nK^^^^^:K:^^^^^iS^;^^?^^-^'-??SS%^:la?AS^y^-^^ES^^°^^ r) ft- ^^'^^^^^syss's^s^p^ssBie^! I-189/(Jail) J.P.R. 11/94/2,000 CF000006lf73 : APPEAL OF PRISONER p>3 •s?.3.^........................... Name..^%:^?^.^...................-......^. Father's name~0SfeL.€^T^i.~fliri^.^.k\^..SK^^_^..^.^. A . _^2 ^—--. ^_ .nJL <yT^7~'^7o77?- Residewe~TSMT ^.^.(^C^Age ...'36-e ^............... _..;.;:_ ......... Sentencedto ...S^?;jaa7.%R]c[JxT....... On....l..a^./.z'..^-s>.7.............. . ......... sectwn.3'.S.^.^I^.^£S^....by~S^..^'^^..^A-^^il6...'S^(^1-^ i&ita.. -> is explained to the prisoner that ifhe states or'wishes to be represented by legal "-E^actitioner the Appellate Fourt will not proceed with the base for seven days unless fhe legal practitioner appears . If the legal practitioner does not appear withia seven days he may not heard at all If the prisoaer state's that he does not wish to be repre- sented by legal practitioner the court may proceed at once withthe case arid will nc-t be obliged to give a hearing to any legal piactitionet who should appear . Date of Application for copy of Judgement Date on which copy received Date on which Appeal seot Whetherthe prisoDer wishes to be represented or not - Yes / No r\ /'J Name ^!W..SM>^..S/C). BM.^.-^S^6' Confined in .;%> r: f ^•'i Jail ..S>€B^7^::.C^..^ J7-£'..../^:'/^,g,Dated,....^.^..y!/^/199g............ ..........,.......^. _c f\ Forwarded to the'^ &jHetelAE=5£^^^a^^^l.Ofo^T^.J^^A0.7.%;^r9- togather which a copy of judgement or order passed in the case for favoWortr&DS- " mission to the proper Appellate Court. •<;'SC;1^^ :- S'T Ddsiit.-i eS/'Ot' Cfic^j:aJaiPj»-?X..(M.W.. Date of receipt in........... ... ................ office Date of receipt record ta accompany.the ........ Memo ofAppea! to ihe Appellale court "^^y^!W>y^e¥'Si^SS^^""• • . iiiatak QtsstottSSff* nw-?" .... &m*'BB %&Rl9' Dated .:...,............t.I99.........-I^'-,'- Forwarded to the .^,..\ ttifrtCltft ^...^...ri..;:, Date Bf rgceiptin Appeilate Court »•• c ( P; T. O. ) ^sSe-iS' •.^".^•^^ ^WNp:n^q/^NTfe, lNs^ 'i~SSf £^.&:..<^']ll.°& STI^T^iI "i^iwsnt^T S^WWS?! 311^1'?'(tirSTt'?lf?tT <^l4i(?!<4Tl' 'ETTtTd¥^ ^^ ^I^RSR ^ siPm ant^i DIVISION BENGH: HON'BljE &HON'I SHRI L.C.BHADOO ; SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. JJ 1'9LE CR1MINAL APffEAL N0.647rt998 Appellant : R^mu v4 Respondent : Sljate of MadhyaPradesh Smt. Kiran Jain, learned courjsel for the appetlant. Shri J.D.Bajpai, Shri J.D.Bajpai, ^jdditional Public Prosecutor and Shri M.P.S. Bhatia on behalfofthe respojndent/State. ORAL J UDGM EN T L.C.Bhadoo. J (Deiivered (»n24-01 -2006) By thjs appeai accused/appe judgment of conviction and order ofjsentence dated 18.12.1997 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, whereby learned Additional lant has questioned the legality of the Durg in Session Trial No. 304/97 Sessions Judge after holding accused/appellant guilty for the corjimission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code fiiir committing the murder of Bharat sentenced him to undergo Imprisonijnent for life and pay fine of Rs. 2,0001- in defauit of payment offine to furth^r undergo R.l. for six months. The case of the prosecution is thaij 0 Rameshwar were working in the ag^-icultural on 22.06.1997 deceased Bharat and field of one Barsan of village [^ ^R^^ :;-rIC-22 "S ^FTS^T, ^TTFOTS, TCdFtTg.? •X- 'a^R^f^i f^lisTSii^I ~9^-i\^ ^HI^ :^:!l:3ii58:t2gtS i^.—f.^S-.g^EJ ^.^S'.TS ^ ^^^^^ff^sl ^i8B;?i ^Si&i ..^~/J.3^ ^'T"SS?^n-—?"?^"'"°"'"'''''"'*" "''^"''"'"/''"''-s-K-^ ?.r^ ^li^^Bii 'gS'HiSS^ ^ . Vi"l . fs~i SIT^I'^RiIWHWi Khallari, at about 6.00 p.ro. they s came on the scene and attacked tiliiirt'il-l w^vf ^ fssQ ^? arPaiT an^r :opped the work and Rameshwar went to attend the call of nature. In th^ meanwhile, accused/appeflant Ramu Bharat with axe 2-3 times, on which Bharat raised cries. On hearing, th^ cries Rameshwar came on the scene, however, the accused fled awjay from the ptace of occurrence. inshi and hearing this Banshi, Parsadi, Barsan, Rajaram, Dhiraaj went to Ijhe field ofBarsan and sawthat Bharat was lying dead in the pool 6f bloocj. There was injury on the teft shoulder •near the left scapular region a^id also on the head. Blood was oozing out of the injuries and axe was lyjng at a distance of 4-5 ft. Thereafter, Kotwar Rewatram was informed ^bout the incident. Kotwar Rewatram and P.W.1 Sammal Singh went to fhe police station where Sammal ,Singh lodged the report P-1. Station Ho(ise Officer after registering the offence under Section 302 ofthe IPC, left fpr the scene of occurrence. After giving riotics (P-2) to the Panchas, he pr^pared Panchanamaof the body ofthe deceased (P-3). Patwari prepared|spot map (R-4A) alongwith a detaiied report (P-4). Merg intimation was jiven. Axe, the weapon of offence was taken into possession under P-6. Plain earth and bloodstained earth, one Tiffin box were taken into possessjon under P-7. The investigating officer prepared site plan (P-8). Body of fhe deceased was sent for postmortem examination to Govt. Hospital, B^lod under P-9. Dr. J.S.Sahu (P.W.6) conducted the postmortem exar^iination on the body of Bharat and submitted the postmortem report (P-18). Aftercompletion of investigation charge sheet was filed in the C<|iurt of JudicialMagistrate First Class, Baiod who in turn committed the 4ase to the Sessions Judge, Durg from [Til^^fe4 ^.^T tLT<^ /1'~. ~t^--- T^ •SffqRra, rixflwito, fawi'My ^^v^.::^-i.W - '& sn^rqiT fs'iwsn^T sh^i'* CT^T an^r'?raiWHifrB cbl'illd'iih 'WRlf'? fsw ^K-iK i; srpgiT sn^?F where the Additional Sessions-Judge, purg received the case on transfer for trial. Prosecutipn in order to establish ehaf has examined as many as 10 aecused/appellant was also recorded Criminal Procedure in which he denit stated that he is innocent and the witnebses account of animosity and he has been fge against the accused/appellant witnesses. Statement of the tinder Section 313 of the Code of i^d the prosecution evjdence and have deposed against himon >ly implicated in the crime. ftlsel Learned Additional Sessions Judge 'Additional Public Prosecutor and convicted and sentenced the accused judgment. . as after hearing the arguments of for the accused/appellant mentioned in paragraph-1 of this cdunset have heard Smt. Kiran Jain on J.D.Bajpai, Additional Public Prosecuto of the State. |>ehalf of the appellant and Shri and Shri M.P.S. Bhatia on behalf Homicidal nature of death of Bharat is n|3t in dispute. ppellant in committing the murder lAs far as involvement of the accused/^f |0f Bharat is concemed, leamed coun^el iargued that conviction has been recorfded |solitary witness (P.W.10) Rameshwar w|io is none else than the brother of for the accused/appellant has/ A. i>f\"(' on the basis ofstateMert of r^^fe^ Xl-HC-22 ^s; •^w\vf!f, wstms,^ ?T'?n •'R'ira'STI^I ^<'Htch ^Tl^<1 ^.^^^' c^A.c'-a.^^ 3V^V 'SfSIW^fe the accused and as there was streli and the accused, he has deposed ^ On the other hand learned 6ounsel judgmentofthetrial Court. ined reiationship between Rameshwar gainsttheaccused. for the respondenfState supported the In order to appreciate the argumej have scrutinized the evidence of PJ on the fateful day he along with about 6.00-6.30 p.m., they finisheil attending the cail of nature. village. In the meanwhile, this witn< Rameshwar, run Rameshwar". He was crying and saw that Bharat him and Ramu attacked Bharat witti don't attack". He tried to save as a resu!t of which Bharat fel! on t| the neck and head ofBharat. Maniram and Maharin met him, he witness has stated that eveii) accused/appellant continued assau| of this witness the defence couns^t which shows that this witness has! account of animosity. Axe, the weaf p!ace of occurFence. P.W.7 Ma]t categorically $tated that in the Bharatl informed Sbi^fd'41-f Mwrfi'? fslzt 'rfSrezrc ^ aifigii 3ii^r fit of the counsel for the appellant we JW.10 Rameshwar who has stated that ^harat went to the agricultural fietd, at their work and thereafter he ieft for him that he was going to the sss heard the cries of Bharat i.e. "save lcame towards the side where Bharat Ramu were coming running towards axe. Bharat was saying "don't attack, but Ramu attacked Bharat with axe |ie ground. He also saw the injuries on he left for the village, on the way jnformed them about the incident. This after dissuasion by him the fting Bharat. In the cross examination has not been able to elicit anything deposed against his own brother on »onof offence was recovered from the lalharin and P.W. 8 Maniram have atabout 5/5.30 p.m. when they antl Bhaibt There!after evejning [^rt^tf^ lii w :TR'?T ?nF ^iRT.sniRi rsrw:Ht?a SS^iMlij ^ y. ^y [i^T^^ ®^T<FTS,^^:^^ •^. %j@^^ir TT^'?^^ ^S'iJ ^ vi^ ^: ti • '~-t ^'.. '-^i .or-'?...C?..L<.'2. s~ 311^1 TRHWHfel Ramu v/ere coming from the agricuitural fit village, they saw that accused hands, on enquiry he repiied that h< wood. Even though these witnesse^ remains that these witnesses sa'jvl forest carrying axe in his hands in evidenceof Rameshwar P.W.10 ret axe stands corroborated by the Rameshwar P.W.10 further stands in which Dr.J.S.Sahu P.W.6 has the body of Bharat and found that ear in' the size of 2 x 3/4 x 2 wh| There was an incised wound in thel region, therefore the injuries whichj Bharat were corresponding to v^ evidence. Even m the First name of the accused is appearing. the stslted Informaltion In view of the above evidence, we established that the question., therefore, we do not judgment of trial Court and the dismissed. app^a ^d7-- L.G.Bhndoo Judge °t>i<<id''{l-i IIPRJ? •? fest '<ra^r' ^73iPwsnt?f i^ld, by the time they reached near the was coming carrying axe jn his was going to the forest for cuffing the ite have been declared hostile. But fact accused/appellant going towards the evening, therefore to this extent the i^arding accused attacking Bharat with of P.W.7 & P.W.8. Evidence of jcorroborated by the medical eyidence that on 23.06.97 he had examined there was incised wound below the left |ch are extending up to right mandible. Isize of 2 2 + 2 %" on the left cervical were foundon the body of deceased ftat Rameshwar has stated in his Report lodged by Sammal Singh, |are of the considered opinion that it is accused/app^llant was the author pf the crime in pnd any illegality or infirmity in the 1 ^eing devoid of substance is hereby Sd/- DHIRENDRA MISHRA Judge [mi;^g4