I? ^•-zr.^ - ^^s/ffJT APPEj'l..L , OF ^PRISONBR;, <^ 'CT'^00065615 O 7 OC7 20Q5 ^--"..........„ .^- .^fi^.'^ja. ^^ <:.(.,.;.,,,,,./ J^itr' leswxasiy.^. — -»..',—.^a-.^A—iA. Ncl- ..../.i.t-l^..^'....._.. Narne „.;.~IAL.^.SrS. Pather's name _.._.,_____"£t/'<3''__"^7T%_T("?3_.__ ResiclencE\^^ '__^^J^^ •i/7^_v.e^^^~ . . h.ge .'3..^T._.q.(^ ^T^ ST^^' 14-3/0-5^ ',.. ^,, . „,;,,. ^ ,_ , S6ntenced^ -i<.n7^---Q"is.2^w3i.'^>>-r)^a- Qn :... .Sl :'.^..^.r^~- ?-.a,J,~; Under sectiop yW/.d^7.c^<^_<Ei^<^^;/^L^__^ S^- Trt~6 - T]T "?nT71_ -!:T^^ <-ujyj^fj' -3r^rr---^-Y-(n^/p-^7-7"9V^y'~-"----'"' -if^;'c^ it is explained to tlie .prisonet that if he states or wlshes to be represented by Legal pracfci.U.ori,er',.l;he.ftppeliste Court will not ^pcoseecf. ~w±:tb tK& basca for seven'C].OYE uni-pss bhe.^egjal pract'l^tiooer appp"*"?. 'If'tho legaj; practitioner t'oes not appear with-in ;:•". .;;:• days he may cfbt hearJ E'L aiJ.. ' If ithe 'prisoner states tliat h" does not wish to be represented by legal^ practi.otxpner^ tho cpurfc mayi -]3rQC(2ea'at;"o;'ice with fche case and will not be oblig.ed to give a hearing to'-sny Fegal .pFactitl6n'srl'-who 'should appe'sr. •' ' , _, ... .^lj- 1. .Date of Applicstion ;for- copy- o^- iTudgement '^ l'%._- .r^-?P.^~_. 2. Eate of which copy, receivec!;. .^.,.'. • •• f'^ <9 ' ^i.STsT' 3. Date\on,whiqh gppsal, sent ^ ' '" •' '• " -_!'Z'T-' ^ • 2.CrZ)^~ 4. Whether the prisoner v/isiied to be representec! or not-Y-e-s/No. No' ..-. .-..j}.6.jf>-§l..--..„. me „.Cy^..^i^. .5-i^,^s'Gji.'sw.^''s... Continued in _^e~^J7. .....^. Ja.1.! ^.-.S.^-3 "''^. NQ.^^^^^'\_^;;;';-'Ui^^d _g,Z^y/j5.^r,....,. ;9n .._.......„.....„..........,„ yorwsrd to'''the CMIEJ? JUDIClAL GISTnATE '^Tf^STSjT^' ^i^a^w] ^i^) to gather whic'i-i 3 copy of- orcier passed in tlie case for favour ;;;f transmissipn to_t:he proper Appelliate Court. STc'TT^ - f^l^/'^/^f' ^~ LVT^J V^ I Superintendenfc /? SupRr^fflflent Geuti-ai JaiMirftliiapw Date of receipfc in C.J.M's Office Date of recei'pt racord to acconpany 3^^5['_ Memo of Appeal oJ° the Appel-tatia Court Tin^^^3y^'7^T«y^i^<i2 No- ....-..._. (3=r. ..„-'.-.-;Datsd -..s.*-1.^!05^_.. 199 . Forwardec! to the 'PtT7?^5" S'^^ ^WS/Wo ''sftwTT ^%^Ui^"\^ :^f2i^s^3]^^:\^^f'^w^"~ ^C^- ^\W^^.^^^-^^^.^i^. te Dafe of receipfc In "ppeliats Court' ."''""-J'^^J^*'-aK ^> N!; -HC-78 ;?iT?:ST°fiTf^IRi (T-Ti' 3^I^T sbHi* ^S:::s S^1.^. !l;t,<!iS:! ^ i'?:^ilii?-:'L <41*1MI StlHlch 3^-<<i<<iccii, yTnyis, Rtciwy ^.c^,^.?-./^ w^ zoor' STT^T'raq? (l{c|!^<s)^tT) STttRKHfStfsn^T T3ivisionBench:^ Hon'ble Mr. L.C. Bhadoo and Hon'ble Mr. Dhirendra Mishra. JU. 17-11-2006 Mrs. Kiran Jain, counsel forlthe Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Deputy G(|ivt. titat Mrs. Kiran Jain submits Singh Rajput, Advocate, as Amici|is now, the appellant hasengaged| argue the matter. Mr. Sachin Sing|h Mrs. Kiran Jain is permitt behalfofthe accused/appellant. Mr. Sachin Singh Rajput from the cause list. ^d to appear and argue the appeal As the accused is in of counsel for the parties; the Oraljudgment dictated on q>a;s Per L.C. Bhadoo. J: - This appeal is directed agaj of sentence dated 31 August, Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), AmbiKapur whereby learned Additonal *i<it<i41'i tiiH(iTfr'te<A<Ri+<;i< ^sf^irsn^r appellant. r,/ Advocate for the State/respondent the Court has appointed Mr. Sachin Curiae for the accused/ appetlant, but her, therefore, she may be allowed to Rajput has no objection. on discharged and his name be deieted Mrs. Kiran Jain, learned cc|unsel forthe appellant, submte thatthe appeal may be heard finally. deter|tion since 17-3-2005, on the agreement matt^r is heard finally. nst the judgment of conviction and order 2005, passed by the 3"s Additional in Sessions Trial No.243/2005, pessions Judge after holding the P.T.O. <^ ^^^ 'ja.oS XI-HC-78 3Ti^r^Tis:TN? tTgran^TOTR; a;. 3:5?'^|t|irt<<, yiTfl+i'is, fsi<ni'My< llHWlsh^l* ••••••••••••••••••••• ^ 200 3<1^1 14sl* ('i0^61^) STaTWBfeT'sn^r accused/appetiant for commissi4n I.P.C., sentenced him to underg(j> Rs.1,000/-, in default of paymerlt year. Case of the prosecution is ] March, 2005, Lakhan (PW-3), br| sound of quarrel between the (since deceased). He went to th^ accused was assaufting his wife house of Shivshankar (PW-1) Shivshankar went to the house injury on the head of Sitebai, Shivshankar went to the Police arid After registering the case,| investigation, left for the scene of| to the Panchas, he prepared th^ Sitabai. The body of Sitabai was under Ex.P-13, where Dr. K.P. mortem and prepared post-mortetfi the dsath of Sitabai is due to cs(r injuryand the natureof death is hc|micidat After compietion of investjgation Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ambi| the Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Judge received frie case on transfs +]<)(rl4)-) TITOTf^'te^t^RZTC ^srf^Tsn^T of offence under Section 302 of the imprisonment for !ife and pay a fine of of fine to further undergo R.!. for one ^ in the intervening night of 15th & 1Sth r|3ther of the accused/appellant heard the ^ccused/appeilant and his wife Sitabai house of the accused and saw that the Iwith a Lathi. The accused went to the requested him to come to his house, (sf the accused and saw that there was she was lying on a cot. Thereafter, St^tion and lodged the report Ex.P-1. the Station House Officer took up the occurrence. After giving notice Ex.P-1 1 jnquest report Ex.P-12 of the body of ^ent to Primary Heaith Centre, Dhourpur 1/ishwakarma (PW-11) conducted post- report Ex.P-17 in which he opined that rdio respiratory failure caused by head i, charge sheet was filed in the ^apur, who in turn committed the case to from where learned Additiona! Sessions r for tria!. f^ -i P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3^''<ll<<ld'M, »Tny'l6,Rcliyy t-TTOfll aiWch ^R; 200 3ii^i >4acn (yil'isi^) 3TI^TWR-< OTT gn^r gii-iRi [S-S-S& ?;RtTWtrf^T 311^1 tb The prosecution in order examined eleven witnesses. under Section 313 of the Cr.R. appearing against him in the prose|( estabtish charge against the accused Sfetement of the accused was recorded .0. in which he denied the raaterial ilcution evidence. Learned Additiona! Sessi<^1 respective counsel and perusal of| accused as aforementioned. s Judge after hearing the arguments of the record, convicted and sentenced the We have heard Mrs. Kiran and Mr. D.K. Gwalre, leamed State/respondent. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant D^puty Govt. Advocate on behalf of the Mrs. Kiran Jain has not d| Apart from that, from the medical 11) and ocular evidence of Murari the deceased with a Lathi, it is homicidal in nature. belen As far as involvement of concerned, same has also not appeilant. Lakhan (PW-3) is brof hostile and he has not supportec< has stated in his evidence that or) the house of appellant Shivnath his wife with Lathi as a result ofl caused by the Lathi. Shivnath accused was assaulting his wife^ in the night. His evidence has be4n ^pifwft;Tv^f iffs<s <r»]<-!;i< ^; Slf^IT 3IT^T (sputed the homicidal death of Sitabai. ^vidence of Dr. K.P. Vishwatarma (PW- I (PW-4) who saw the accused attacking e^tablished that the death of Sitabai was tlhe accused in the crime in question is disputed by learned counsel for the (her of the accused, but he has turned the prosecution case. Murari (PW-4) the fateful day in the night, he went to where he saw that the accused assaulted which she succumbed to thg injuries ^nd his wife were quarreiing and the |Therefore, he returned at about 8 p.m. corroborated by Shivshankar (PW-1), P.T.O. Ir XI-HC-78 3^'"l|l<41c1i|, 8'Tfl<H'16, fsfcliyy *<IH?TTSh*frai W^ 200 4 3ll^t4ach (yi(^<s|i,iT) sn^TwR-ficb fTSffSTT^Tsh^icti tessi BTgTWHfgiTsn^T who has stated in his evidence tht the death of his wife at 8-^ a.m., i(i1 and took him to his residence, condition on a cot, thereafter, he above ocular evidence stands"cort per Dr. K.P. Vishwakarma (PW-11; another contusion on the head cms. and on opening of the head, | fractured. In his opinion, the caus^ due to the head injury. commission ofthe crime in questioi|i i6t the accused came to his house after itiformed him about the death of his wife s|vhere he saw Sitabai lying in injured 1-eported the matter to the police. The rl-oborated by the medica! evidence. As there was a contusion on the left thigh, region in the size of 7 cms. x 2 |the bone beneath the injury was found s^ of death was cardio respiratory faifure involvement of the accused in is established. sc|apular Therdfore Mrs. Jain, learned couns^l prosecution has not been able to deceased with intention to cause accused/appellant does not travel In order to appreciate the have perused the evidence of evidence that he saw that the and the accused assaulted the above evidence it is established two and in that process the aecusled as a result of which she rsceived ffete evidence, it cannot be inferred with intention to cause her death. thit qirafcTafrr iiprat'ft'tec^ rfSrtzrc ^arf^q'sn^r for the appellant, argued that the 4steblish that the accused assaulted the death, therefore, offence against the h|eyond Section 304 Part-11 ofthe I.P.C. On the other hand, Mr. G(walre, leamed Deputy Govt. Advocate supported the judgment of the trial pourt. ac<tused dedeased tllat arguments of respective counse!, we Wurari (PW-4) who has stated in his & the deceased were quarrelling with a Lathi. Therefore, from the there was some quarrel between the attacked the deceased with a Lathi, i! injury on flie head. From the above the accused assaulted the deceased However, it can safely be inferred that P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3^ •^rFR?)^', grftffTC, lelcliyy W^CTT <»*rr^ W^ 200 sn^TTffgw (^srfgg^sT) sn^rw.i^fRi awsn^rawR; SL.ma. BN:ig|i;!g!' ^^'^';?ti. STcnWHfgtTw^r the manner in which the accusec! her head, he had the knowtgdge he may likelyto cause her death. to the accused, as such, the findi;] and sentence under Section 302 c?j assaulted the deceased w Lathi on tt|iat by assaulting with Lathi on the head, [Therefore, knowledge can be attributed tg of the trial Court regarding conviction |the I.P.C. cannot be sustained. In the resuft, the appeal p|artly ailowed. Conviction and sentenct ynder Section 302 of the I.P.C. a\ said charge. tnstead thereof, the Part-il of the i.P.C. and sentenc^d accused is in detention since 17-SI2005 off for the above detention period a^ainst ttie succeeds and the same is partly ^ imposed upon fhe accused/appellanf i|-e set aside and he is acquitted of the tccused is convicted under Section 304 to undergo R.l. for ten years. The tili date. He will be entitled for set sentence imposed. 3^2005 Consequentiy, M.(Cri.)P.Noj Parties are entitted for certifi^d copy of this order. Sd/- LC.Bhadoo Wqferift^llTOrTf^'fg^iRl^ilt ^arf^Trsn^r 1894/2006 stands disposed of. Sd/- DbirendraMishra Judge P.T.O. .'.''/