mmuH ( a PPEAL OF PRIsNER "' é *. k CFOOOOO65026 v I biggiag-“ -7. w Father s name ‘ sPntenced gym€5wmMzwaggu¢i9§ N ‘y ' 6g Under sectio .. . <34 ‘ " 1t :Ls exnlalned to the prisoner that 4i he states or w shes o be represented bv legal practltloner the Appellate Court will not proceed with the base for seven davs unless the legal exactltloner ampears. IE the legal prar‘tltloner does not ppear wlthu-ln seven days he ma] not heard at all. If the prisoner states that he does not Wish to be represented by lgegal praetlotloner the court may orcceed at Ohee with the ‘ ‘ case ami Nlll not be obliged co glve a hearing to anv lega \ l , practitioner who should appear. .’ ‘_ Jx te of Appliéation‘ for copy of Judgement ~ Lay; regagg __‘ " D ate: of ”whl'ah' éo‘pyi‘r‘ecei’ved w ' I 14>: elseZlkeolg _'_ 3f. , Date on which lampeal sent w ~' ‘ gw- » >_ 4; Whe her the prisoner wlsl ed to be representer or not~%s/No Continued in wy ‘Mn Jai, Wyy Wgaw o. 172:1 M Dated sJgjg l9? l“ / 7‘ e5 (W ‘ faw'"%v”7"&?&“¥’mW ” a é“ ‘* a rd to the GPI—El‘ her whlcn a eopy of order oas er? an the ca se or favour K \\ of transmls lon to the proper Aooelliate Court. W 7%EFvevW #We—gwar) su ' andent Superintendent Date o£ receipt. in C.J‘.’M's Office Date of receiét recordrto acconmany z” Memo of i-\ppeal of the Appeliate Court No. ' ' ‘ Dated C J faglstrate Date Ol recelpt 1n Aooellate Court Be Recai * mu$ WW ‘ IighCoa V thug??— ] %L *i? ’ 1 n & SW? CW via , x ma N u H g¢ o6 XI-HC—7 "V 8 Mmm vammw WM§§€IW %3$Rrqa11%¥1 APPELLANT RESPONDENT ' Versus ari @ Kaandu Kanwar, S/o. a1 Kanwar, Agc 35 years, cupation—Agriculturist, r/ o. am Chandramedha, P. S. tappur (CG) S t6 of Chhattisgarh, through P lice Station Pratappur Distt S guja(CG) N 374l2! OF THE CR.P.C. Present: GMENT y 2008) ‘ st the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18th July 2003 passed by the Third Additional §essions Judge, (FTClSurajpur, Surguja in SKI‘, No. 42/ 2002, whereby, the, learned dditional Sessions Judge, after holding theaccused/ appellant gu' ty for commission of the odence \ CR.A. No. s73lzgg§ h c r P a mm 7 H200 mmqariaaeg) mmm CR. APPEAL UNDER SECT DB ; HON’BL‘E'SHRI L.C.BHADO(),J. & HON’BLE SHRI T.P.SHARMA,J. Mr. Abhay Tiwa‘n‘, counsel for the appellant. ' State. Mr.Ashish Shukia, Additicnal Public Prosecutor for the ORAL Ju (07th M This appeal is directed ag Wm 111200 Wm (Wu) mww mmm mmafaaanam ul- WWW WW éw‘rwnm f the IPC, for committing the aching with axe, sentenced him rid to pay a fine of Rs. 200/—, in er undergo imprisonment for punishable under Section 302 murder of his wife Sardhani by- ati to undergo impxisonment for life dcfault of paymsnt of fme to three months. Case of the prosecution, in fhe night, accused and-his Wife altercation. Accused Sirdhaxi was demanded liquor from his wife, therefore, he attacked her with the noseLhead, cheek, forehead succumbed to the injuries at brother of Sardhahi was inf morning. Thereafter on 29.10.20 EXP—1. Based on that, First 2. r . under EXP—‘2. The investigatin I occurrence. He prepared inquest Body of Sardhani was sent f Primaiy Health Centre, Pratap; Prajapati, P.W.-15 conducted the rief, is that, on 28.10.2001, in namely Sardhani entered into drunken condition. He further ame was refused by his Wife axe and handle of me axe on d chest as a result of which, she ut 2.00 am. P.W.—1 Narad, d by one Maakatika in the 1, Narad gave merg intimation mation Report was registered Ohicer left for the scene of X.P-9 on the body of Sardhani. post mortem examination to ur where Dr. Brajesh Kumar post mortem. He prepared the report EXP—16 and opined that cause of death is due to haemorthagic shock and death wa s homicidal in nature o I‘ o s e e o ~ ‘XI.HC——78 mmm -3” 3. After completion of inve mm 111200 mm (W) mm§fa§m aiaimm ion, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate f st Class, Surajpur, Who, in tum committed the case to the Sessio s Judge, Surguja from Where the learned Third Additional Sessio s Judge, received the case 011 transfer fOr trial. 5. Learned Additional Session Judge, after hearing the counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced accused Sirdhari as aforementioned. 4. The prosecution in order t establish the charge against the accused > persons examined a many as fifteen witnesses. Statement of the accused was re orded under Section 3-13 of the Cr.P.C. in which he stated that h is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in questio . 6. We have heard Mr. Abhay Tiwari, counsel for the appellan and Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addition Public Prosecutor for the State. the judgment and record of the v 8. ’l.‘he appellant has been co Victed on the basis of statement given by P.W.~1 Narad, brother f the deceased and P.W.-2 Jiwan, son of the deceased ‘who has s ted that the accused made extra 7. Having heaid the counsel or the parties, We have perused Court. s ' t ~ t XI-HC—78 @ mm H1200 mm (mm) mam Harman“ mmm’ ,“f’ V mm Wm $3I'Fd'qm t judicial confession before him that he had attacked his wife with tha axe. I 9. We have perused the eviden has stated that when he reached the house of accused he was present there and he enquired from him on which he disclosed that he had gave beating to his wife and with the axe. He saw that there were injuries on the head and and on the neck. He lodged the report EXP—L But in the cross examination, he has stated that it doesnot disclose‘to him that he wife. He has further stated that he did not enquire from the accused whatever was asked from the accused was asked by the police. of RWV—l Narad, it cannot be 52 v judicial confe$sion before him on the trail Court regarding extra Narad is not correct. A ‘ Narad in ’fhe examin ation in Lchief be of these two witnesses. P.W.-1 that is why>she died. He has fu there was swelling below the eye is correct gagt his bro‘rher in law has committed the murder of his 10. As far as the evidence of P and accused is concerned, in t] stated that hs saw that his fatb club and she died. But in the Gross examination, he has stated that it is correct that hismatern'al uncle asked him that his father \ er stated that he had attacked T‘herefore, in View of the evidence Lid that the accused made extra his enqiry. Therefore, hnding of: judicial confesion made before W,—2 Jiwan, son of the deceased ie examination in chief, he has er attacked his mother with the m » 141200 31mm (Wu) WWW ’3’ has committed the murder of his 1 f of his uncle. It is comect to say tl his maternal uncle, he has stated 1 Vhas also stated in the cross exam] uncle informed him that his father has committed the murder of his mother and on that he has made the statement. mm WW $31‘1‘atrm nether. He was at the residence .at whatever was told to him by he same. Therefore, this witness nation that in fact his maternal 1 1. Therefore, from the evidenc is no other ocular or circumstanti accused Sirdhari under Section l2. Therefore, the conviction oi 302 of the IPC for committing the murder of his wife Sardhani cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside Accordingly, the appeal of accused Sirdhari succeeds. He is’ acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the IPC and the Conviction and sentence imposed upon him are set aside. It is stated that the appellant is in det ention since 1. 1 1.2001 therefore, he be set at liberty forthwith if no‘: f‘q Sdl- I .7; ‘EQL.c.BHADoo f Are? 1‘ Judge e of this witness, it cannot be held that infact this boy witnessel the incident and. based on the testimony of this witness, the accused cannot be held guilty. There evidence which establishes the fact thatthe accused was the auth or of the crime’‘fin question. required in any other case. sd/- -T.p. SHARMA ”u "\ Judge m “ ~