JHS‘S ‘MW'IUQ‘A “IUWVO‘N‘au K‘WVM;!‘JIJQL‘LU\ME\““ { C7 Q A1 H \l} ‘v 2/ APPEAL 10F “PRISONER w( . »Lees/awn \- gm rf‘gg \............ ..'..............:...‘..‘;.....K.‘.f. .... ‘ . @ivisian Bmch (wk; Z Name .....mm 3r; a5 .: g q t ,loe dtamfaq mwnwrqra mrram Wrwmw ya wfqr Age 500.‘‘‘‘‘. 33 W? .._.._ - ken ence %Fign3§§§g @gqr 3 mg WTETQQH Ho/JvO/96 Under sectlon y? yrmefig by mam. .W..M.ya.m¥nm%aq,$mg?,lmga It 1s explamed to the pnsoner that 1f he states or w1shes to be represented by legal Q; 7 t practttxoner the Appellate Court ml] not preceed w1th the base for seven clays unless \ ‘ thVIegal pfactmoner appears If the lega'l practmoner does not appear w1th , , ays he may not heard at all lf the prlsoner states that he d t t s u yshg repre- ented by legal practmoner the court may pxoceed at once w1t7h m§g8§§e bhgeq to glve wheat-mg to any legal practmoner who shoul app$at j (ua > K .‘ Date ofeApplication for copy of .lndgement Date on whlch copy recelved “3g in M96 gm Whether the prlsoner Wrshes to be represented or not — Yes / No 1 2 ’ x 3 ' Date on whlch Appeal sent J an: p ...%6B¢5l,;;........... Name w m ea qrf— a nan per........ r Confinedm ~%~‘§m . Jall'Q. . WEN? Imam x ..T...\‘\ §§ 5s myfafL/gg «Dated «g NJ 1996 —4\ ardea to theeamacm’mew. Mseaseaqera wet-am creme Item arena E‘a togather whtch a copy of Judgement or/order passed 1n ”the case 1%raavohr gotrgtaagg‘ r m1ssxon to the proper Appellate Court. r as 11;, 4 gear yrs—lase/e3 as? / ‘ gm‘flflirn fates gfman'f‘cr— wt ’ ’l ; / Y f‘ ,4 Date of receipt ing . .. ./.. ....3 offlce Date of recelpt record to accompany the .. .. . Memo ofAppeal‘to the Appellatecourt’ T....1..’....’...T..J;..‘f.'.."...'.‘..in; “ u.-.u.u ......... Date of reeeipt‘in%App‘el1ate Court f 1 - l ’ d ' U o V s W ‘ w "':¢\ Nb p. ‘ Forvyarded to \the V, V mm resi' offer faking dinner, he woke up on hearing fhe screams of woman & childre 1, he came ouf of The house and sow fha‘ his brm‘her-in-law’s wife Shyamo Bai & daugh'rer Dev. Kumari were weeping on i/fg [uiééiiaa fhe appellan‘r has questiorged ‘legalify & correcfness of The judgmenf of convicfion and order cf éenfence dafed 11'“ October, 1996, passed by The 7*“ Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessiohs Tritil No.398/93, whereby learned Addifional Sessions Judge affer, hold'ng ihe acqused/appeilanf guili‘y under Sec‘iion 302 of fhe Indian Penal Code, sentenced him fo undergo imprisonmen'i ' for life and pay a fine of Rs.500/—, in defauH of payment of fine fa furi‘her undergo 5.I. for 'i‘hr-ee monfhs, The case of The prosecufion is fim on 5-10-1992 o‘i obou‘i‘ 10 am. Cherku Ram (PW-7) lodged o repori‘ in Police Sfu’riori: Gariaband go fhe effecf ‘iha‘i on 4- 10-1992 of abouf'B p.m. he was faking i ‘ XLEG22 ané‘ww l W airén mmmm Wafaa Division Bench: - Hbn‘ble Mr. LC. ahadoo and Hbn'ble/Mr’ Dhirendra Mishrol JJ. 2-3—2606 Mrs. Kiran Jain, counsel for ihe appellant Mr. U.N.S. Dec, Additional Public Lolit‘yer for fhe Sizzle/respondent Prosecul’or wi‘i‘h Mr. MRS. 8ho‘lia, Panel Oral judgmen‘i‘ dic‘i’afed on 30$. ‘ Per LC. Bhadao, J: - By i‘his appeal under Secfion 374 (2} of the Codaof Criminal Procedure, X-I-HC—ZZ am! mam which He wenf 1'0 The blace where pe pie were collécfed on fhe accasion of Durga fes+iva1 andvinfor'med Doc! Singh amlal Bhakia Kejau Subaf Marat! Bihari Marar & ofhers He fold fhese per-s n5 fhaf wife & daughfer of Sukh Smgh were ’weepmg m The agmculfuml fyeid of amlai Then he along wtfh all fhese persons iwenf there and saw The? hts brcfhe -m—!aw Sukh Smgh @ 5cbh Smghwas iymg \ dead and Shyama Bai & Dey Kumari re weeping. On enquiry from Shyama Ba}, iske‘replied i‘haf Manglu has murde' ed her husbarfd and ran away. Gn fur'rher enquiry 'I'ha‘r Ge To how he has mur ered, Shyama Bai repiied ham by sfabbing, wifhwnarrow. If was also me‘nfione in fhe Firsf Informa'rian Reporf fha? Sukh Singh and fhe aecused used To qua rei on The ground of prac‘i‘icing wi‘ichcra‘f‘h - fhree years beforea quarrel To k piace bemeen grhe fwb, Panehayai‘ 'was‘ convened a1“ fha? fime..>bo‘ih we e leveling allegafions againsf each ofher regarding practicing wi‘l‘cheraf‘l fhe villagers persuaded ihem ‘l‘a compromise The mailer and ‘l‘hey compromised The ecn‘fer no dispufe look place The accused ran away af‘l’er commifi'lng The crlm Search was made bu? The accused was nof Traced out son of fhe accused Ala h Ram, on enquiry, brought an arrow sfalned wifh blood and said ‘l‘hai‘ sukh 5i 9h has fhrown away the said arrow offer a‘l‘i‘acking ihe deceased, and The sai arrow was kep‘l by fh’e villagers. Receiving This report i‘he S‘ oh House Officer proceeded 'lo ‘lhe scene ice Ex P-3 fa The Ponchos prepared fhe' Panchnama (Ex P-4) of The body of bh Smgh Blwd s‘lamed soil and plain sail were laken info possesSion from place of occurrence under EXP l The of occurrence and affer giving [113’s W e l‘ i f e XI-HC-22 mmmafa'a ‘ ._~;F~ arrow in quesfion was faker: info possession under EXP-2, on being praduced by . Alakh Ram‘ ‘son of The accused. One broken piece of wmw, was also Taken info possessicn under EXP-3. The body af 5obh Singh was sen? for pogr-mor'fem 1' éxamina‘rion 1‘0 Communify Healfh Can'i're, Gariaband, where Dr. AS, Siddique i (PW—17) conducted posf-mar'fe'rh; p opined fhaf The cause of? dea‘rh was vasovagal affack on accoun'r of The injury 1 Vov‘er‘ pleura & lung and The death was omicidal=ih nafure. Affer compIeTion of invesfig Tion, charge sheef was filed againsf ‘rhe er Secfion 302 of ‘l'he I.P.C. in The Cour? of Judicial Magisfrm‘e, Firsf Class, 6 riaband, who in turn c'ommiHed fhe case 'ro 'i‘he Sessions Judge, Raipur, from re iearned 7’“ 'Addifionai Sessions Judge received The case on fransfer for fri i ‘The prosecufion has examine 19 wii‘nesses. siafem'enf of The accused ' was recorded under Section 313;of t 'e Cr.P.C. in which he denied the prosecution evidence appearing agains‘l' him. earned Addii‘ional Sessions Judge afier hearing fhe arguments of ’respeCfi e counsei for the parties convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned n para 1 of this Judgment. , learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Prosecutor witheMr. MRS. Bhatia, learned Panel Lawyer on behalf of the State/ espondent. J“ ared fhe‘posf—morfem repor‘f (EXP—5) and r accused foh 53mmission of offence _ g We have heard Mrs. Kiran Ja U.N.5. Deo; learned Additional Publ ingh is not in dispute. Thehomicidal death of Sobh p d e . i i XLHC-ZZ As far as iolven‘r frfhe asappellanf i he crme in quesi‘ion s concern, The crime was wifsse ev umar'i (PW3), minor ughfer of fhe ‘ceased, ged bou‘r 7 ear's. In er eQide, sh as fegor'icay smfed a‘r The fime of inciden hr af was anding af fh 'l'e and sh was anding neby him. Accused Man‘lu ae, sfabbed her fafhzr wifh caw and afer puHin te arrow mn ay. He ,fafher chse the ccused wh!e raising zeehis, ? he could of ech , h fell down in he fid died. I cr's- examina‘i‘io, she has m‘ed Tha she s sfanding cri' isfc f 5— feet I? s nc sa he e h a of das A pe The se‘h‘le aw, e f a child wifns is fa b scrufinized eficuusly and bere reposing conf n on h eviden he Cour‘l has f en a e a i ipire ul d shdd T e Tun o hi nvém o mued/ n f i i ‘ed ned by D K — da de a a y h nce e h caH fh df t, e fhr‘ar sf e ga e $+ ar g :m rr f g h g’w r ad a i hscr bu n ai him e f ie and n o's n sf f wa a dane a 6 i iarrecf To y Thai s was abl. ‘l'o idenl'ify Te ccused on accoun‘l rknes. » a nllo fo i ece fe ce, f a sure fh‘l‘ fhe evidnce of child fness nss fl confidence an same el no‘r be he ouTcom of Tori or influence f anybody. Based on Ts rie n e hs oo Th Time pncipl, if we ldok inTo The evide of Ti wiTness, lking To e , resence o This wness quife n ral a The resience an he manner in whi as iTT s s nTed he a A er Th eence o The her .of This child wiTs‘ an oTher ilgs, The body Sob Singh was nd n Te agriculral field. Dev Kumar vlaer of h f u i h Tu i p f iT was a u T d d T ch The offence w commed he correcTly arra T sme. s p e vid f oT nes d a e afi ng Th a '(PW?3) has furTher sTaTed ThaT wh The accused er sTabbi e rrow. pulled iT and sTarTed running, Then her aTher (deceased Sobh Singh) chased him .. and .dfTer some disTance, he fell in he agriculTural field. Even as per‘ The ' [new s r d l evidn o és e ' XI—‘HG-22 WW WT’WR mmmm s r5; %5TW=IW%W c evsdenca of Cherku Ram (PW-7) and Mher viHagers who came framihe place where Durga fesfwal was bemg performed; The body of Sobh Singh was lying m fhe field On znqumy from Dev Ku ari (PW-3) as we” as fhe wife of fha deceased fhey narrafed fhcrf fhe acc sed sfabbed fhe deceased and ran away Eemg mgh‘r and dense fores‘l- on The ay, The maffer was repented nexf day morning m which was if was men‘honed fhm‘ The aufhor of ’rhe cmme m queshcn was fhe accused. Even as per The ev dence of The Vlllager's fhey wen? fa fhe house of fhe accused in his search he was found missing from 1‘he house; Even an The nex‘f .day morning when fh se wifnesses/villagers Wen? fo the house of fhe accused, he was nof presen? in The house and son of fhe accused Aiakh Rhm produced fhe weapon of bffence ( rrow) shined wi‘tb bload To fhe Villagers They faok if and produced before fh'e I vesfing Officer. Alakh Rom, son of fhe accused as been examined as PW—ll and he has sfafe‘d in his evidence fhaf deceased 5 bh 'Singh was his uncle, who has died, and Manglu, fhe accused/ appeiianf is his f fher. The Police come 1‘0 hish'ouse and he gave fhe arrow in ques‘rion and ExP bears his signa‘i‘ure. Therefore in View of fhe abov eVIdence fhe eVIdence of Dev Kumari (PW-3) sfands corroborafed in mafer I parficulars In cross-exammafion of fhis wifness, defence has nof been obi fo elicrr any Circumsfance; which makes The evidence of fhis wifness unreliable r unfrusfworfhyg‘ [wow a - XI—HC~22 v 6~ Learned counsel for The appellan‘r submi‘rs Tha‘r fhe incidenf happened a? 8 ptm‘ fherefore, if was no? possible for De‘vKumari (PW—3) 1'0 idenfify fhe accused. If is admiffed posi‘fion Thaf rhe‘ accused/appellant is the uncle of Dev Kumari (PW-3)'cmd she has s+m‘ed in her- eve‘dence Thm‘ she wifnessed The crime fr‘gn; a disfance of 5-6 feé‘l' when me accused sfabbed her fm‘hgr wifh The arrow. Defence has no? been able To h ing on record any mafer‘ia! 1’0 show fhafif 4 was no? possible for fhis wifness To id ni'ify fhe accused from a disfance of 546 feei‘ a”? The given‘fime. In jhe circumsfances, invoivem n‘r of ihe accused in the crime in ques‘rion sfands esfahiished, ‘ihe some is based n legal evidence dhd fo {his exfenf, we do n01“ find any iiiegali‘fy or infirmi’ry in 1‘h Judgment of ‘rhe Trial Court ‘ Learned counsel for fhe appe lan’? argued fhal lhe accused/appellanf is in cusl‘b'dy since lasl more Than 13 yea s and The accused assou'fed The deceased wi‘rh an arrow once, iha‘l‘ foo being nig 1' lime if cannof be said 'l'haT the accused assaull‘ed Theldeceased wi'l-h infenfi‘n Jo cause his deafh, ,par‘l‘icularly wifh ‘im‘enfion ‘ro slob him on viial par-1‘. Therefore, offence againsf fhe accused does ~ no? fravel beyond Secfion 304 Parf—II of fhe I.P.C. On fhe ol‘her hand, Mr. Bhoiia, learned Panel Lawyer suppor'l‘ed fhe in ‘ judgmen'l‘ of fhe 'lrial Court [mew XI—HC-22 . From fhe prosecu‘rion evidemze, H‘ has'come on record fha‘r *he accused éfabbed fhe deceased in fhe nighfl’ime dnd fhaf 1'00 once. Therefore, in a“ ’ arobabihiy, if cannot be said fhm‘ ‘ghe‘accused assauH-ed The deceased wifh i$fenfion¢o cause his deaih. However, if can safeiy be inferred i-haf The amused wag having knowledge Thai ‘by sfabbing wii'h. arrow he was Iikeiy fo case ihe death of fhe deéeased. Therefore, offence againsf fhe accused under 3e‘zfion 304 Parf—I of fhe I.P.C. was ade out In fhe result The appeal par ly succeeds and 1'he same Is par‘lly allowed While sef'l'mg aside conwc‘hon and s Mence under Seci'ion 302 of fhe IP C and ' acqurl‘hng The accused of ‘l‘haf char e, fhe accused is conwcied under Sec‘hon v 304 ParT-I of The TP C’ and senTen ed To The period already undergone. The accused has already undergone more Than 13 y'ears' of senfence. Therefore, he ' is direcfed To be released forThwiTh If noT required in any ofher case. ‘ ParTies are enTiTled for cerTififd copy of This order. Sdl- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ,rwuw 7,, iii Sdl- Dhirendra Mist“ Judge [dew ?