- ' J P R‘11/9400 c ./20 CF0000061 257 APPEAL OF PRISONER 63M L”? . M...« Sentenced toW CW/WI 0n ig Mrgg JW e‘ ”*7 27 é W W Wei“ AWJQW¢® It 1s explamed to the prisoner that 1?h ¢2§~or w1shes to be represented by legal Under sectmn practmoner the Appellate (ourt WIII not proceed w1th the base for seven days unless the legal practitloner appea1s If the legal pract1t1oner does not appear w1th1n seven 'days he may not heard at all If the pnsoner states that he does not wxsh to be repre- sented by legal pgactxttoner the court may ploceed at once wnh the case and w111 not be bhged to glye a hearlng to any legal practmoner who should appear ; a ~ : t' w o. l Q. *3 nV Lo l! 1. Date o‘f Application for copy of Judgement Date on which copy received .1 _ Whether the prisoner Wishes to be represented or not - Yes / N -e. 2 3 Mi'Date on which.Appeal.sentr.-.....,..... .. 4 N 63:1 9;, Name §§Wwl7o @7’ Continedm w— Jall ePfW—CWO@/l g6/%Z7g Dated 5/n1 /199g Forwarded to the TE togather Whrch a copy of Judgement or cider passed mithg; gyfor favour 0% tragg mrssron to the proper Appellate Court .y e/ NO gé 9? mg , V Supermten L . l r ent ”N, Date of receit in Appellate Court ...... i p ( o ' , r Supermtendent, 4Qgma ll thaw mm..;... ”as. Date of receipt in... off-ice «an .a~.‘a¢"" twwvm$ “"G‘h V .d ;.. .. ' ' ‘l’ ‘Memo ofAppEe'al to the Appellate dourt 1.. ' mp ‘l ‘ .Q\ .lkMWd \ : ‘ _No , mDated ’ r i i t: MW ‘ may.» l r t 199 . .....Ww..l.n..§.u Forwarded tot the ggm.W- 4 XLHC-22 z.) EM§§¢N BENGH, HON’SLE MR L c BHADco & W‘N'BLE MR. DH!RENDRA‘NH$HRA,‘ J 23.2.2005 Shri R,K; Shérma, Advocate for' khe appeEiant. 'S’nri Ashish Shulda, Addition‘ai F‘ubi Prosac‘utar for the State. V ‘Oréi judgmeni dictated an Dais. Per LC‘ Bhadug, J By this appea: under Semionr 374 (2) ofvthe' CrPc‘. appeuant Shebha ' Sihgh has questiened the. tegaiity & cdrrectness of‘judgment ef conviction & order of sentence &a:ed 13‘“ December,-1997- passed by'ieamw 5‘“ Additienai Sessiom Judge, Raip’ui in. $.T’. No.3£f‘/97 whereby learned Additionai sessicns Judge after Holding the accasedlappeflant herein guilty for committing murder of Ghasiram canvicted him under 3e ien 5Q2 er“ the LEG. and sentenced ta andergo rigrzaraus émprison'nem for 31" and o p93} frne of Rs.500/‘-‘ in defauit cf haymem of fine Lo fur‘her undergo‘Ru ‘or thuee montns [he proser‘utron case rn nner rs mat PW 1 Santosn Ram Yadu brother of deceased bhasrram gave merg rntrmatron (Ex P-3) to the Ponce $tatron DevbHoa to the effect that todav he w nt to hrs m—Iaws place at about 9 00 b m his tausin Pharan came and rrtformad him that Ghasrrem hae been murdered by “hobha Qrngh @ Masna Hear'nx thts he returned *0 Wage and enquired en wmch Jabar 5mg" (PW .1) Informed hm" that t‘e and Ghaswam both were srttmg in rront of tarun s shop, at th t time $hobna Singh came anusmg tree “emenQ {*hasrram aeKen' hlm nett say co 0n whrch Qhobha Srngh stabbed e’a tne 'zbe of Ghasrra'n with some p mted weapon ae a reselt cf which he fet. down anti dxeu On recewmg thre In rmation tram Jebar orngh he went to the place OT QCEurfeHGe arm saw That k MA s Brother Gnaerrem 1e lylng dead m the New ; ic XI—HC-22 sireet in front m" the Tarun’s shop Ruceiving ihis merg intimation Shri D5. Baghei Station House Offcer Poli Station Devbhog registeved the FIR EXP-1 left far the acene of occurren and after glvmg notice (Ex P. 6) to the Panchas prepared the Panchnama (Ex PJ) 0f the bedy of deceased Gha$iram otheg of decea§ed were taken into p ssession under ._x. -6 Site pian (Ex P- 8; 0f the place of occurrence was pre ared by the Statian House Of‘icer On production of bamboo stick by Ja ar Singh the same wa5 taken mtg p9ssession under hx P-S Eicod sta ned sori and plain sari was taken Into aassession under .EA P-Q from the pi ce of occurrence Clothes of deueased Le. one bamyan, one fungi pieoe of iu gr another prece of fungi were taken Info oossession under Ex.P-1O and it was mentioned that same were stained With biood During poiic: cusiody accuse Shobi‘a Smgh has stated to have been given memorandum (Ex P42) and m pursuance of that weapon of offence re iron knrre was taken into possession nder mop—13. Deed body of deceaseo Ghesiram was sent for postmortem examination under EXP-16 to Primary Health Centre, Devbhog, where r. Utiem Singh (PW-17) conducted postmertem en the body of deceased Ghasiram and prepared the postmortem “epon Ex P47 {Dpinion of the doc. was sought by (tre investigating oncer under :x P- IS as to whether the unrur found on the body of Ghasrram could be caused by the weapon in quesuon a d the doctor opined that mjury found on the body of deceased Ghasrram co ld be caused by the knife in queshon Recovered articies were sent for ch mica! examination to Forensic Science . where report Ex P-22 was received After comptetion of mvestrgatro charge sheet was fled against accdsed in the Cuur‘ uf earned Judrcrai Vlagistrate 1“ “lass, 7 Garryebandh who m turn committe the case to teamed Sessrone Judge Shobha Sirgn Laboratory, Rerpur under Ex P-91 fro {thew i , , i - XI—HC-22 W 311W awrq‘ “fa € Kalpur Irom where ieamed 5‘“ Audstsonai $essmns J4dge Raipur received the . case an transfer for tnai V The prosecution m order to esmbHsh charge against accused $hobha M“ Singh examined 17 witnesses. On the other hand, teamed Additionai Sessions Judge recorded the statement of aocu ed $ho‘bha Singh under Section 313 of thé Cr P C imwhich he denied the pro ecuti‘on evidence appearing against him and stated that he rs mnocent and ha been faisely rmphcated by Jabar Smgh rPW-‘l 1) Aecused Shobha $Ingh aiso xammed DW~1 Sukhlal in his defence Learned Addrtronai Sessrons udge after hearing the arguments of Additionai Pubiir: Prosecutor and‘ c unset for the accused, convicted & sentenced the accused in the manner a mentioned in Para t of this judgment. We have heard Shri Sharma, dvocate for accusediappetlant and Mr. ‘Shuk‘ta, i Additionat Public Prosecutor fo the Siete/ respondent. ' ' As far ‘as invoivement of accuse Shobha $ingh in committing the crime in queetion is concerned, the prosecuti n case is that accused attacked with the knife, which was stuck with a bambo stick and the prosecution adduced the evidence of ‘PW—s Tarun, in front f whose shop crime in question was . committed. PW-tt Jabar Singh, who s eitting with deceased Ghasiram at the. s § Sinoh Rest of the evadence on whrchithe prosecution has tried to connect the time of incident and PW~44 Rajman o was aiso said to ‘oe present with Jabar ¥ Homicida'iideath of deceased Gh sirem is not in dispute. euwt. accused is recovery of blood stained lothes of dam recovery of knife in ‘ pursuance of memorandum (Ex E42) $ven by accused Shobha $rngh As far as the evidence of PW-6 Tarun, in front of whose shop the crime" v (we ‘ in question was committed, is cohce ned, he stated that on the fatefui day iGhasiram came to his shop to purchaje Bidi .aed He purchased Bidi from him. New x ‘ XLHC~22 iqmai%é \ a‘fmm&w m‘mawma ‘nereafier, Jabr ngh & Raéja. in ihe mntim, habha Sin'h aiso me. On th trt h Singh & asir rreied and Ghsira ise sceam "come-ce” n hic abar Singh Raan ru towards at side an they sale him. asc_ an e spot, Jaba Sin separated habha Sih s: hasam. Jaba’sm how hm a iro pie‘c'e ache w§ s d ha in h s sa Yve‘ d an ay G i i y e g id si f Gh con i tik isfa mb 'V previ§d h a er w dd n»a-3 i ti h h S oha ng r h in an am “i e sc Jaa i g u Raiman ush iew thsie hr ick his h c a t saw t sira iym 0 ground and h n was not se on he po i we scrue the whole e t n cr tha fact not nessed the g in a 1 e has riy tated ha after g he rea k the so com oLt an w h Gham was ig or he gtoun and 5oa gh r pres th Accordg to the iyir t d nbh Sin a: 0. ent ere in ence of nes on heag srea of Ghaa Jaba g at man ruhe wards he here cme q was co ‘ W—‘ Jbar h ha een iard hos o has tate t so the shop aru at that e accued hobha gh ws mg the stet abg er on h haa wh as g on the cot asked Shobha bingn to wh m you wrii kiii and come on the way getter short interval he heard scream of Ghasiram ‘ i am dead’ $hobha Sinoh §i Ghasiram were quarreiing, Shobha ingh assauited Ghasiram With the stiok [netraa ‘T a $i manbmai eaé S g aa e seg, Shoba ' G,ham qué am 'ad r om o wh J & jm shed ih d id He i ent th r gh 3 ng Gir rg sn i n n attd, th tick and informe that ’Sbha S ha asuited Ghasiram with tha: §;§on an r wa. hasiram was ng there, there was injur en th riht s of che o asiram, he was ous and aingto hmiiy meers. atei; was e to Gasiram and drinking ater he ie. lPra cf s examinaon e as stated that b Sih was abusing Ghasiram,‘ obhe Singh anacked Ghasiram t of his shop and when Ghasir sed th ream “save-save” br S r red ards at'd ereafte he eed sep, ame and hat Gham was g n he Shooa Sign p ent t st g f tiniz vrden e of his Witess it Is iea t in W‘nm V % 1 ‘ he has Wit rime P r 3 h ciea s tt hearin t scm he inced hp e d sa tat asir eVid this Wits rin cm sum r Sinh i ss to t side w e ri in uestion mmitted i § D‘ii a Sing s b d oe tile wh sd tha he was mkina Bidi on of Tn E tim s S Sin a Coin in re Lsin W ps s wh-c Gsirm o w Sittin ‘R XLHC-QZ m 1W W WW W55 €K$€i ‘31 §$I gR 1W $i ‘3? 1 A Wu Wm‘ § ’tg‘:efi Ifmga _.gl f $m WW . w /_ on. his ier‘: side'of chesi and‘bn aci‘munt of tide injury> biaoq was oozing out. injury wgs smai! or big he did not knq‘wu. H9 snatched the stick frcm Shobha \ Singh hm in the meantime peopie of vhcinity coilected. Shobha Singh ran away and Ghasxram died Thi= police snlzeJi that stick frem him under Ex.P-8 and :hereafter th: Witneas haa been deci ed hosme. Even this witness has mt sapponed the prosecution case that a used attacked Ghasiram with the knife, ;\1‘i}“n‘ich was recovered by the pciice nder EXP-13 on the memorandum 0f accused and even during his evidence iearned Additionai Public Prosecuter did ' notgtake troubie to confront this with s with the knife in question. He has isimpiy stated that accused assauited eceased with the stick and the injury, which was found on the body of dece ed, admittediy could not be infiicted by stick in question. Another witness Raiman has be nexamined as PW-M and he has aise ibeen‘deciared hastiieu This witness hlas stated that the poiice made enquiry ‘frcm Shobha Sin§h and he said that e attacked Ghasiram with the bamboo’ ’stick and as such he has’not sup orted the prosecution case regarding imemorandum gwenaby the accused a d also the reccvery This Witness on icrcss examination by Additionai Pubii ”rosecutor has stated In Para-4 that af‘er hearing the scream of GhaSira he and Jabar Smgh reached on the i scene and saw mat Ghasiram was iykng Jabar Singn snatched tne oamboo ‘ stick from the hand of Shobha Smgh and started saying that he has snatched this stick from Shobha Singh There as injury on the left aide of the chest of l‘hasrram biood was oozmg out o it and Ghastram died on the spot ‘t Therefore this Witness has neither pro ed the recovery of weapon of offence at the .rstance of accused nor he has stated that re Witnessed the accused assaulting deceased With the knife in q estion : I [View XI-HC-22 mammwa Wwm§&@m a5 W ~</ Therefore, en the evidence 3f PW-B Tarun, PW-11 Jabar Singh & PW-M jman the prosecution has not been. abie to establish that the accused asuited the deceasedwith the llmife in question, which was recovere’o at his intance. Recovery of weapon of o ence at the instance of accused has been proved by the evidence of PW-S Ratanram and PW-15 D.S. Baghei. Station Hguse Qfficeg but as per F.S.L. epert (EXP-22) no bioed was found on the clcthes of accused and weapo of offence. Therefere, there is no ocular evédence to the effect that the ac used atECked the deceased with the kni?e in ' question, as such,‘ based on cannected with the crime in questi n‘ as n0 biaod was fauna en the knife; There ospther, evidence on record connecting the accu'sed wiih the crime in uesiion, :herefore. finding of he trial coun, convicting the accused ‘fer 1 commission of offence under Se ion 302 of the IPC for committing murder of deceased Ghasiram is not based on any iea!’ ciinching evidence and as such same came: be sustained. in the resuit.rth,e appeat is atowed. The conviction and sentence, osen‘ on accused!appeiiant S‘ cbha Singh under Section 302 of the LRC.’ are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the IPC. Ra - ea in ether warns, there is n0 evidence t0 pruve anei showct‘néf ’the inury was inflicted by the accuee with the help o‘.‘ knife in question. The oniy evidence available on recorti is the Shobha Singh and Ghasiram quarreled. V ‘. recovery cniy the accused cannot be e Roshan ‘ée \ s j ; ‘ is n q u r g l imp Appellant Shobha, Singh be set a liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with anv other case Centred copy as per rules . ii Sdl- Sd/- DHJRENDRA MISHRA} L.c BHADoo Judge Judge [‘iié we