APPEA '.F PRISO‘NE ‘ ‘ 3;.2ILL31 Name ‘ WT rsname ~-——W — > ' ‘ ‘ Rendcnceam 14m ©j§r¢¢~Age ~ ?33 \P5 > ,——- ‘ " I‘ Sentenced to , 9y“(§‘fY-1W§m : W\ ‘\ «9%; ‘ '\.it }§ expl’aincd to the priséhér l at 1f he states 0r Wishes to be regresented b\ x kw} pracutloncr the Appelate COL t w1ll not proceed wxth the base for seven ddvs tenleSx a1 pracmxoner apped s If the legdl practm e does not aprmr wxlL ays he may not be heard at all If the prlsoner sta at he does not wxsh to ed by legal practitioner the court may proceed at once With the L x5e and t I V e obhged to gxvc a hearing to any legal practmoner who should appe 41 l l l l Date of Appheatton for copy of Judgement —————*—;w~ UJJEWh . Date of whlch copy recelved Date on Whtch A‘ppeal sent l q lgjf— ——— "_...._._‘ l f _: , Whether the pnsoner wxshes to be represented or not- Yes/No VES e —w——~ *Wg T?F-——~ —————~—19a*——.—’~ > w ~ H - — > to gather w1th a copy of Judgement or order passed 1n the c for fa our 0t transmlssto he proper Appllllate Court L ; Forwarded to the CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ~WW————q—————Lu Supermten‘xn l§ stt / SL a Jml on.” z- «mt-, Date ofreceipt‘iih‘C‘r-L'M.’S Othce— ' 7 " Date of receipt ofrecoro'to accontparty H , ~ ‘ Memo of Appeal of t e Appellate Cou vDate of receiptln Appliate g " R‘ 23L v e V d b l , . ,~%~~—Jarl I . n t rt W C. p. ‘mgmmkm DE¥!S16N EE§IC§L §’€’3u3 “nix. L.L.3§§3GG n’ HQE’ELW i‘JR. VIJAY. K. SiiREv i3.12.2$$5 f ‘ Mm. Anal Jam, Advocam i Mr. Ashish Shukia. Aiidi Ravindra Avarw'al Pirael Lawver £ “ml judvmy-“ mmi’rf‘gétw amfanaiw Tms aypaau Is duwted aga 1 ssm’enw dated 26th Januaw, Sessions. Judge, ’Jashpmnaggn wherebv lemed Additional S‘ accusedg’apnellam guilty for 901 392 Code 1::asa11t1 Ben qentenced 11ml to 1111c " L é Iuman Parr“ Last the fudgm ut‘ 0f convictioxi and J90 passed by leaned Additionai District Raigarh’ in S.T.'No,97j9é easions Judge after holding the mission 0f oifence under Sectien' or committinc murdcr cf his wifa ergo Imprmonmem Ior hie .n, 111 bnef, ls that Paxasram {PYV-i} §tation, Bageecha on 23.12.1993 to. L Bai was maln'ed with Sainu Ram Basanti Eai came to his hause and fhe. house. of Patel for taldxlg meal with the death of familv member of house late therefo e the accused “e. 12. 1993 at about 6:00 1d in front of his house,'Jairakharl rmed him that his brothe'r—in—law r Basanti Bai and‘the deaci bodv is w this; 1‘he case \of the prosecuno iodgecl report {Ex—P— 1) at Police x m6 aifcct that hi5 sister Bagagi 111x16 years back. Thre€ daVS back informed him that she went to winch was nrepared in connecti Patel 811d as she lemmed to th Sa.11u Ram started qssrremng W; m. whey; he was in threshing " Ghasi (PW-2i came; there and ' 3cu'nu Rqm has murdered his sis lying in the house. Coming to ( gTAVA. ’JJ or the appeliant donal Pubh’c Prosecumr with Mr, 3r the State. her. On he immediatelv left for the mew o o 1 o :‘i‘f XI-HC-22 mm I ‘ , _Z' Bah'rém after 4 house of Basanti Bai aleng with Jmrakhaa, Mukund reaching thar‘e he saw thaf dead bndy ni 111s 31st61 Bagantx Ba. was 111d. Them waS a cm 111311137 on bar _ 1 m5 on me bedumg (m 111E grm hmd a Hung on the Wn<t of leLt halld aJld hiQ brothw-m—law was was mmrmquon thp bub Inspector o not m the nause. 0n recelvang PdEce Station Bagaecha registered the ELR. {Ex P—_1) fbr cemmmsmn of the offence under Section 81132 of I.P.C., left for the scene of mama F“ 19—2} 0f the badjv‘ 6f eccmrence 'prepaxed the Pajh basamlom 1he imresu'ga‘uhg Oiflcer‘from the. ylace of occurrence took mto yossesswn the blood stanled soil and plain soil umier EXP— 3. r16 alao took Into yooeessmi one quilt (Gu‘dariva) sta‘ined with blood, blood stained hairé, one tooth and 12 pxeces of Lroken bangle One hair was also Wen from me neaii of uaSmm Bal for aavple 1he accused while 1'11 the police custooy gave memorandum IEX.?—4) regarcling the place w'hem the weapon of offence ie. axe was kept axml m oursuance of that the axe was‘recovered £rom the house of the accueed under EXP—5. (mound smear of the accueed/ appellant Was 1so taken mto pos’seesion imdez: EXP-5. Site plan (EXP—8} was also nti Bai was sent for postmortem prepared uead bouv of ba exammatton to the Pnman Heath Centre, Bageecha, wheye Dn R “I ' Dube (PW 7) leoqducted the postmortem on {he body bf deceased, Lortem repori EXP—9 and owned That Basanu Bed,- preoared the poem me death o Basan’ii Ba was due to hemoxrhage 6r, shock and the nature ox Heath was homlcnieu After completmn of the m‘resugahon, the charge sheet was fiied. aganlwaccnsed/appenam n1 the oourt o1 Earned Juehexal mew : XI—HC—ZZ “5‘ ‘-r g9 . ...................................... mm m 200 mama-{w .3- Magistrate, 1“ Claas, Jashpurna to ismed $essions Judge, Rajg Sessions Judge, Jashpumagar re to prove the charge. against'the Th6 prosccution in ordm Learned Sessions accused/appellant exammed seven Witnesses. Judge recorded the statemetlt c 313 of the er.P.C. 1n Whmh t appealing against’him and statec some where eise for eanling anythmg about the incident. Leamed . Additional Sea: Additional Public Prosecutor & C( sentenced the accuSed,’ appellam _ 3'11 Pam-1 of this judgment, We have heard Mrs. Khan Jain, counsel for the appellant & Mr. Ravindra with Mr. WWW 1E‘Q‘Im $Wm Ashish Shukla, Additional Puilalic Prosecutor Aganvai, Panel Lawyer for the State. Learned counsel for the a( case there 1Q no evewmless ax could not be connected w1th the fact, on the fateful day the ax}? had gone to somewhere else in order to earn his livelihood and he has . been falsely implicated in the c1 iine. She further submitted that the evidence of PW-S Kedarnath & PW-4 Mukundram, who said to had the deceased dining the day is not However, she did not dispute the fact that-the saw the accused}apg)eilant with“ worth ? of IeLiance. gar, who m turn committed thecase ;arh from where leaned Additiona ceived the case on transfer for trial. vi accused/appellant under Section .e denied the prosecution evidence 'L that on the fateful’day he had gone. iiveiihood and he does not know / hearing the )unsel for the accused convicted and herein in the manner as mentioned sione . Judge, V‘ after cused/appeliant argued that in this o therefore, the accusedjappeilant murder of hie Wife Basanti Bai in Jlant was not at hiax residence and mew, l XI-HC-22 ,L... death of Baeailti Bai was homic 1:134 m mture Apart from that from (PW 7) and ho¢m10rtem regmrt (EX ‘3— 9, m which 1t gas been memml ed t‘lat the death of Baeanfi Bai was hemorrhage whlch has been proved death. 0* Basaut; 331 \ 119 ocular evidence in this case +h me murder 0; 4‘ ‘L‘uis Wile £ S on the circumstantiai evidence Le; peuant was seen in the company 9f Bai in the mo1111'ng of fateful day Le. 111d also in the evening of‘22, 12. $93; agon of offence ‘at me ms'tance. of Rt, 916s laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of NEW AHNIEE VS. STATE OF BIHAR reported iii A!R 2001 Suyre'me circumstantial avidcncc. bcferc .must satisfv it3€1f that circum guilt could 156 drawn have 't evidsnce led. by the prosecutiox together are not oxily of a CQm chain so fuily as to unemngly not capable of any explanation which isnot consistent with the used. m6 6vide11ce of Dr‘ R N 'Dubév 11om1c1da1 and du€ to shock 3c, by the doctor {PW-7}, 1t 1s estabhsbed that was hamicidal in nature. 1t is m6 connecting Basanti Bai and whok casc rast‘ the accusecijag his WEe Basajltj on 22. 1‘2. 1998 a {a} {‘“E Recovexy (3f we accu'sedi appella as 1361‘ the settled princi- that there is; the accuseiifappenant with Cain-t 2416 that in a case baeed 0n the Court can record c’onviction, it stances from which an inference of een estabiighed by unimpeachabie t ami that all the circumstances put :1usiVe 11ature but also ccmplete the point to the guilt of accused and are hyppthesis of the gujit of The act- XI»HC-22 . W 200 mmmm ._.s_ Now‘ we shall proceed Circvmstantial evidenca on th v convicted the accu‘sad/agapellaj ,daceascd’ Basanti Bai 8a broth stated in his evidence that on ' t0 himfand informed him abou hcuse of Basanti Bai he Saw th injury Police ' stated WW wm‘ éswm on her head, therefore, Sta‘oon Bageecha. 111/ tht that one day before the at the house of Jeevail where Accused/ appeliant also came 1*] aud his sister returned from t ‘ infomation to PW-l' about the Bai was dead, therefore, the p0} Panchnama (EXP—2) of dead hostile. PW-S Kedarnath ha 22.12.1993 at about 9. am. qualTeHing 1'11 their house, at Basanu‘ Bai called him and 2 furthér’informed him that the i commit her murder, on which there is no benefit in quan‘elli the same night Basanh‘ Bai was had absconded. In the cross—ex hie houee i5; in front. of app to examine the evidence regarding e'basis of which the trial court has 1t. PW—l Pmasram, who is brother of :r—in—law of accused Sainu Ram, has he fateful day Jairakhan (PW-2) cane t the incident aJJd when he went to the at she wae iying dead. There was on he lodged the report EXP—1 at the i cross-examination. this witness has incident there Was last rite ceremonv f. he and hie sieter went to take food. 1ere to take food. Accused Sajnu Ram here. P'W-Q Jairakhan, who gave the incident, has stated that as Basann ice came forenquiry and prepared the body; This witness has been turned _. stated in his evidence that on he saw that Basantj 6a Sainu were that time he was going to his shop. [sked him, to see their dispute. She accused is saying that one day he Will he intervened and advised them that ng, .hve in a peaceful manner and on A murdered and the accused] appeiiant amination this Witness has stated’that Hant’s househfew days back when a [113a that e XI-HC-22 accused &s deceased quarreled a1: thcnthe villagers of the village : stated that the quarrel about W} repoxted \to the polica At that ti will comit mmder of Basanti Ba his evidaace that on 22.12.1993 the accused 65 deceased came to came mam his ill—laws house. Ac provide him food and mereafter, This wimess has alsotumed ho ‘t‘his Witness has stated that on M in the house of one person of tn Basami Bai went all alone to tals “came late iii the night on which accused Sainu Ram scolded, her and he heard that accused Sainu Ram was saying to deceased Basanti Bai that so far with Whom she was: then this Wimess informed the accused that Easanti Bai was came with 6—7 persons, then only'the accused Sainu Ram became normal‘and he left for his house. x Therefore, fromthe evidence of PW-S Kedarnath, it is estabhshed that the accused & deceased .Basaxit‘l Bai wex‘e in their house in the momiitg of 22.12.1993 at about them quarreliag, he was called by their'dispute and advised them? 22121993 Mukundram (PW-4) pm. when the accused & deceased came to his house and accused ‘$&S d matter was repoxted to the police,- aettled the matter. He has further" lich Basanti told h’im, ‘he had not ne, the accused has stated that he v Li. PW-4 Mukundram‘has statexi in to the evening at about 6.00 pm. his house, at that time the accused‘ cased Sainu Ram asked Basaxm't both of them went totheir house. stile, but in the cross-examination / cmclav there was last rite ceremony :ir Village namely Jeevan Patel and :e the food in that ceremonv. She 9(00 am. Kedarnath (PW—3) saw Basami Bai upon which he settled not to quarrel. 1n the evening of , saw ‘themdogether at about 6.00 x s'ving to Bas'anti Bai t0“ p‘ovide him food immediately and [we ates o XLHC~22 W mereaftei‘, they left for their house. In the cros's-exammau'ou this wimcss has stated that whan Ba anti Bai came 1am in'the nicht fmm ths last nte ceremonv, accusad Samu Ram scolded her and asked ’ Ba$ani1 Bal that so iarmth wh she was staymg, then he told hJm that Basantl Bal along w1th 6 ’7 p rsons came together In View of the above ev1 ”nee of these two witnesses, astabiis’hed that the accgaed/ ap ihe whole daV arid the mmxier 0. Same night intervening 223d & 2 1n the mattsr oi BOD STATE OF JAMMU AND KASH the hon’bie Apc‘: wm‘i mas LCld “the them‘v of 1aSt neen co tha deceasad wcm accn deceased 1s found dead anv person Omar than the thn cnme becomas mposs The Hon'ble Apex Court further heid that: V «It Would be hwdous to come to a conclusion of guilt in cases where there is no other positive evidence to and the deceased were last condude that rim accused seen together.” In the present case, the defence of accused/ appellant is that he gone somewhele else ‘forealnmg able to produce any evidence or ‘ ‘ material in order to establish his ( to the Witnesses FW-S €35 PW-4 i l 22.1293 the accused was not at [new was not at his residence am} f 1ive‘1ihooci5 but he has not been it i5 11am was with the deceased dun'ng Basainii Bai was committed m the December, 199.3. ALIAS BODHK AND OTHER§ V IR repaiied 1n 12002! 8 &CC 45. es mto p1av where the mnc‘ gap between the nomt of time when the accused and last ahve and when the so small that poss1b1htv 6f 7 accused bemg the author ol le lefence. This fact has not been put n their crossexamination’ that on his residence and in fact he had o 3 H 1 ‘ d XI-HC-22 Wmm1§WW aamm evidence that during ille day aécused/ appellant was quarrelling with deceased Basann’ Bai and the deceased informed him that a3c'ueed is saying that he will eommit her murder and thereéfter on the ' witnsss _ 8 _ gone somewhere elee to earn his ‘livehhoedg It is m1e that~rPW—4 "l‘Mukundram has been declared hostile but this Witness has/stated that in the evening at about 6, p.m. accused/éppellant and. deceased can'ie to his house, and this evidence camot ‘be oveeboked.‘ Murder of Basauti ’Eai >Was accused) appeHant was seen in th betm aol€ to estabhsh tha lact ti ealn hvelihooc't‘rather the case ol 1, murder oi Basanti Béi the acé arrested 011‘ 14.1.1994 Le; after. madam. ‘ Now 1f WE 100k jilto the evidence of PW has Hstated in his same“ night murder of Basanti Bai was committed, The accused had absconded and he was meeted after one month. in View of the above, We axe of the considered opinion that the iindin‘g of the trial court connec h'ng the accused] appelhnt With fhe M murder ‘of his wife Basanti Bei is correct and does not require interference by this Com. v devoid of men‘t Same is liable to be ’ M:.rfA \ house 1 accuserl, the of = compa'nv of deceased Basanti Bai . dunnc :11e dav 1:111 the evenmg and the accused/appellant has not at he had gone somewhere else to amsecutmn ls that after commlmng used left the viilage and he {Veg . ,, / about one month from the date of commitb arl in -3 Kedaunath, this in The reeuit? the appeai is dismissed and it is hereby dismiised. ‘ i _ Sd/- L.C. BHADOO Judge ‘3 e: ‘ Sd/— ' V.K. Shrivatava Judge ;