEice came were/ a'f*i‘e:r ‘rwo days “E‘ha‘n on‘y he came ‘i‘o ‘mew abcu? The: incidem. .Laamgd AddHionrJ Sessions Judge afi‘er hearmg we argm‘nerws of Addifiana‘. ?ubiic Prosecufor amj' souns‘el for fhe -acsusa&, com/icfss cmd sewemczd #‘ne acwsed/appeHuM in i‘he manmer asrindic’a’red m fhe aarliar par? of fhi$ judgmam‘". .We iaave hamd My“. Abhay Tiwéri, warned ceunsel for Thg apgaihn‘? am! Mr. Sachin 5mgh Rajpu‘r, PcmeE Lawyer on behalf cf 'a‘he §”ra"rafrespandam. .Leamad ccunset f0? We accused/appelianf argued ‘rhcd‘ accusadlappeHam has bean faisaky impiica’fad mMW The crime, as r. " ‘t¢\ - QN WW W w - 43\ \x9 p‘‘. r1 rHm daTe 0‘? imidmv‘r he wa.’ m’r a’r ¥ s rasidamca. The staccmcx‘ limb of his argumen? was Wad” *rha pmsacm‘ic?‘ hag farkad f0 as? its?“ mi *hb accused/gppaima se? Sushila Bai rmg‘fim wi'rh rm hrrzmicn ‘m cammi'r her murdgr‘ T‘narafm‘a, according “m him "rha affarlce doeg as? "hum/e3 beytmd Sam’hm 3034 ii’ammii m‘ we: ZRC. Ga %ha whav hamd, Eaamed Pmwei Lawyer far “me ai“ f sup§arfa§ W’*he judgmem of é’rial Cwr‘r‘ W3 hava camfuHy scammd %‘na prosecuTmm avMenCa am} a‘E‘har A mafmwdl . avmbbk . on record. .,. ihave?‘:rs'~--urxo _ . dlracf . avidence m fhg pcme Waok car‘e raw: on LN“ qmWimTiai evideme Le. omi dying daclamf'mn made by deceased Sushila 'Bai bafore Dr. V‘K. 3m) (PW~§) rmd aEso f‘ne éy‘mg declm‘af’mn (Ex.P-3} made befwe ’‘xhe Exaw'Hve Mag§sfmfa ShPi BE. Thakur (PWJ). Now we shaH proceea “h: scru‘Hnize ’rha dying declarai’iom ewuence amt} ofhar‘ maTema! avaliabie on racm‘d and +0 sea wwr’ whe‘r‘nzr or\ 4* .e ‘aHSIs oi f§1i$ evidence “§“%1a pr0§ecufimq has §2en‘abie *m esmblish +he imvalvamam of 'E'he accusadi’appaiiam in cammi’rfing ‘i’ha murdar of his wifa as wa‘al as offence: under 5ec'rion 302 01" 1"ne EPC. Sgcfian 32 of fhe iaékm Evidenca Au"? env§sagas ’r‘me argumwamas umder which xhe §sa mew" mafia 33y <1 pewon an we verge 6f damh bacamas releva‘r‘e: mm sJb seamh \1) of ”fhe same enwsageg na’r when #79 Smiemeni 15' made by a person a: +5 Me cease ef f7i5‘ a’eaM, 0r as’ m anyra, aim areymwaerses of #ze 2‘rar23acfi0r} which few/fed in his deah, 2y} cameg it? wiw'cl? Me mu e af' mafper‘an’g deaf/7 cémee‘ info quegfian. 511d? s‘Mfemerlfs‘ are releyam‘ whefher? fhe pelwm M20 made Mam was" 9r wae m) f a7” me fime whee timy were made, Lma'er e pvcmfimq a; r’em‘h and Wham/er ray fee be Tue PW E OI a; .1: ; J.‘ 2 pmcaadiivg in which #78 caLiS'g 0f hi3 deaf/7 comes mfa quasfwn‘ in fine ma’ri‘er' of Laxmavs VzamLm tyi'aw m; G §v§a§mm£§2m reporied in {2G02} é $ugmme Cguw €é$$5 EEQ ‘E‘he rhm'bk Apex Cour? hald 1‘!1a'§': u The jurisfic %he:cry regardém accapmbihw of a dymg declarmiorg is ?ha? such decmra‘fion is made m ax‘rremi’ry, when ‘r'mz parfy is (11' fhe gnoin? o‘F deafh and. when ever-y hcpe m? This wor§d is gene, Wham ever» mo+ive To fcisehood ;3 silence’d and fhe man is 'nducad by ‘rhe mo<f powerfui considerafton 1‘0 speak o11y *he “”m‘fh Vofwxfh"*mdmg ‘rhe: sama grad (mu-1m mus? be exeraised a?“ The exmxance of mam! cwcumsfances which may affect fhelr Trufh The :i‘rua‘hm1 m wmch a mam la on rie dea‘LPxbec. :3 $0 solemn and serena, is ‘The raasan m iczw i9 accap'r i‘he vrémci‘i‘y 9f his sfafemen‘r. I‘i is 50:“ This r'gascm The :“equiremen’rs 0f aai’ mad oss xamma‘iie'n are dispemsed wi‘i‘h. $mce *he gcc d nas no giower of cross-examina‘iion, Th3 couris insisT iina‘i‘ The dying daciamden shauid be of guch a ha'ruwe as ”r0 inspire fuii confidence of ihe cauri' in i'is iru‘ihfuine5s and carracihesg. The wuri', hawever, has aiwm/s TO ba 0h guard 1'0 sea Thai“ The Sim-amen? 9f fhe dgceased was no’r as a resui‘r of zii’her- ‘i'u‘mrigg or promp‘ring 02" a pruduci of iraaginaiién. The caum‘ aiso musi‘ 'Fur‘i‘har' dacide 'é‘hai’ The deceased was in a fii‘ $‘ia‘i’a of mihd arid had The oppor’iuniiy i‘o abser’ve and idemify ihe assaiian‘r. NormaHy, Therefore the court in order f0 safisfy whe’rher ihe deceased was Eh a fi’r menial condifion is make fhe dying decimahcn iooks up ‘i'o The medical opinion. Bu? where “the eyewi‘l‘nesses siaie Tha‘f fhe deceased was in a fin” cmti cahscious siafe i0 make The a'eciamiiori, ihe medical cpinien will he? prevail, rim“ can i? he sakl Thai since there is no cerfifica’rion of ihe cloc‘lor as a‘o *he iiiness of The mincl :21“ fhe declaran? ‘ihe dying declarahon is no? accepmble A dvmg declaraflon can be om! or m wri‘i‘mg and any cdequa’re meThod a? communico‘iron whei‘hel by words or by signs or ol'herwi e will sufTice orowded 1h? mdicahon is posmve and definile. In mos‘i' cases, however, such s‘miemenis are made orally before. death ensues and is reduced To wrifing by someone like a Mogis‘iroi‘e or a docior or a police 5f: If oiTicer. Agaim in we mm‘far 0T” ?.¥.§ad%mk?§shm V. Sizi’mg mg Kam’aa‘a‘ka vapor-ted m A32 2G93 5%preme Caur? 23§9 The Han‘ble épex Cour? heid ’rhwr: "‘ Ciause (1) of Secfécn 32 makas rakvwi‘ whm‘ is genemHy mascr‘ibed as dying daciam‘rion ’rhaugh such cm exprzssion has no’r bean used in any stafu’re. If essen’riaHy mamg sm‘ramen‘r made by a parsmw as w é'hez cause 9f his dea‘rh‘w as TO fhe «circumsmncw 0f we imimaci‘ian resuh‘ing m his deaiim The grounds: of admission am: firsi'iy, necgssiiy for- fhe vitiim baing genemily the oniy principal aye—witness 1's The crime, ihe axclusicn of ‘i‘hs sTa'i'emanT mi 9 hi defies-i The ends of jusiice; and secnndiy, The sense: of ‘- impending - .. decfh, which , crea‘l‘es a sanciion , equai “m _ ‘ihe oblig‘a‘riom of mi caih. The gei‘Iemi principle on which irhis spades of avidancz is admii’fad is Thai- i‘hey are deciarafians made in 'axi‘remi‘iy,.when “rha pariy is ai ‘ihe poim‘ 0f daaih and whah avery hope 0i: ’Fhis world is gone, when every moiive To faisehood is silenced, and ’rhe mind is induced by ‘i‘he mas? power cchsidamiiohs i0 speak The iruih; a sima’rion so solemn and so lawful is cohsiderad by The law as creoiing as obligo‘i‘ion equal ’ro ihaf which is imposed by a posifive oo'i’h adminis’rehed in a Couri of jusiice. The principle oh which dying decior‘ai’ion is odmi‘H‘ed in evidence is indica‘ied in legal maximi'nema morimrus shoesumi‘i‘ur‘ menilré— a man wiii no? mes? his maker wi‘fh a lie in his mamh." The law regarding fes'i’ing veraci’ry of dying declahaiion is well seiiled; (i) As “'rhe admissibili‘ry of dying declarafion is no? subjeci i0 she cross—examina‘fion of The maker, a sfricfesf scrufiny anal close? cireumspecfion is hequir’ed by 'i’he Couh'i before acfln 9 u an fhe same; (ii The d"in Y declarafion musf be volunfery, frue‘ angsame should nof be a resulf of fufor‘ing or orompfihg or produc’r of imaginafion; (iii) Thaf The deceased was in a fif sfafe of mind fo give fhe sfa'ie'menf i.e. alerfness of mind, memory and undersfanding of whaf he/she is saying and had "rhe oppor‘mnify To observe and iden’rify The assailanf ore fhe maffei‘s which can be observed by fhe docfor/person recording fhe dying declarafion. in order To Q V‘ ‘ 7 USO ascgrmm wha‘fher ma deueased waa m a n" ”the of mind ‘fo glve s+m mam rmr'maHy medical car .fxcme m fka‘r espec’r is askad "59in bu? i_n axcepTionaE cases whwe docTor iE m? availab‘e mad Tha pergrm befara whom The dying dedami‘iw omHy or m wm‘hng was made w able To gwa avidence be are “me taur‘r saying 'H'm’r “mg dececsad was m a fir ”'m’re of mmd ijo give fhe dying dzciqm'?iom cmdv same imspires full cenfide ce 0f {hurt i'rz accordance wifh The saffiad principie 0?“.cxccapfmg dying daciam‘i‘ion, Then same cam be accep‘i‘ed. xiv) :ven aha dymg declara’rion made uaror'e a paiice A ficor w docior can aisc be accepied prowded 56mm mspi ha confidemce of Cour’r Von The sei’ried prmctpies of accepmnce af dymg d‘ecidrdiiom (2GQ3 .Sum'e-me 50w? Case; {Chili $53. ém'ie a? imma'i‘aim E/erws {ahawif’g‘k iv) the dyihg deciar‘ai'iOh cam be omi or in wr’ii‘ihg or ih adequm‘e meihod 07C cemmunicu'iion whe‘iher hy words or by signs or ofherwiee wiii guffice provicieci ihe indicm‘ion is posi‘rive cmd defihi'ieRii/U ihe dying deciara’rion musi be cshei‘eh‘i, cans‘is‘rehi, compe‘i‘ihg wii‘h ihe facis cmd circumsx‘ahces ih which The afience was“ commii'ied; (vii) ihe cohviciion can be based oh a dying deciamiion wi'fhou‘r seeking corrobm‘ai‘ioh of *‘she same by ahy oihei" eviéence a? mu’ieriai previded "‘rhe same sm‘isfies iiie canscious 0% 50mm” and inspires %uii confidehce of ihe Caur’r oh "i‘he easis of above quo'ieci phii’icipies. 10. Eh ihe iighi of above principies, if we examine The evidemce adducediE'V'fhe pijpsecu‘iioh in This case, Dukhuiai Sahu {PW-4), owner of ihe house where The accused & deceased were iiving, has sia’red in his evidehce ihai The deceased dz accused were iiving in his house on remr, on receiving infarmahon oh 7’.2.i§97 regarding fine in his house he Pushed fowar‘ds his house arid saw 'i'ha'i Sushiia $ai was .. ».m r,‘ . 5 iciying m bum“? condHion, fhem he Papor?e& ‘H’Ig maHaP Tc T'‘ne Paiica. Dr. V.K. 500 (PW—5), whc is ma indepaiqdem wimess, hag $1‘m‘ed in his evidence “ma? whefq Su$hila Bai was broughf 1‘9 Jihe hcspimk in 100% bum: sondi'i'iow 321a was cmscious cmd 'i‘amimg, smei! of Rérosene was emwaWwg from he!“ body ami m1 inquiry she informad him thaw a1“ abouf 11 am her husbarICE :ifmr‘ pouring kerosene oil‘en her 5ody Se? hm“ or] five wi’i'h a s?éck of maTc’n bGx. Peru-3a} of docferis Pepw’r EXP~7 shoam 'f‘r‘M"? above g‘mfemeM was recorded m The report PW-5 fur‘rher sfdi'ed rhu‘?’%1e immedia’rely advised for recarding cit sim‘emeni Gf Sus‘hila 8m by s‘ame Exewrive=1‘v\agi§‘irm"e, aceordirgiy, ‘giaiememlwas reccrded by PW—7 Shri 8.5‘ Thakur, éddi‘iional Tehsiidar, Durg cum Execuiive Magis'i'rafe and he gave “i‘he ceriificai’e (EXP-8) regarding 'fiiriess of Suehiia Bai To give Siaiemen’r. As such, orai dying éeciarm‘ion was made by ‘ihe deceased before ihe docior PW-E) who is an indeperiden’r wi‘inese. Ir: ‘ihe cross—examinaiion o‘i‘ “ihis wiii'iesg lecxrned counsei for ihe defeme has rim-i been able f0 elici‘i anyi‘hing, which makes The evidence oT’ rhis wiinesses urireliabie, unirusiwor‘ihy or doubifui. 3hri 35. Thakur (PWJ’), who recordeci ihe ciying deciarm‘ion ExPuB, hag very cieariy smied in his evidence rha‘i he has sTarTed recareihg The evidence a? abom‘ 12.35 pm. a? ihai iime Sushiia Bai was ih a iii? sicvr‘e 0*? mind i0 give her Sia‘iemen’i and berore s‘mriihg he iook ihe fiines‘s ceri’ificaie from The docior and ihereaf‘ier, he recera‘ed i’he Siafemeh‘i EX.P~8‘ He has furiher s‘icx‘ied iha’ft‘SiJshila Bai gave her e‘ia'femeni‘ in Hindi and peruse! of Ex.P-=8 shows “iha’r Sushiia gai in cieur ‘rermg eia‘red #ha‘i her husband poured kerosene oii from a fin and i‘hereaf’rer,'$ei her 0n fire wi’rh a eiick of marchbox. Even fram “(he cross—examinaiion 0f ?W-}7 Shri 8.5. Thakur. fhe defence ccunsei has n3? been able i0 eiicii any-i'hing regarding Q a .x. g Cabsfarlce of accused/’appeHah’r from :hé 5cane 0f occurra’fce a? he %ima when %he dewusad EushHa Bui was; burn. 4. or Mm I .L §u5hi§a §3ai was n0? in a fiT 5mm m’: mmd “fog give her 5’m'i'emen‘r 0r she was Lmdar‘ mfluence of {mybody fher’efom, The: Sm‘ramen? was m1“ wEmmry cma I 1mg. x T.m 4.1me sfm‘emem recordad wider Secfion 313 of fhe Cr,P.C‘ The accused/appeilam’ has 3‘m?‘ed “Hm? a? ‘fhe Time m5 inddem‘ he. was m3? Ci? The residence‘ Ir} fhe “firs? insmnCe, The above Em'remenf 0f accu3ed/appailam’ doeg m? ‘Hnd supper? from my ma%eridl an Pacor‘d am! moreover, m fha circumsmnces, ’r‘nene is mo musnn bafore we: Cam“? f0 disb‘élrie-ve' ‘H’xe dying dadamfmn m‘ada by i‘hé wifa m‘ "Erie accused/appaiianf, for 'E‘hé: reason fhm" were was m Mason before The decaasad 5us'mia 8m 1’0 implicafa her husbcmd m a faise case i’ha? mo in guc'n a Vsevious %1emous crima in which iife' sem‘emca is prascribai Moravver‘, ‘?’he dymg deciarm‘ion was made by The deceased before Dr.V.K.5ao (PW=5 immadia’rdy a’Her The mcidenf and There was no accusien for g +hird person +0 fdfar ‘fhe deceased pox” "mere is such aliegefian. As has beer} men’rioned above ‘irhm‘ irom 1"he cross-examinafion 0f Dr. Vii, 5&0 (PWmE) before whom +he deceased made The om! dyihg cie ciomfion omd PW—7 5hri 8.5. Thakup, Addi’iionai Tehsiidor cum Execuiive Mogisfmfe' who recorded +he dyino deciam‘rion (Ex.§3—8) ieomed coumel for “rhe defehce has rim” been obie fo bring ori record any circumemnces which lead credence e0 The defence roiSed by The eccused/oppeiion‘i regarding his‘abse‘h‘ee‘from The scene of oecurrence a’r ihe rime of incidem‘ or “thaw“ were wag a reason before 5ushila Bai “so impiicm‘e her husbahd ih a faise case, rherefore, we are of ?he coosidered opinioh "ihaf on “the principles laid dowri by fhe Hori‘bie epex Cour? in fhe judgmem‘s men‘rioned above rhe dvim deciarai‘ion made by deceased Sushila Boi inspires fuii , J 10 comfidence of The Ceum‘ a3 The samerwas volunmi‘yg, ‘h‘ue, c0m$i$fwfcompwing wii'h The circumsmncas m recwd and m“ Jrha $p01‘, fner—evore, I f JJmere £3 no mason before %he Cour“? f0 discaré f'ne dying deciamfion o“? deceased Sushiia gai. £3 §ucht The ’rriaf cvuw‘ ir’ms rig :‘rw haid ‘i‘he accuged/appeiiam'? guih‘y 3‘01” commi’i‘Ting murder e’f his wife. New coming w gecand grown! raised by iaamzd couasei "For We accused/appaiian‘i‘ fha'i' 'i‘he prwacujion x imas no’i beam abie Jm‘ée‘fabiish “Him” The accuéed/appeiiani‘ se‘i OH fire $usi’iiia 3m wi’rh ah imieni’ion To cause her demh. As per dyimg declaraiios’i c1 medicai evidence/H is esmbiie‘hedvfhai 'i’here was some qué‘irrei beiween ihe accueed/appeiian‘i‘ arid “the deceased, i'her'eaf'i‘er ihe accusevd/appeiian‘i' poured ihe kemseiie oii 0n The bady of Sushiia Bai, se‘r her on fire wifh a eficii cf mai'ch—box, ehe was bum? upia éIOO/u OI and Thereafwi“, ii'ie accusee/appeiiarw r’cm away {mm The scene of occurrence. Had T’he accused/appeHah‘? was noi‘ having iniem‘ion To commi'? murder of his wife and if, in a fh" of awer‘ wi‘ihoM having (ahy in‘iehi'ion To murder Sushiie 3m she was seT 0h fihe fhen as a hei‘umi cohsequehce afi‘er‘ reaiizihg she graviiy of si’rua‘rion he oughi‘ To have ‘E‘ried ?o save Sushiia Bai Tr‘om I‘ 1Burhing upi'o 100%, on ’rhe confmr’y 1‘he accused/appeiian’i r‘cm away from ‘i‘he piece of occurrence ailowmg The Sushiia To die by burning Therefore, These circumsTonces are suTficienT To esTobiish The TecT The? The accused/oppellon‘i‘ inTenTionally seT Sushila 3m on Tire To cause her deoTh. In The resuiT,‘W~e\do noT Tind any infirmiTy in a..he £iinding of Trio! courT. The appeal is wiThouT meriT, some is liable To he disf£issed oncl iT is accordingly dismissed. /» Sdl- E Sdl- aheb DeshmUkh Judge ‘Roshanb L.C.BHADOO l l omp Raos Judgg f zuc- 9—2005 go :9—2005