‘ If!IIIllfMll/Illlillll/IIII \ ’ 0 00 04.79 J a ‘ r CF 058415 ‘3 r ’ \ i } .A u J : 9 y ; > APmLwmeNm vvNo. ‘ mfg Namé ‘ r\ ”A WW. Father’s nam¢ 6x? i rgr‘w %* RgSidgl§ Wmaiéw Afé ‘ gA V rf-f $6 ‘ ¢ e ‘ % } , Under ‘” saction‘ é ’Qwxyn j a ' c2 g gag, .J ' «y . Tigg ._ ’ .by oa 7, g§qK4~N®YAIZ§ . ““32,“ - u ‘Vx ’ " Q4 _w_ “9%x - g ‘ w _-. v ‘ K 7 3 it i’s explaineq to th¢ prisoner thatif hast Sentenced to " i ates he wishes m be represenwé be “a legal kn oceed with the base far seven days unless lDate ‘of Application for cap}; OfJudgemént ..._ Date"of iwhic‘h copy reckive‘d w « y a q I; 2 / 3 ' \Eate on‘vvjhich Aplpeal s‘ent 3 37:; \ 17 ‘6 e a > ' x > WheYiler tlhe prisoner wishes tafbe' rQprgsentéd orlnot‘fyeis/Nnr’ 4 ‘No. _, §§g Name rx : r”- i ’ {ll Continued in : 1 \ @37 Jail t§r%:p Wwwgrm §Wm¢§3¢$ ngk @¥PTHRQT ‘37 . ‘ ‘_ Nip“ \JA'), V [éwg » ‘ dated * 3h i -IL Cm l f9 (ane— ‘ ‘ J7 to gather > wlnqh . l a ‘copy of Judgement ‘ or x h vtre‘lisemission to the proper Appellate Court, x \ ., ‘. (smamed to the ,. V ‘Sup to the #* /~//6Pl 1):“? ‘ an£ ‘Stg t’MIA jueaqg {kldeLk 1’ a LDate 6f receint in Afpeliafe’iéonit ?_§_' ( 7‘ $ ’ ,__ ” 7;— m eriat' ‘V n \ Date of receipt :i‘n Deputy Commissioner’s Oflice Date of receipt bf .. V ‘ gQ/é/5‘3 bu \ \ r\ l ' ‘ ‘3 I Memo ofAppeal receipt bf of record the to accompany g *w V I r- - Appeli'a-te Court. A «- x ,4 No. i V “Q0 _‘ dated 515/5/9f3/ t 197 / / XI-Hc—22 m. 1'60/q' d 5 The. pr03€c11tioii Gaga in briaf, is} that on 053' 10,! 1992 on eingcallsd by Rainibai~and Swmaruram, complainant Janmati ‘ aleng With her husband Bu§hé<2nxwnt to their house at about 10 {)0 am Ha elder aunt‘(:Badi~Maa) Ramli Bai, brotham Memkuram aid Mauszu also c ‘e thore’ in 011161" to calebrate tho ~sfeSt1val of “Navakhal (the crola of now nee bang eaten on that day) Whlle ceiebrabng the festl a1 all consumed Landa (used for purpose of mtomcatlon as hqu r) At about 4 00 p.111. m the evemng deceased Mankuram as ed the accused] appellant Manse; as to why he has purchased the new cycle out of the money Whlch ~ was brought after selling the ustard upon'which Rainibai said that What has happened 1f the c cle has been purchased the new cycle can be used by both the blothers) on Whlch the deceased Mankuram attacked on the head of tns monler “71th a b1g spoon as oozing out of the injuly, upon Wlnch Somaruram asked Mank 1am as to Why he has assaulted Ranubal. He plcked up a woode club and attacked on the head of Mankuram ’I‘hereaftel , the also inched up Peeda and a ‘ a, a result ofWhICh blood steut After giving notice (EX HIS) he [denied 1 b 1, ‘ e st XI-HC-22 ‘ Chhetedoagax Wham Dr. H.L. J 011 th€ body of Mankuram and (EX.P/ 1). During police custody the accusediappellant Mansai vi ‘ gavs a memoralldum (EXP/5) 11 “Paada” amd the same (was takexi ‘ ’Wésprepamd (EXP; 10) and bas‘ (ExP/ 12) Was i‘egis‘ta‘sd. After a sh§€t was f11§d agiapst the, preq‘ the Court of Additional ChiEf J1J ‘ tum committed the sass to the where learned 'Additianal Sessi . transfer for trial.» The. pyoeecufion in order accused persons examined seve the. learned Sessions Judge recoq ipersons under Section 313 of ithe prosecution evidence and 31% ibeen falsely hnolicaied £11 fhe on? Leaxned Additional Sess‘ arguments of learned Additional counsel for the. accusedfappcllax of ' me accused 'aa e mentioned judgmeiit. gde coglducted the postmoxiem prepaxed the yostlnm‘tem report garding the place Where he keet . i11to custody (ExPléy Site plan ed on that first information yepoxt \ompletion of investigation charge— ent appellant emd Somaruram in idicial Magistrate, Kanker, whdin Sessions Judge; Jagdalpur, from ms Judge received the case on to orove the offence against the a Witnesses, On the other hand, ‘ded the statements of the accused the Cr.P.C., in which thev denied ‘ated they are innocent and have r1€ . e Eons Judge after hearing the ublic Prosecutor and the learned its, convicted and sentenced each. in para first naragraph of- the [new W6 have heard Smt.- Kiran Jaill, leaxzlad counsel for t11€ .accus€d/appellaxr_t and Mr. U,N.S. Dao, A€1ditional Public Pros€cut0r with Shri Akhil Mishra, P311161 Lawyar for the mspcndmlt/ State, perused the judgme11t 0f the trial Court and th€ eividmlcE available on record. I V.‘ Thtt fact of the. homicidal natum of death of Mankuram haS not beog dispufed‘by learned counsel for the accused/ appeHant. ApErt from tliat, from the evidence of eye-witneslses PW~2 -Janmati ‘ and PW/3 J Budhsen ana PALM Ramlibai and thc medical evidexice of PW/ 1~ Dr. H.L.. Jangde along with'fpostmoxtem report {EX.P/ 1), it is established that the death of Mankuram was V homicidal in nature. Now, coming to the i11vo‘lvement of the accused[appellemt in " crime in question is c011cemed, eye-witnesees namely Jamnati —— PW‘KB, Budhsen-PW/S and Rairlibai-PW/4, who were present at the time of the incident, have ce tegom'cally stated that in the first histance the co-accusecl Somaxuram assaiilted with a wooden Club on the head of the deceased and thereafter the present accueed/appellant also assaulted the (ieceasecf with “Peeda” on his head. A11 these witnesses are closely» relared to the deceased and accused/appellant and in their croSSvexaminati’on, nothing has been brought on record on account of which their evidence _ ecomes doubtful or un-aecep 1e. Therefore, the tinding of the {HieW xx XI—HC-22 trial Coui‘t regal‘dihg involvemént of thé. accused/appellant in assaulting fha d€caased is ¢011o anmd, the sauna is based on Tim legal evidénca which requims no 311te1fere11ca by this Court. , . V g Laanmd c0u11sé1 for th€ the &st matance, dwaased Man on ‘th€ head of Rainibai which ,E of Rainibai :u‘ul Masai, me sen or Ramibai and both of them uram ma sudden quarrel. No- the accusod! appellant assaulted o causé the death of Mankuram. - 35‘; not stated that tho injury was of naturo to Cause. tho (loath. On 30, Additional Public Prosecutor a1 Court. assaulted on 11m head of Mank intantiml can be attm'butad that ‘ this deceassd with an inmntion 1 EVen PW; 1 - D1". H.L. Jaagde h j sufflcient i11_th6 sidinary CGurSE ths ofhvar hamd, Mr, U.N.S. D supportad 111a judgmant of fhe'u‘i l1} eyder to appmciate. th€ caunsel for thg aCCuSEd,’ appeHgu of Witnasse's. Vlt is an admittg-xi staxfad on a quaStiOn of purch assaultai Rainibai with a big s which blood _staxt€d aozmg o1 l Somaruram (smog deoaasad) an tha accused} appellant axld both 1 of them. assaultad on 1116 hea cuscd/ appellarzt argued that_ in uram assaulted with a big spoon nragad Somaniram, the husband. argumouts advauced by learned 1t, we have seamed tho ovidence positiou that e Whlan thé quan‘el asing a new $37c1a, tho deceasod poon on her head as a result of 1t of ”tho injury which enraged of deceased Maulmram with a i wooden Club and Peeda as a rest 1t of which Mankuram died on the oi 4.. . [1%W XI—HC-22 \ died on accountrof haemorrhage $1901 As per the medical evidence, 110 hone/”injuiy was. found. HoweVer, as per the medicaléevidence of Dr. H.L. Jahgde, Makuram and circumstaxlces of the case ajld the nature of hijuiy aud nature of Weapon used by the accused, it cannot he attn'buted to the waccused. that he assaulted the deceased with an intention to cause his d€ath as thé‘. d€C€ased azld Woddah' P€€d£1 lying nearby all c 9f a Sudden, in a heat of passion, in‘ a Sudden quarrel. the. accused] appellant is covered Thimfom, $116 0 Hence agajnSt under Exception 4 of Section 30$ of the l.P.C., because knowledge l can be atttihuted to the accused when he assaulted on the head of Mankuram and by such act 11E I lay likely to cause his death. In View of the fomgoing dis tha conviction opinion that commiSSion‘ of oEenca under Sé suefaiged. 111 the result, the appeal allowed. The _ comiic’riou 2 accusedfappellant under Sectk Insatead thereof, the accused] ap t y' and head injufy. From the faots mussions, we are of the considered of the accused/appellant "for iction 302 of the I.P.C., oannot he u G partly succeeds and the same. 1s Luti sentence imposed on the >11 302 of the I.P.C. are set aside. pellant is convicted for commission twee: g . the accused were brothers. The dispute stayted on small thing; arid when deceased assaulted Rhinibai t€hich enraged the ailcused and he assaulted with a Without any gsre~plan or hie-meditation, i WW %€(W émimm ' ‘ i of ogencs under Sacfion 804 Part 3 uriéergo R.I. for ten ysals. II of tha I.P.C. and sentenced to Thé‘. accused/appallant_ is in Clismdy since 1992, Th6 pen'od i of detention almady undergona hy t11€ aecusad/appdlant during i Qumstigafion and trial and pendency Qf/this appeal, thawfom, th€ 1 accus€d,!ap}3ella11t shall ha €11tit1dd for set éff 9f the salne against above tel} years of sentence, He ‘ reKiuired if; ahy’other ease, Sdl- L.C.BHADOO ’ Judge be set at liberty foi1hwith,‘ if not Sdl- V.K.Shrjvastava Judge mew