q Q 3Q /. ,\ if} x114 89 / (Jan) III/HM IIHHWUIIIIIMH Qivlston t$cnch y rriminal) C. /FP § 11/94/2,000 L Ex APPEAL OF PRI$ONER " 3&4L .. Name d 3d Q’w—\ ‘éJIVA' ' 3$§>W ... Father s name g3 ..\ ga <4x§w7 gag m ma m cw wk \wg 4‘53 9m Res1dencev \m Vbmiq 3, «1 A) Age bug. Ck g ‘ Sentenced to O ”f 3* {‘7 g, X zwmvm Jgvw \e\ Under secnon 3a.); m ¢§ ,g by ...... a>f (HmxNW O a. (3‘6rua3 Q3 -<\Lew\"5»v{b k“ "\ K It is explained to the pnsoner that 1f he states or w1shes to be represented by legal L'practrtloner the Appellate (‘ourt wxll not proceed w1th the base for seven days unless the legal practmoner appears If the legal practmoner does not appear w1thm seven days he may not heard at all lfthe pnsoner states that he does not w1sh to be repre- sented by legal practrtroner the court may proceed at once wrth the case and W111 not be ; l obhged to gxve a hearrng to any legal practrtroner who should appear i l Date of Application for copy of Judgement ..... l >— \g) E, 2 Date on which copy received Q} l t5 ta 3 Date on which Appeal sent 4 Whether the prrsoner w1shes to be represented or not Yes / No . No.... ”am-g” \ , a t, sir 49, Name ”E38 ¢.‘i\..gaW%..;§g‘B~.ga.........,... C\ Connned in .. girc)‘ a Jail 1We; t L‘W’B) Noad—b ,. \Lev. Dated .. 2e: 2/ 96 199a V; Forwarded to the GI-HEF— ’FE‘$«*§L spam: 5‘" *\‘\ Wmwlgaa ‘r\'\ .3 “\q 6; 1 togather which a copy of Judgement or order passed m the case for favour of trans- I X mission to the proper Appellate Court. _ ‘ M ' sz't Q C’De’xm > a \h r\ o\ t‘ H ,3 (ZQQM ' “7‘ c _:, 3;. 2w H \Bg C». r ‘We 3 edlrlienfyerit? te ye t. Date of receiptrin»... office .. Date of receipt record to accompany the t 'Memo of Appeal to the Appellate court No . .;..J. .gDa-ted.................... Forwarded to the ;... a ' . Ma. . Date of receipt‘in Appellate Court gamma. mt. ’. W31 W mmmm mm %é1m t D.B. : HON’gLE SHRI LAL CHAND HON’BLE SHRI VIJAY KUMAR 14-12-2005 Mr; Ravindra Agrawal, Mr, G.K.Beriwal, Deputy respondent] State. Heard. ORAL 1. By this appeal, through Raipur, the accused] appellant Itwan‘ .judgment of conviction and order. ipassed by Vllth Additional Sessions Trial No.217/95, whereby the learn after holding the accused] appellant pffence punishable under Section sentenced him to undergo imprisonment mu'rder’of his wife Gitabai. l BHADOO, J. AND SHRIVASTAVA J. counsel for the appellant. Advocate Gegeral for thE JUDd§MENT Superintendent, Central Jail, haS questioned the legality of of sentence dated 2—2—1996 Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions ed AdditionalSessions Judge, C. guilty for commission of the 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for life for committing i [View XI—HC—22 %e 15 days pn'or to the daje of the incident ie. 7-2—1995, Gitabai and the accused] appellart quarreled, ' Ontaccount of that the accused/appellant left the rouse and G1taba1 started hvmg w1th her mother Kamlabal Om the fateful day 1e 7 2 1995 Kamlabal was returmng along Whh Gttabal from Shamchan. The accused came from behind, sto accompany him. When Gitabai re and attacked her with the knife, r he took out a knife from his attim ‘ as a result of which, blood stark she fell down on the earth, and Shanichan', on which Kamlabai c came to the scene of occurrer; succumbed to the injuries. Station Sarkanda, upon which Fl Station House OiEcer left for the notice to the Paxxchas, prepamd - . 2'. The brief facts, nece:;sary for disposal of this appeal, are that, Gitabai was married to the accused/appellant Itwari. R/ r n 2; pped Gitabai and asked her to fused to accompanythe accused, d oozing out of the injuries and the‘accused ran awav towards :fied, hearing her cries, 2—3 ladies .ce', and by that time, _Gitabai Kamlaba'i lodged a report in Police- .R., EX.P— 10 was registered, The scene of occurrence after givmg a Panchnama of the dead body [113%w XI—HC-zz undsr EX.P- 19 and sent the body Dharam Hospital Bilaspur where byPW 9 Dr CMTiwari PW 9 Dr CMTlwaIipreparedapost mortem report EX P 8 and he m Gitabai. Out of those, injurie$ wounds were on heart lung and punctuxeo The weapon of the off under EXP—4. After completion of was nled‘aghinst the accused/a} r7 Offenba under Section 302 of thc I] Additional Chief Judicial Magisa inced 6 mJunes on the bodV of Notl to 3, which were incised stomach and even the lung was ance i.e. the knife was recovered the investigation, a chargeisheet 3pellant for commission of the) idian Penal Code in the Court of who, in tum, committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, wherehom learned Vllth Additional Sessions e' on transfer for ,tn'al. 3. examined; as manv as accused] appellant was recmded under Section 313 of he Code of t The prosecuh’on, in for post mortem examination to the post mortem was conducted rate, ’Bilaspu’r, udge, Bilaspurreceived the ease order to prove the charge, 16 vv Ltnesses Statement of the were} XI-HC-22 Criminal Procedum, in which he and said that he is innocent and the cm'me. 4. arguments of learned counsel f0] “ both the parties, convicted and sentenced “the accused] appellant udgment. / d avindra Agranral, learned counsel 75‘ We have heard Mr. R for the >accused/ appellant and 1V General for the respondent/ State. v 6. The fact of homicida has not been disputed b; accused/ appellant. Apart from witness P.W.—10, Kamlabai, the medical evidence of P.W.—9, Dr denied the prosecuu'on evidence he has been falsely implicated in as mentioned in para 1 ofthis [1: G.K,Beriwal, Deputy Advocate 1 nature of the death of Gitabai' v' learned counsel ‘for the that, from the evidence of eye- mother of the deceased, the C.M.Tiwari and from the post PitaW _ Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the j ~ XI-Hc-22s' . of involvement of the accused in ’.W,—10, Kamlabai, the mother of with Gitab/ai were retaining afte 1e time of the incident, she along suddsn The accuSed/ appellant Gitabai to accompany him, on n .knife which he Was canying invh the vital organs i.e'. chest and stO‘ ' ' started 002mg out of the injuries Nothing has been brought in the t to falsity hernevidenc’e. ‘Her p: natural. The Ocular evidence corroborated bV the medical evid EXP—8 has been proved by P.W.~E that, there were 6 cut injuries on mortem report, EXP-8, it has be Gitabai was homicidal in nature, 7. r I' ' So far as the question crime in question is concerned, F the deceased has stated that, at t an established that, the death of r doing their work and all of a came from behind and asked :fusal’by Gitabai, he took out a is-attire and attacked Gitabai‘on nach, as a result of which, blood and Gitabai died spontaneously. :r’oss—examination of this witness nsence with her daughter was of this Witness also stands ence. The post mortem report, , Dr. C.M.Tiwari, who has stated the body and injuries No. 1 to 3, which were on thc heaif, ‘1ung nature. Therefore, mm this evj Kamlabai thét me accused stah n presence of the clinching legal evidence, We are of the consideredr opinion that, the accused] appellant in crime in the fmdin'g ‘of the trial Court to interference by this Court. and stomach, were serious in. denee, the evidence of P.W.—10, stands corroborated. Therefore, 1' bed the deceased with-a knife the ineolvement of question stands established and this effect does not require any 78.. Learned couhsel for that the accused] appellant asked when she refused to accompany and in al‘heat of passion the ace the act of the accused comes with I the lndian Penal Code. 9'. On the other hand, le for the respondent/State supper. . Court. n . JJAJA J ,iL—«J’ v the accused] appellant argued 'Gitabai to accompany him and him, that enraged the accused used stabbed Gitabai, therefore, in Exception 4 to SectionvgOO of a'rned Deputy Advocate General ted the judgment of the trial [Titaéfaé XI-HC-22 10. accused quarreled with Gitabai house and thereafter Gitabai residing with her, and on the iatefuliday, Gitabai and Kamlabai dayatter doing their work, all of a K sudden the accused eame and were returning at the end of the asked Gitabai to accompany him, ’ and on her 'refusal, he immediately staited stabbing Gitabai. Considering the manner in WhLch the accused started stabbing Gitabai without giving her any chance, we are of the opinion that, A :the act of the accused/appellant cannot be said to have come under the category of sudden qi + too the accused stabbed Gitabai for 6 times and she" was without any arm and except refusing to : 'no other act on behalf of Gitabai we are not inclined to accept thh arguments advanced by learned counsel for, the accused] accused/appellant, as per the Git'abai on the vital organs, as a The evidence of P.W.-10, Kamlabai shows that the and thereafter he himself left the came tt)‘ her house and started lairel or heat of passion and that appellant. The act of the evidence that with‘a dangerous weapon like knife he attacked 1ccom‘pany the accused, there was to enrage the accused. Therefore, [11%W XLHC—2z result of which, heart and lung were punctured and as per the evidence of P.W,-9 Dr C M Tiwari the injuries No 1‘ to 3 which v 'were on the heart lung and stomach were dangerous to hfe md1cates that the accused attack ed G1taba1 w1th a deadlv weapon on the Vltal parts to commit her murder As such the conv1ct10n of the accused] appellant for. com: under Section 302 of the Indiail I interfeljence by this Court. 'I ’I‘Z 'sub stance“ 1'11 this appeal. uss1on ofthe offence punishable ~ ’e‘nal Code does not require any 1erefore, we do not: fmd any :i‘siflf L.C BHADOO Judge G.Singh ,,/” 11. > In the result, the appeal, being devoid of merit, iSv I dismissed. Sd/- Judge f “r Vuay Kumar Shrivastavl I [1% the? i