IIIHmulllmmmlHlllllm 0000064586 44 K Ta11)c.J.p.3 /9_w4 i :“i, .' AppEAL OF PRISON R N01. a‘ther‘s . .. . . .40.: name .f/;3.g.1?é "way/fwy m . . *3 . . Name @‘ef m W/ff/I? @‘5uWiWWW/wgbqmj‘ " “é a¢s1dence«-a~~ -~:zrrz-Hrt§‘¢7 ""‘ 99‘35‘cL " " " ¢ertenced to — v- ~>~<§g/¢;7,—5mf- -- — - on ~,¢77w—2—503 \bndel Q’xctlon - ~— nygya W‘;2m‘ " "‘b‘/ 3 S» vi'bmchhnumWE 3' ———-_-_ .— _—....~ ...¢ sa— v- *"w- hik ls explalned to the prlsoner that 1f he states he W1shes to be represented by a legal practltloner the appellate Court W11]. roceed wiith the case for sevendays unless th legal ’ If the legal practltloner does not I t heard at all 1f the Prlsoner o; ‘ ' - ed at once vuth the case db y and legal W111 practltlon- not be ’ wer obliged the court to give may a proce hearmg to my lega'l practltloner Who should app ..wv L ‘. Date of A§p11catlon for copy of JudgementWw/M, fwww@@-/— ’2. Date on Whloh copy recelved- —‘—- —3w g 2:255 — —- - --' ——r 3‘. Date on Whlch Appeal sent— - -L— - -— -\-— ~— L’ l 4. Whether theprlsoner W1shes to be represented or meta/‘1- — - — \Yon— —« ‘~ 3r/‘o / - qgg/‘gé -- ”ame ' _______________.._________ 7 erg/rwzwa aivztg _ _ , _ _ _, > u ._.._.._ .-.-_—. m.- .. ~_——-“a Conflned 1n — -— — ~ ax; 9?. — - - ~ Jall- -/£&WW-gn? —<%W_§~g/) ‘ ¥§--r~—*—-Dated3-{/La—/ag5a -—- -~---- t0 the oh copy o) 4#Jr)- Judgement mat-sewnm or order passed eel/wt 1n the wag case for sSlon to the proper Appellate Court. \W‘) ru-n. m;———————— Offi cenun—"newn———————;—;-a; e of receipt of record to'accompanythe — .— _ — .. g.— .. __ ..... Memo of Appeal to the Ap‘oe llate Court— —~ - - — —— - —- .— ‘n - -' —— — ~ Date ...............‘..199 ——-———-——-—-_-- Noe ~ v- - - Forwarded to the .— ..—_—_—~——-_.——_._—..__ Date of receipt in Aooellate Court - ~ — ~04 i . : p .27 l « ..... a Dat a i [%9 .....if . © XI—HC—22 u 3a W, Wm, W 311%31m WWL>§M43W .. W 20% m mmmw Wmerww I%WW DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. LC. BHADOO & HGN’QLE MRVK‘ SHRIVASTAVA 3? 18.9.200é Mr. Abhay Tiwar-i, Advocafe fc r' the appellant Mr. U.K.5, Chandel, Panel Law}? zr‘ for The 5mm. Oral judgmenf dicfm‘ed on Dam u . ?€r' La Ehadoa AT, I I; This appeai is direc‘i‘ed agains" fhe judgmem of convicfion and order $ of semence dafagjl“ July, 2000 passed in 5.T.No‘438/96 by fhe learned Addii‘ional Sessions judge, Janjgir‘, whereby learned Addi‘rional Sessions J’udge affer holding fhe accused/appellan‘l‘ guilty for commitfing murder of his moiher namely Qambai, canvicfec him under Secfion 302 of I.P.C. and sen‘rencecl fo undergo imprisonmenf fmr life. The prosecufion case, in brief, is fhaf on 27.7.1996 a? abou‘l‘ 2.00 p.m. fhe accused/appellan‘r a‘l‘l'acked hisn‘o‘l‘her Rambai wifh an axe 0n her- neck as a resull of which she‘died on fh spot The moi-fer was repor‘led by PW-Z, Baunaram, husband of deceas d, in fhe Police Sfa‘lion Shivrinarayan. On receiving The report the police egis‘i‘ered fhe FIR (EXP—4) and The Invesfigafing Officer leff for $%\ ene of occurrence. He prepared The si'le plan (EXP—1) of fhe place of occu rence and affer giving noiice (EXP—2) ‘i'o fhe Ponchos prepared 'i‘he Panchan‘ama (EXP-2) of fhe body of deceased Rambai. He look info possession rhe broken pieces of bangles of deceased tinder EXP-3 and weapon of offence mder ExP-o. Dead body of deceased ' (ma we) hcmicidal in nature. Recovered nr‘i'icles were senf f0 Forensic Science Laborafory, Sager for chemical examinafion, from where repor‘r Ex.P—28 & EXP-29 has been received. afion, charge sheef was filed againsf fhe accused/appellan'? in fhe Cour-f f learned Judicial Magis’rmfe 15* Class Janjgir, who in ‘i‘ur'n commii‘fed ih case 1'0 learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur from where learned Addifional 5e sions Judge, Janjgir received fhe case on ‘i‘mnsfer for frial. The prosecufion in order i'o esfablish fhe charge againsf “the accused/appellan’r examined 10 Affer compie‘iion of invesfi I i‘rnesses. On i'he o'iher hand, learned 'Addii‘ional Sessions Judge recor ed The sfafemenf of accused/appellanf under Sec‘i'ion 313 of Cr.P.C, in whi h he denied fhe maferial appearing in The prosecufion evidence agoinsf him a d sfaied fha? a? ‘i'he 'i’ime of incideni‘ his (ind W) > Va'l er— i""/ t" I XI—HC-22 m mm W 200 m : mmwm WWm e‘ few WK L. 1,7 §5Ww§¥r Rambai was sen? for posfmor‘iem examinafion +0 “the Primary Healfh Centre, Shivrinarayan under EXP—12, where Dr. ML. Sahu (PW-7) conducied i'he posfmoriem and prepared ‘i‘he pos‘lmor‘i‘em repor‘i EXP-13. He noficed following injuries on i’he body of de ceased; a. incised wound on The anrerior aspeci' af above fhe medial par‘i' of lefi' clavicle in fhe size of 4%" x 2"x 4", on'ie morfem in nafure. B ‘13. b2 incised wound on fhe le‘f posferior aspec'i of neck in i'he size of 5%"x3“x6“, curling cervicai ver‘l‘ebra bones. Ante moriem in nafure. The doc‘l‘or opined ‘i’ha‘l‘ ”the cause, of dea‘rh is shock due To haemorrhage ’ A L from fhe incised wounds on nezk cu‘i‘fing carofid ari'ery and dea‘rh MeJ XI—HC—22 man mm mmmw WW§§¢TWR éKWméw menm condi‘rion was‘no‘r perfect ‘% ‘rhe pros & cams of his act Ulfin and has been faiseiy impiica‘red in fa Learned Addh‘ional Session: iearned Addi‘i‘ionai Pubiic Prosecuf? The accused convicfed and semem a§i§enfiqned in Pam—1 of 1his Judgr We have heard Mr. Abhay T and Mr. U.K.5. Chanda}, Pane! Lawye Laarned c5unse! f‘or fhe c hamicidai dea‘rh of Rambai. Apar‘ eyewifness namely Narmada Pmsa decewed and evidence 0f Er. ML deafh m‘ deceased was homicidal ir of Rambai was hamicidal in na‘l‘ure. \ As far as; The invalvemenf murder of Ramboi is concerned, ey has cafegoricaiiy sfofed ‘irhof whet baih kW ‘ 4ihe pond, he heard fh when his moiher came in fhe sire 1‘, he saw i'hai his bro‘iher Gangaprasad was chasing his moiher carrying ax in his hand. When his moiher feii down in fhe sireei’ accused (fwangaprasa affacked wifh ihe axe on her moi-her's neck, 0n seeing’i‘his: he rushed ‘ro ards his fa‘iher for caiiing him. In fhe cross-examinafion of fhis wi‘i’ness: defence has no? been able To elicii‘ any mew) ‘herefore, ‘ne was nof able fo fhink aboui‘ \afely, he has si‘m‘ed :fha‘i‘ he is innoceni‘ ’ie Crime. 3 Judge affer hearing ‘rhe argumenfs of hr for ihe 51'a1‘e and iear-ned counsei for :ed fhe accused/appellanf in fhe manner: 1en'r. wari, Advocafe for The accused/appellani' r for The Sia’re. rccused/appelianf has nof dispufed the i from ‘i‘hai, in view of ’rhe evidence cf d (PW-3), broiher of accused dz son of Sahu (PW-7) who has sfa‘l‘ed fhaf ‘i‘he nai‘ure, if is established fhaf The deafh of accused/appellanf in commii’ring ‘i‘he ewifness nameiy Narmada Prasad (PW-3) he was refurning i0 home offer faking screams of his mofher “save-save" and js. XI—HC—22 mmmw WW§WW > éawm ‘cir-cumsmnce, which makes 'rhe e ;un‘rrusfworfhy. Moreover, evidence Hhe evidence of PW-Z, Baunamm, ft iwho has sfafed fhaf on fhe fafeful ‘Nar'mada' Prasad came and informec :mother Rambai, on which he rushel mfhaf accused was coming from axe in his hand s‘rained wifh blood. however, he ran away. Even Thai axe, which was Taken info possession, was sen‘l for chemical examinafion, f where repor'r has been received fhaf fhere was blood on The axe. refore, from fhe ocular as well as circumsfan‘l‘ial evidence, The involv menf of accused/appellan‘l in commission of crime in quesfion is fully esfabl :vidence of This wifness unreliable or of fhis wifness stands corroborafed by rl‘her of accused & husband of deceased, :lay when he was cf fhe bus sfand, his son l him iha'r Gangaprasad had attacked his :l fowards fhe scene of occurrence. He The side 0f place of occurrence carrying He snafched fha‘i axe from fhe accused, ed and we do no'i' find any illegali‘iy or irregulari‘l'y in the judgment of The rial courT. Learned counsel for The cused/appellani argued Thai as The accused was ousTed from The house Therefore, in a fiT of anger he assaulTed his moTher wiThouT undersTanding he consequences, There was no inTenTion To cause deaTh of deceased and such, The accused/appellanT has been wrongly convici'ed under SecTion 3O of The IPC. On The oTher hand, learned anel Lawyer for The STaTe supporTs The JudgmenT of The Trial courT. In order To appreciaTe The argumenTs advanced by The respecTive l counsel, we have perused The evide ce of Narmada Prasad (PW-3), as per his evidence The accused was residing T Baloda wiTh his wife and on The fesTival (Who don) r m e h i c XI’HC—22 mmmww WWIEWW %a%w3n%m Even ihough, he was sfaying separa‘iely of Nat/minke he came fo #he viHage. bu? faking meais a? ‘i'heir residence. O1 fhe fai'efui day, he gaw ‘ihaf accused in his hand and when his mo’rher‘ feil was chasing his mofha', carrying axe down he aficcked en her neck with ‘i‘he axe as a resul‘? of which she received fcn‘ai injury and died. Tm ‘i‘he croes-examina‘iion, There is n0 sugges‘iion ihai' ihe accused was no? having any grudge, againsi‘ his mofher for separa‘iing him evitience. ‘i‘he manner in which fhe amLused assaul‘red The deceased wifh The deaéifweapon axé an her neck, make Roshwi— u - of accused has suppor‘md The abbve from ‘Hne family and even fhe fai'her 'i‘he im‘eni’ion of ihe accused clear ‘io ‘cause her deaih, as a resuii of which ambai received two incised wounds on her neck and even caroi'id bone was c i‘ and she died insTani’aneousiy on ‘rhe ‘spoi‘. Moreover, i‘here is noihing on ecnrd i0 show Thai in any manner i‘he hieceased enraged fhe accused as a re uh“ 0f which he assaui‘ied her. As far as ‘rhe s’rafemenf of ccused/appeiian‘r fhai m‘ +he fime of inciden‘i his menial candi‘i'ion was no? erfec‘i' and he was noi- in a posh-ion ‘i-o undersiand the pres dz earns of his c‘i', iherefore, he commi-Hed ‘ihe sin. ‘Bui. i‘here is no‘ihing on record fa s ow Thai a? ihe Time of commissian of icrime, fhe men‘i‘ai condifion of 'i‘he ccused/appeilanf was no? perfect as such we do no? find any subsiance i i‘he argumen? 0f learned counsei for The accused/appeliani‘. In ?he resui?, The appeai is evoid of merjf, same is liable To be dismissed and accordingly, i? is dismis ed. Sdl— L.C.BHADOO Judge 745,7 , Sd/- V.K. Shrivatava Judge 0% W)