x‘ APPEAL 0F»;?Q/ISONER LWR\K\K\F) 266g @ igz/m me g7? y ggg wgk Cmmf“ Na \wo ”M (/Hl llHI CFoooooewaa \Father s name W/ _ Wm w.W$2 vH$gp ” ' ;;..‘ x 1 Re51dence //b W. ge ,EIS“‘( iSentenced 3fb 977‘ “3’ /X,.~-M On é 4m Under section‘ a“ ’f/yw Wg Zf/f? by w$ay WWW? 3?X??? ....‘‘w£2¢zziz_&33y7%?§w:um WW £ :Ls explained to the prisoner that 1f he states or w ég s to T be represented bv legal practltlone?‘ the ADpellate Ccurt Will pot proceed With the base for seven days Lnless the legal - the legal practitioner does not practitioner ampears. I‘F ar With :Ln seven days he may not hearé at a‘ll. If the prlsoner state; that he does not Wish tp be represented by legal practloéloner the court may proceed at once With the case and will not be obliged to give a hearlng to anv legal practltloner who should appear. ~ W Date of Application for copy of Judgement 2. Date of which copy received Date on which appeal sent t _ ‘rx a r Date of receipt in Appellate Court o) ‘ //SURGUJA Ty.// \ 2 L W f ; “ 2kl—HC—78 mw,m,W mumm Cv‘i Air/h? H3 200$) WW(W> WEIW WWW WWW I cm‘ Hon’ble Mr. L.C. Bhadoo, g‘.C.J. and Hon’ble Mr. Sunll Kuma: Si 10~ 1-2007 Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwa Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Addia respondcnt. “O‘ral judgmcnt dictated Per L.C. Bhadoo, Ag.C.J.: - This appeal is dimctd WW§WW émf$1¥m i against the judgment of conviction and order of sentehce dated 4th April. 2000, passed by the 15f Additional ' Sessions Jut1g1 No.284] 1999, whereby lean holding the accused/appella under Section 302 of the imprisonment for life. The case of the prosecm 7‘1999, the accused assault: iists 85 kicks on her stoma‘ informal to one Pooran Yad saw that the condiu'on of JaJ the accused to take her to Manmohan 3r. the accused Ambikapur hospital, she sut her, on Way and thereafter‘ ‘ matter was reported in Police M Ln'. counsel for the appellant. onal 'Public Prosecutor for the State] on Dm‘s. z. Ambikapur, in Sessions Trial 1ed Additional Sessions Judge after mt guilty for commission of odence I.P.C.. sentenced him ‘to undergo t m‘on, in brief, is that at 4 p.m. on 16'— ‘d his wife Janki (since deceased) with 2h. backside. chest and the accused av about the incident Poomn Yadav hid was serious‘ therefoxe. he advised the hospital. When Kailash (PW*4), were taking the deceased to the :cumbed to the injuries sustained by they brought the body back. The Chowki Bario and based on the merg P.T.O. X’K—HC—78 mw,m,W mm" ‘ Q2 : .%.n(.éi/.f.7‘11 2000 WW(W) ' mwmm munrauuu EXT-1’: *m6 ms’T registered in Police Station: DI after giving notice Ex.P—1 to t] EXP-2 on the body of Janki. EXP—11 to the Government P where Dr. A.P. Gupta (PW? prepared the report EX.P— 18. WW%‘WW §mf$mm ~ was‘ syncope due to traumatit I iiitestine and rupture of mesent Investigating Omcer prepamd t}; £ occmrence. After completion of inveS‘ the Court of Judicial Magistrat turn, committed the case to the Where learned Additional Sessio case on transfer for trial. The prosecution in orde1 accused, examined 15 Witnesse recorded under Section 313 of 1 material appealing against him said that he is innocent, he t CT1m€. Learned Additional Sessit counsel, convicted and sentence I unormanon report EXP-9 was Laurpur. The Inventigating Oilicer 16 Panchas, pmpared the inquest Fhe body of Janki was eent under [ospital. Rajpur for post-mortem, L5) conducted post-mortem and p ie opined that the cauee of death , injuxy of vital organ, stomach, my intra peritoneal bleeding. The 1e site plan EXP-12 of the place of tigation, charge sheet was tiled in E, First Class, Ambikapur, who in Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, from as Judge. Ambikapur, received the ~ to establish charge against the s. Statement of the accused vvas he Cr.P.C, in which he denied the in the prosecution evidence and ias been falsely implicated in the ins Judge after hean‘ng respective d the accused as aforementioned. P.T.O. XT—HC—78 WW,W,W .éelw H1 20m mW<W> mwm WWW WW§WW hwawm Mahan ’I‘iwari, learned counsel for Deo, lealned Additional Public :lrespondent. appellant has not disputed the gammm We have heard Mr. Anand the appellant and Mr. U.N.S Prosecutor on behalf of the Sfau Leaxned comsel for the homicidal death of Janki. Apa‘r‘: form the evidence of eyewitnesses namely, Rajaram (PW—1), Bhjhu (PW-2), who axe sons of the deaeésed and the accused 8r, Snip. Jagni Bai (PW—3), mother—in—law of the acouseii, as also the oxJPl dying declaration made by the ~4), Smt. Sonmet {PW-5), Kaila edical evidence of Dr. A.P. Gupta death of Janki was homicidal in decea§ed before Manmohan (PW-6) an Tirath (PW-7) and the (PW-15), it is established that nature. As far as involvement of accused] appellant in the crime in question is concerned, learne counsel for the appellant did not dispute this fact also. We hav perused the evidence of Rajaram (PW— 1), son of the deceased and the accused. He has stated in his evidence that he was at the res; ence on the fateful night he saw his father was assaulting his ther With a wooden toy in the ILAuJA w—wk shape of plow as a result ofwhi h his mother mowed injuries and he went to one Bhagnawa to inf rm about the moident, thereafter, Bhagnawa came there. The a ove evidence is corroborated by Biijhu (PW—2), another son of deceased and the accused. He has stated in his evidence that on the fateful night his father assaulted his mother on face and backside of the body, as a result ofwhich she sustained injuries and fell down. The doctor was also - called, but he could not treat his mother. Thereafter, people took P.T.O. ( e e o e XI—HC—78 ‘\ w mW,m,W WW . C‘D '.IF‘([€; - { ; . WW<W> mww WWW EVIWWm \r i/- WW§W®W é:af%1?a¢l%¥T her mother to the hospital, but sphe died on the way to the hospital. Smt. Jagni Bai (PW—3), mother—in—law of the accused, has also combotated the above evidence of these witnesses and stated about the injuries inilicted by the accused. In cross—examination of these witnesses, defence‘ has not been able to elicit any circumstance which discredits the evidence of these witnesses. Apart from that, from the evidence of Manmohan (PW—4), Smt. s$n;net (PW-5), Kaila (PW-6), Tirath (pwv), Manoj (PW—8) 85 Kusum (PW-11), it is established that deceased Janki made oral dying decimation before these inhicted by the“ accused on h independent witnesses and defence has not been able to elicit any circumstance which discredits Witnesses regarding the injuries 2r body. All these witnesses are the evidence of these witnesses. Therefom, from the above evidence of eyewitnesses and the witnesses befoxe whom Janki established that the accused question. Learned counsel' for the assaulted the deceased in a qu the accused to cause the dea against the accused does not t vel beyond Section 304 Part-II of the I.P.C. On the other hand, 1e supported the judgment of the made oral dying declaration, it is was the author of the crime in \ appellant argued that the accused arrel and there was no intention of of his Wife Janki, as such, oKence In order to appreciate ed Additional Public Prosecutor Court. e argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, we h ve perused the evidence. Rajaram PIO. XI-HC—78 §£anmaax§#wmg§wm$g WW . Cwz..w/ m 2000 WW (13W) EamRH%aa&m ’-g’“ (mm-1), Bixjhu (PW-2) 66 Sm eyswitnesses. Perusal of thei‘ nothing on record that the acc‘ sudden quarrel, rather their eV even had not said anything d mwm WWW mmffww %aaf%tr3n%¥1 Soma accused continuously assaulted ‘ as auresult of which her intes1 profuse bleeding and due to syn‘ form the above evidence and by the ‘deceased: it is Wlit 1 ge that the accused mercilessly continued to beat the deceased ith intention to cause her death. in the result, we do not judgment of the trial Court co commission of oh'ence under Se is devoid of merit, same is liabl dismissed. Sdl— ” L.C.BHADOO Judge Jagni Bai (PW—3) are the ‘r evidence reveals that there is peed assaulted the deceased in a Vidence shows that the deceased :1 attempted to save herself, the her on various parts of the body inc was ruptured and there was :ope the deceased died. Therefore, e nature of the injuries sustained d any illegality or intimity in the victing the amused/appellant for ction 302 of the I.P.C. The appeal e to be dismissed and it is hereby Sd/— X) Judge v ' , sUNIL KUMAR SINHA P.T.O.