cw§ ?) 1’ m 5 %??? 3% w§9gié§§ Father s nameiw—I}? W— Residencemw§7#— Sentenafd to%w£5 1t ls explamed to the pnsonvr 11 at n he states or w1shes to be represented bx .1 legWI ractmoner the AppelataCou L wlll nof proceed wrth the base for seven days 1nlc<s ‘1 . i the 1 gal practnroner appears If the legal practmoner does not appmr wnh h may not be heard at all If the prlsoner states that he docs not msh to represente ‘ y legal practmoner the court may proceed at once wrth the case and ll nottbwo lIgEdfo give a hearmg to any legal practmoner who should appeat in j ‘~‘ rv l ppllcatlon for copy of Judgement 42U— _ 1 ’ l ~ —— t ' ,, Date of which A copy recerved —-—— 1 '7 ’ eL——~—4—~~~3— r ‘ ‘ ———— ‘ r e ’ l < fa ’ : 31 t ‘ A l -— ’ hlch Appeal sent #LLm~——‘——~——~—~——~—l—- he pnsoner Wlshes to be represented or not ‘ Yes/N H ' -; «\w "3" '\ ,r ‘ K 3L JUDICIAL MAQIsIRATE —g3,”§ copy of Judgement or order passed 1n the cas the proper Apptlhate Court c. J, M.’s omce~——. I ofrecord to accompany——__——‘ —————4L M . 1 , w m ‘w t I F ~ V a et - —' H H }, ‘ r ' . HIGH COURT OF CHHAT‘TISGARH AT EILA$PUR_ Single Bench : Hon'bla Mr. Justice Prmnkgr Diwaker Criminal Appeal No. 1238 cf 1995 Shri Vivek Sharmae counsel for The appeiicm’r. Shri Vivek Sharmai m. for‘ ihe $mie/r‘esponden’r. CBIMINAL AWEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (Z) OF THE CODE OF CRIAIHNAL PkOCEDURE J U I) 6 M E N T (26.§3.201G) a This a§peai is directed agains‘r'ihe impugnad judgment dmed 19.7.3395 passgd‘ by AddiTiona! §essians Judggf Jashpumagar in Sessians Trial Na. 48/1995 ,convic‘iing The accused/appellan‘l' for The offence punishabie under Seciion ‘ 304 parT—Il cf The Indian Pena! Code and sentencing him To undergo rigorous imprisonment far seven year‘s with fine of Rsi500!-, in defauh 0f payment of fine. fa further underga simplg im prisgnmeni far iwn manii'g; 2. Brief fac'i's of the case are iha’r on fhe basis of merg imimmon dated 13.10.1994 (Exp—11), FER. (Emu) was regisfered on 14.10.1994 against the accused/appeiigm. If is‘ alleged That on 13.10.1994 accused/appeilani assauiied his wife Jhariyarobai (deceased) wiih The help af club, as a result of i which she’died. i m 3. 50 as To hold the aecused/appeildm guiiiy, prosecution has examined as many es e witnesses in supper? gf its case; i Statement of the accused/appeilcm wes else recerded under i Section 313 of the Cede cf Criminei Pracedure in which he A i APPELLANT Sukhamm sgn gf Mangm f Versus RESPONDENT 5mm Qf Madhya. Prade3h (naw Chha'iiisgarh) dgnigd The charges levgiled against him and. pleaded his innocence and fake impliggfion in the mg“ ‘ 4, AfTer hearing *he parties the ’rr'icx! Court has acquifmd the accused/appglian’r of The offence punEshabie undegr'Secw‘ion‘ 302 of The Indian Penal Code bu? convicted and senTenced him } for The offence punishahle under Section 304 port—II of the Indian Penal Code. Hence this appeai, ; 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material j ‘m‘lailable on record including the Judgment impugned. ‘ j 6. Counsel for the oppellont submits that the impugned judgment isibosed on surmiees and conjectures and, therefore, the some is not tenable in the eye of law; 7L On the other hand, counse! for the State supports the judgment impugned and submits that Nensoi (PW-1) — ledger of the First Information Report has seen the occurrence of the entire incident and has duly supported the prosecution case. He further submits that lothi which has been used in” the commission of offence hos been seized from the appellant vide Ex.P—6 and os per the FSL report Ex,P—9 blood wos‘found on the soid lothi, 8. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Nansoi (PW-1) states that on the dnte of incident the accused/appellant wigs brutally beating his wife and he could hear the noise of appellant assaulting the deceased, He statesl that in the night accusedxoppellont come to him and had w vi a confessed that he has killed his wife. He states that appellantl has caTegoricaHy sm'ted that as his wife was no? making foad ‘for' him, he has a5saul’red her, as a result of which she diad. 1 10. Phablchmdr‘a (PW-Z) has mt supmr’rgd The presmutian case and has beQn declared hestiles Dr'. R. N; Dube): (WV-4), who had conducted *he post marmm an The body'of fhe deceased has faund various injurigs an Tha vital part of her ‘ bady, AKA Khan (PW—6) i5 The investigation officer end he foe has supported the case of the presecution. “if. Thus from the evidence of the witnesses examined by ‘ the prosecution and the injuries inflicted on the vital ports of l the deceased, finding recorded by the triol'Court convicting i and sentencing the accused/appellant being well reasoned one, l do not coll for any interference in the impugned judgment, 12, Appeal thus dues not appear to have any sabstance in it“ It is accordingly dismissed ll . . SM- I ‘ Pritinker Diwaker .. x ARM“.’#_I##.r##I’##l’#;._ Judge V