CF0000061853 1 (3Q H50 7 XH-‘l 89 (Jail) C J.P.Ru9~94 9i MaéhEEw§gk$ APPEAL. OF PRE‘SQN? “Wm Mwuaé) \‘ (x 2V3 (a z Q HV Qtrxt l" h g i Realm; s name ‘ eqdsnce m? ‘OA ‘o w m‘. QM {’\ A 5i_ W 1 Reg. Wm” \¢\_ RN <Q 'Age Tea Qf$ gicgyt é‘arh" I " WV» @WR ‘ on Q %{Q}\—& ’gw ‘zighé 'i g Senienced to Under Section u \ 4 ained to the priwner that 1f he states he Wishes to be represented b a legal ' pcllate Court w111 not proceed Wlth the case for seven days1unless the gdl praetmoner appears earller Ef the legal pract1t10ner does not appear Withm seven 4ays he may not heard at all 1f the Pnsoner states that he does not WISh to be repre- sented by legal practitioner the court may proceed at once with the case and will not be obliged to give a hearing t0 my legal practitioner who should appear. l Bate of Appiioation for copy ofJudgement i‘ Du Date on which Appeal sent $3 s é Whether the prisoner wishes to be represented or not, - Q. KM N “M W meiim 3 Mo gp Date on which copy received Forwarded to the to getner With a copy of Judgement or order passed In tne case or favour of transmi- Wt n Mm at memel datum 'L J Appellate court aNo 199 Date of receipt in Appellate court ? “ ” a : . 1 .o r ‘ T le ? lrn No p 6,2,1 ea l Name ;\ > i ’ Confined in (’\ ‘ Jail “(mmmt l Qt Nor (31% '\ turn v Dated WV${ w z 1 >» 1991, mm®Q$sQ/&Igiw >WW(W) mmm . mw§fs€tm *WW Mn$z ‘ Hm'bie Mr. LC. $ha&oo anti lHm’b!e Mr. Dhirendm Mishm J'J’ 2{)—3—2096 Mrs. igdim Tripafhh coun§el far fhe appeilanf. Mn UAN.S‘ Dec, Addifionai Pubiic Prosecu‘rar'.wii'h Mr. D.K Gwalre, responc¥en’r. Om! judgmen? disfafed on D is. a Per- L {I Ehm‘iaa AT:— The appellanf has preferred his criminal appeai under Secfion 374 (2) of fhe Code of Crimina! Procedure quesficning legali‘fy & correck‘ness of fhe judgmem‘ of conviction and arder of sem‘ence ddfed 4”‘ February, 1997, passed by 1'he 2'” Addmond Sessions Jud e, Bikaspur, én Sessians Tricd No.525/95, whereby learned AddHicnal Sessions Judge af‘Mr holding ‘ihe accused/appellam‘ guiify for commission of offence un er Seci‘ion '3OZ of ihe Indian Penal Code, senfenced him io undergo imprisonm m for Iife.“§ The case of 'i‘he prosecufion, in brief, is iha’r Gangaram (PW—1) lodged i'he reporf (EXP—1) in Police Siai‘i ‘ Seguw (Em/f. Advocm‘e for- ?he S‘m‘ § Gourela on 25-10-1995 a'r 11 om. ‘i'o the e‘Ffecf ‘l'hai af about 7 am. when K war Paiiram came and informed him Thai Jaipal has been murdered, he was ai is residence, he along wi‘l‘h Jamuna Ahir di Koiwar weni’ ‘ro fhe house of Jaipal a d saw ihai wife of ihe deceased (preseni‘ accused/appelloni') was weeping while siii‘ing in ihe room. He sow fhai‘ The body i of Jaipal was lying There and There as deep injury an The head. On enquiry, / f : o XI-HC-22 imfe of The deceased informed i‘hm of ohouf 2 o.m.5 1'0 2.30 am. on hearing +he ' §$ound of cham of wmdow she wok up and, infQr-med her husband abou'i' 1‘he ‘souhd ofcham on which he smd‘ fho’r fhere migh‘r be dog Buf she‘saki Tho? if iappaar‘s To be fhe sound of foof‘01 same ‘rhle‘f .Tmpal hf fhe lamp (chimney) iond he elong‘wh‘h his wife & eon Chefan wen? Towards The back door and sow ‘ 3135a? chajn of ‘i‘he dogr‘ was open.’ impaHmed 1‘0 open ‘fhe door, buf 11am was ' ciosed from ou‘iside. They refurmzd fo The house and sow ihoi‘ fwo persons eniered ‘i‘heir house; one was carrying ironrod and boih i’hese persons had » ' assaulfed heh hu"sbdnd wifh fhe axeA Receiving fhis reporti‘, fhe iSfofion House Officer regisfered offence under. SecTiOns 302 & 466 read wifh Secfion‘34 cf “the LRC. and {eff for The ecene of occurrence. Affer. giving no‘i‘ice (EXP-3) ‘i‘o i'he Ponchos, he prepared- fhe Panchnama (ExP—Z) of fhe bod) of Joipai. Biood sfoined soil and plain soil gwas mken info possession from The 3ioce’o‘f occurrence underrExP—Ar. Axe, fhe weapoh of offence and one iron ro of occurrence under‘ExP-5. 'Pef‘ric of, blouse and one sari of fhe accused were foken 'info possession under ExP The bodylof Jaipal was sent for posf—V morfem exam‘énafion fo Communif alfh Cem‘r'e, Gourelo under: Ex.P-11 where Dr. LN. Po‘fel. (PW-8) conduci‘edosf-mor’rem on fhe body of Jaipol 'and' prepared fhe pos‘r-morl‘em repor XP-7). Blood sfained ar‘l'icles were sen‘l‘ for chemical exam’inafion To Foren ic Science ‘Laborofory, Sogar from where fhe repor? (Ex P49) was received and Seroiogisf repori' (Ex P—20) was also ‘ rewed were faken info’pos‘session from fhe place [View d ec — . e y vp f E XI—HC- 22' mmw ,—\$, Affer compiefmn of mvaS‘hga‘r ‘_WW‘W1¥1%€!WR \ ‘ %3Ii%mm Ion charge $hee1’ was fiied m ‘i‘he Cour? of Judicial Magis‘i‘raie Firsf Class Penchx who m furn commiffed ‘ihe case fa ’rhe Eesslons Judge, Bdaspur', from when Bilaspur‘, received we case on franéfe‘ The prosecu‘rion’examined niné cf 1'he .accu5é& was recorded undg:* s denied i‘he material evidence appear ‘ been falsely implicm‘ed in The crime. Learned Addifionél Sessions _ieamed' counsel for The parties, o 1men‘iioned in paral of fhis judgment ‘ We have heard Mrs. Indira T ‘ and Mr? U.N.5. Dec, learned Addiii ieamed Depu‘i‘y Govt Advocaie on'be . The homicidal denfh of Jaipal As‘far as involvemenl‘ of 'l murder cf her husband Jaipal is cone Che‘l'an (PW-‘4) who is son'of she a i years. in his evidence, he has sfal asked him and his fafher ‘l‘o wake u V along Wi‘l‘h his moi-her & faiher we ki’rchen gar-den side Thieves were door fhey enfered fhe house and p [noW 9". e learned 2rd Addihomi Sessions Judge r for ‘l’riaL ‘_ wi‘rnesses. On ‘rhe ofher hand, shi'emen? Section 313 of fhe Cr.P.C. in which sh ing againsf her and sfated ihm‘ she has Judge afi-er' hearing. ‘rhe ja/r-gumenis o :‘nvicfed and sentenced The accused as ripa‘rhi, learned counsel for lhe appellan‘l“ Public Prosecufor viii-h Mr. D.l<. $walre, alf of fhe Siam/respondent ' \s no? in dispu‘re. e accused/appellan‘i in commif‘ling fhe rned convicfion rests on The evidence of. cused and ‘ihe deceased, aged abou‘l 11 d Tha‘l' in l'he falefUl nigh‘l' her 'mofher , on which his fa‘iher liffihe ,lampcnd he ’r fowards backside of The house in 1'her ushlng back door and of er opening *lhe hed his faiher Wiih La‘i‘hi as a result of ; e ‘ f l o ‘ XI-HC-22- which ms 1’a‘mer Teil down and Thereaf‘rer his mofher a‘H'acked his fa+her with i'he axe on his head 5eeing fhis he ran away He wen? “E'o fhe house of one ‘ Mangal and Informed him 0n which ‘Aangal asked fa call ofher nmghbourers AH i 0f fhem wenf fa fhe house where h! § mofher asked Them “Hm? fhere Is darkness ‘ i'herefore Ref her M fhe lamp 6n which she II? fhe §amp and ‘i‘hey saw The? hm ‘ fafher wag wrlfhmg m pom and blo wig 002mg cu? af fhe head af his fa‘iher Affer same Time ms fafher' succu bed 1'0 i‘he InJumes susfamed by him In eross-exammahon pqm 7, he has a& 11'1'edei‘hcx1‘ when ins fa‘rner fell down, lamp wei‘n‘ bff as aoresul’r of which *rhe ‘e was darkness, In para 8', he has sfafed i‘hwt fhief-wds having Torch in his‘hand and'he aimed The Iighf of ferch fowar‘ds his fafheh on which his mofher assauifed his faiher' wifh The axe. On fhe _ suggesiion of counsel fenfhe defence, he said ‘i‘hafhe does nof know Thai when , his mofher was assaulfing ‘l‘he fhief wii‘h i‘he axe, same felll'acciden‘rally on his fafher, in para 9, he has sfa‘ied Thai he had no? infurmed Mangal dz Suklal ’rha? ‘ fhieves assaull‘edhis fd‘iher wifh fhe axe whereas Mangai (PW 5) has sfafea 3’ in his evidence Thai CheTan came T3 his heuse and informed ThaT Two Thieves > 3 have ossaulTed his TaTher. Similar is The ewdence of Hemlal (PW—6) (£1 Suklal i (PW-7). Learned counsel for The appellom‘ argued ThaT The evidence of CheTon ‘ (PW-4} does noT Inspire confidence or The reason ThaT in Cross—examin‘ai‘ion of This wiTness iT has come ThciT wher his faTher ‘fell dawn, lamp wenT off [as a resulT of which There was darkness: ahd‘ in Then: conTexT This wiTness was noTl able To wiTness as To who ossoulT’eil The deceased. She fur-Ther argued Thm‘ 7 L ~< [sis-eras XI-HC-ZZ I ce o w: ne$s m para as come fha-r iwhei‘hzr'aacidenfaliy, i‘he axe fa” aw fhe head of his fafher he does mi” know On fhe ofhar- hand, learned :cunse! appearing for fhe Smfe/responden’r supporfed fhe judgment ‘u * Having heard learned enamel foh The phrfies we have perLsecl fhe . evidence an record and far fhe fo wing reasons we fmd fha‘l‘ lhe ewdence of Chefan {PWA} does n0? Inspire c fidence of The Cour? and fhe proaecuhan ' has rm been able Te esfqbhsh m oivemem‘ 0f The accused m assaulhng her ' husband with axe, beyond reasona ‘ As if ls eviden? from fhe vidence fhcn‘ a? i'he fime ’of incident the *cleceased 'l‘he accused and Chem (PW-4) were m The house As per- fl’xe’ f ewdence of L’nefan (PW—4) when e saw lhaf his mofher' affacked his fm‘her' wrrh ?he axe, he Immedlafely ran y and Informed Mangal, Hemlal & Suklal. ‘l He- hasfurfher sh‘red in para 9 f his evidence ‘rha'? he had nof infoFmed i' Mangal é: Suklal.%ha+ Thieves assa lied his falhe'r, whereas, Mangal (PW~5), i Hémial (PW~6) & Sakkx! (PW-7) inf e’ir’eyidance have cafegor'icalh/ sfa‘i‘ed 1'ha1' ‘ when Chefan came 1‘0 Them, he inf rmed fhem fha‘i‘ fhieves have aésauifed his fa‘rher "herefor'e ihere is mafer dl conlradié‘iion in ihe eVidence of Chefan l (PW-é) and m fhe ewdence of f ese ihree minesses Viz Mangal (PW 5) Hemlal (PW-6) & Suklal (PW 7) Apari from fhaf on The I forma‘hon given by Chefan {PW~4) ihey i, informed Foiwar Pahr‘am who has n ‘i been examined by ihe prosecu‘hon and as ~AL ‘ doubt bl per- fhe first infermahan nepar-i' (E P 1) Pailr‘am Came and informed £$angamm ‘ [dredge l o - a fhz éccused infbrm‘ed him 141d? fhie Ves assaulfed deceased Jaipai. Why ‘fhw TacT of wiTnessing The incidenT of aTTack made lay The accused on her husband, ‘ . j by €he1‘an {PW—4) has nof been me w’i‘ioned in fhe F.I.R., creafes' doub? aboufr fhe veracify 6f ‘rhe evidenw dfJ’Wh‘}. In para 4‘, 6angar'am (PW-1) has bafegoricaily sfafed fhm‘ he lodged whhe reparf affgrrenqqh‘ing from wife & san V e?‘%e deceasea‘, whereas, if has mar beeh menfioned in fh‘e FIR. +ha+ Chefan informed Ganguaram: ThaT he wiTnessedThe assaulT’made by The acouse‘d on her , husbgml Jaipal, from: fhe perusal of whole evidence, if is evideni‘ fha’? in fac’r, 's‘ome Thieves or some oTher persons Trespassed The house of The deceased and during Thai per’ibd, The incidehf Taoi place Chefan (PW-4) has fur‘i‘her' sim‘ed fhat when his fm‘her feli dbWn -XI-HC—22 ‘ p wem" off and during Thai perlod ihe ~ “incidenT happened and There was d kness Therefore There was no occasmn for ‘i‘his wri'ness f0 wifness The ac used assoui‘hng ihe deceased Moreover iher'e is nofhmg on record which go s To Show ?ha+ m any way There was mofwe jbehmd commif‘img The murder of he husband by The accused/appellant In The circumsTancee we cf The cansidered opinion ThaT The inrosecui‘ion has naT been able To pro e The offence againsT The accused beyond ireasonabie doubT Therefore ing of The Trio! Couri' convacTmg The iaccused/appeiianT under SecTion 3O of The IPC for commsTTmg The murder of her husband Jmpai ounnoT be su I‘n The resuiT The appeal euc eeds and The same is‘ allowed ConvicTion , and senTence imposed upon The accu ed under SecTion 302 of The I P C are seT‘ V i®§f€§j l e f1 d s " asides The accdsed is acquif‘l'ed of z be set‘af Iiberfy for'rhwi‘rh, if no? rje %Parfiés are'enfifled for? certi' Sdl— $1 L.c.BHADoo \ «Judge Soma :Harge under 3ecfion 302 ofhfhe I.P.C. She quired in any ofher' case. ?ied copy ofihis order. L» Sd/— DI—HRENDRA WSHRK Judge W§W