s^o../^91 Father-s name . ^r^STTV ^ WTf^- q-Nt-, qTTT- q)^f ^ |||| Residence_ ~f^T- 'f^Tm'?' ^070 s! ^Age >__L14_°^/i! Seatenced to 3TT^'g:T 3>P?Tm-?T T " "00 ' 1/9/1994 Under Sectisw . 302 WOcofto CF00000576S9 y : by_ ^TETT^q g-W ,3ritf7^(T as -^mn-tii-n- . . -: ' ^~ ;'---'- :—- - - ^- .— Yi^Tifq?Tr?|g-?- jITo^O i /' • .;.- ! .'.- 1'. .'•.'""r'"'.. . .., . . ??'E^^.?0 .I+57A2 / It is explained to the prisoner that if he states he wislTes tb be represented by a Icgi practitioaer the appsllate Court will not prj.;;id with the cao {•}• •is/si. diys ui'eii th; legal practitioner appears carlrer.-?f the legal practitioner does not appear witfain seven days he may not heard at all. iftbe prisener states that he does not wish to bs repre- sented by iegal practitioner-ttie^court may- pfoeead ai onee^vith'itbeiCS^e ,ac.d will not -be obliged to give a heari.ng to any legal practitioner who shouid appear. ^ I iiDateof-Appl.icati&nforcopyofJudgement 2' Date tia ^vUich copy recewed 1 I, i .: 3 ^-Dateoowhich Ap-peal^ent XX 11/9/1994 /9/1994 4 i^ .Whether ithe ptisoaet^wishes to be represented or aot. No.- 05 -3/ Name'' 'R^g'ars aiTo ^rfH'TTR. Wrpft" Conficed iD_^_^3S_^3_ ^514, /f^ffS/ 94- rrw.?- iTroa'oi Jail 'Oated^" '^/fAW+ .^_r [99 f~ .tpT 5'P Forwarded to the 3Tfrif7c[B i(p<l-4q) flgtg'g J^^.W^^^^^S i.kWf^W^^^'Q^asa^T ^ W^Q to' 1.;.:'L.:\...\ • • ••':••- _ ,..'•' . - ' : ...'•.'•;• ••••'':. !•' a. copy' 6f judgemenf oi-"drder .ISI%<J;-linsffi- 'cass, {oi^^fyfow 'pf ^ -- ^ . /- ^ ..., '\, ^ ! i-.".. i • te court. lx-^-:. •-r—( '!"1 u-> l:-t .;,|<;. j'j-;'; • mr^~:- % J^t-^Q A5 7/92 ift- . !wrfWr?Tfh,F./\'^< • i-.i: • .. i ~.'1' -r.. i ; Date cf rcceipt in_• Date of teceipt of record to accorapany the M?itio cf Appeal to the Appellate court. No. Y .T.O,^ RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Date: 2025.02.06 12:40:46 +0530 siT^siwfen; craTan^srasqra; \3'DCjrq|<4|rt^ y-rf|<(-|<|4^ fidH+y^ ...C.^-.A...NQ,..lSi^.0 3rT^?T(rac?(ipfg^) ?iR5T8R'i:rfl?T3ni»T *wfd<S1.i iiidV^fe^^SReR ^aiRltTsn^CT biyisjon Bench:- Hon'bie Shri L.C Bhadooland Hcn'bie Shri Dhirendro Mfshra. JJ. 18-1-2006 Shri J.A. Lohani, coij 5hri U.N.S. &eo, A\ respondent. Oral jud9ment dict< |nsel fbr the appeltant. tfditiona! Public Prosecutor for the State/ •ed on C>ais, PER L.C. BHA&OO. J:| By this :appeai un^er Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. the accused/appellcint has qi^esTioned the legality of Ihe judgment of conyiction and order of ^entence dated 1-9-1994 pcssed by the 1 Aciditionoil Sessions Jud^e, Bitaspur in S.T. No.457/92 whereby learned Additionai Ses^ions Judge sfter hoiding The acsused/ appeliont guilty for comn^ission of offence under Section 302 of -t+ie l.P.C., sentenced him to uficiergo imprisonment for life. The case of The plrosecution, in brief, is thct PW-3 Manohar La! iodged the report ^x.-P/6 in the Police Stction Kota to the effect thaT today at abcj ut 6 p.m. he was watching T.V. in the house of Amritlal where his ^augh'ter came and informed that there 'is urgent work at the re^idence, Inerefore, he should come to the SP/FS/2005-20,000 \j1»q"i<|<j|c5q^@Tl §2. 3IT^?Tqgq? an^OTgirfeire <TOiTan^<TiRtrtw Wrefe^TWRHt'^'fec^i residence. l-1e accompcnie^ that his brother-in-iaw aca his doughtsr to his residence ond saw sed Shiv Prasad was standing in front of his house hnving Tnbba! st(iined wi-th blood in his hand. H!S upper under" 9arments and Towel i^ere stained with blood. The dau9hter of accused Tcrcn Bai, son De also with him. The aecused he has murdered his wife A| /i Prcsad isnd two other doughters were informed him that todoiy at about 4 p.m. longra Bai witii the Tabbai. After tocking the house, he has come 4'on9 w11^1 5tii!dfs" to leave them at his residence. In order to asclertain the correctness of the statement made by Shiv Prasad, he eijiquireei from the daughter of Shiv Prasad namely Taran Bai. On en^uirj'', she stuted that it i.s correet that father has murdered the ttiotlier with Tabbai. On this, he took him to the house of Kotwar accused at his rssidenc^ ^anesh &as ieaving the children of the The accused disclosed the fact of committing murder of Mor^gra Bai to the Kotwar also.' On reeeiving the report (Ex,-P/6), the p.H.O. rsgistered ths case for commission of offence under Section of occurrence, after givin^ Panchanamc (Ex.-P/lO) of| pr'epared site plan (Ex.-P/| pian Ex.-P/lS. The wecyor^ SP/FS/2005-20.000 302 of the I.P.C-, proceeded to nie scene non<x (Ex.-P/9) to the Panchcs, prspared the dead body of the deceased. He also 11) of the piaee of occurrerice. The merg intiination (Ex.-P/!2) was i^ecorded. Patwcri PW-10 prepared fhe site of offence i.e. Tabbci, one Towei stained 3ii^?rwR-ii<fr asii-an^sTgntw vdWj .^iitjirt^, yifl'i^ld, 3TT^?T tRfcp (l^ffgEHg) witii blood and one upper taken into possession undei soil were taksn into posse dcod body o'f dscea^td examinction *o the Primaify yerma (PW-1) conducted p Mongra Bai and prepare< examined the weqsen of o1 P/2. After compietion of| in ttie Court of Judicial Al committed tiie case to tU Isarnsd ^dditional 5ession: trial. Tne prosecution in Qccuaid/qipeilant sxamin^d accused was recorcied undfe denied the pro^cution evj has been falsely impli<ate^ one defence witness nam41 Sessions Judge after he^r SP/FS/2005-20,000 WqfB^TWRft'^'f^t ^SR?R ^gi^Han^?! ^inder garments stajned with btood were Ex.-P/S. The blood stained soii and ploin ^sion from ths ptace of occurrenc®.The (Wongra Bai was sent for postmortem Heaith Centre, Kota where &r. S.K. >3tmortem on the dead body of deceased postmortem report Ex.-P/l. hte aiso Fence i.e. Tabbci and ga'/e the report Ex." the investigation, eharge sheet was filed ^agistro'te, 1 Class, Bilaspur who in tum le Sessions Judge, Siiaspur from where Judoe recsived the case cn transfer for irder to establish frte charge against 1+ie d 10 witnes®s. TTie statement of -rfie tr Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he iencs aid statsd thct he js innoesnt and in the crime. TTie accused also produced ly Taron Bai (DW-1). Learned Additiondil ••ing arguments of the Public Prosecutor XI-HC-78 ^oEr^TRITcCT, U>T^<i1<IS, fiCTI'dy •^ and counsel for the sccusei mentioned in para-1 of this We hnvs heard Sh\ accuse.d/appeliant oind Shr^ for The SlaTe/respondent. The homicidal death <t' As far as involyemerlt murder of his wife Mongrc extra .iudicial confession md who i3 bro'rtier-in-iaw, PW| Bajarheen Bai, who is siste| front of the house of the of -i+is house wifh weapo^i informesi by Taran Bai, dad has committed murder of h< offence stained with b!ood. As far as question o\ The above witnesses is on the extra judicial conf< judiciai eonfession must Maiohar who is none else stated that on •the foiteful t|i|i|[d41-f u|*fdTi|ffe1ES^Rfl'tCl'< ^aif^rsn^n , convicted and sentenced the accused as •i J.A. Lohani, tearned counsel for the U.N.S. Deo, Additionai Public Prosecutor- |f the deceased is not in dispute. (t of the accused/appellant in committing Bai is concerned, same is bssed OR the kde by the accused before PW-3 AAanohar 1-5 Ram Khifawan, PW-6 Bhuvaniai, PW-7 ond PW-Q Keshar Bai whose house w in (iccused, who sow the accused coming out of offence i.e. Tabbai and she wcs tqhter of the accused, that •ttie accused ^r mo'ther, and the reeovery of weapon of >f vswkmg extra judiciai confession before contsrned, in order to res? eonvictjon based jssion, the settled law is that the extrs je voluntary. true and prompt. PW-3 the brother-in-law of the accused has |ay. in the evening, the accused alon9 with titan i-HC-78 'yssf :?zn<iirt<(, t?-fl1'a<!d, Rjrti'dy Wllttl tefil his chiidren co.me to his fnat he has eommiti'ed mu| took the accused to Kotwah •rtie poiice s+ation aiong wi^ stated ThGT the accused TTiereafter, -they went to ix.-P/6, from where he a| occurrence where they sa4f in -riie house. PW-5 Ram stated that on the fatefli Manohar alono with otiier Bhuvan we.re. also ihsre. carrying Tabbai in his before thens that he has iti of PW-6 Bhuvaniai and P')A( accused. PW-7 a!so sta-i ehiiciren and infor-med herl crsss-examjnation of thesel to elicit any fact to discdf these witnesses untrustwol Bai are the ciose relative for them to imDiicate •tke hlouse <bW?c'i^)'1 *<l*ld!'^r"!sld •<Kiltcit iRsri^ian^a at Nav<»9aon and the accussd stated I'der of his wife Mongra Bai, upon whieh he Scnesh Das from whers •Hiev took him to i|Hi weapon of offence i^. Tabbal. i-ie aiso |was earrying Tabbai stcined with biood. ^he police station and he !odged the report |ohg with the police went to the piace of 4; that the body of the deceased was lying (ihitawan resident of viita9e Nava9aon hos day he was sitting near the house of jiersons on the Chabutara. Shatruohan aid fh'w Prasad came aiong with his 4 chiidren cnd made sxTra Judicia! confession itiurdered his wife. Similcr is the eyidencs [-7 Bajarheen Bai who is the sister of the ^ed that the accused came along wii+i 4 that he has murdered his wife. In •ttte wiTnesses, the defence hos not been sbte ihd the evidenee or make 1+ie evidenee of >t'Thy or unreiiable. Manohar and Bajariieen 'f the accused and there was no occasion bccused in a false case. Evsn shelter was I-HC-78 S) »3'cq"t<i<<ic'i^,u>Ti1<<i<is,fi«wy< 3ff^?T q^? ('3crf36RE) given by these relatives to the aecused was taken to| Kotwar Sanesh &as wherb possession by •Hie poiice. T|ii judiciai confession made by| true, voiuntary and prompt extra judicial confession judicic! confession lends sijj: Bai whose house exists in sfter- committ'ing murder o'j Bai same outside -rtie hoysi) has murdered her mother". house csrrysng Tabbci for Navagaon. The Section 6 of the Evidence not in 'ssue, are so connec-tfe the same transaction, are scme tirr.e and place o" ct di) The fact of extra fcom The recovery of examined by Dr. 5.K. VernKJ iabbal in question was shi staiited evidehce (biolrifl'f Hl^dt'ifls'd •<iul't^]'( ^srf^TSII^?! •t+is ehildren of ths esccused. Immediateiy 1'the police station by PW-3 Manohar and b'ood stained Tabbat was taken snto herefore, we are convinced that the extra •ttie accused before these witnesses was TTiere is no reason to disbeiieve •Hie said |nade by 1+ie accused. Even the extra jpporr from the eysdenee of PW-8 Keshar •ront of the house of the accused. Just his wife, daughter of the accused Taran ond informed -riiis Indy that her father j4t i+iat time, the accused came out of the with blood, bcked the houss and !eft of this witness iS admissibte under |Act which says that facts which, though ^d wi'rti a fact in issue as to form pcrt of relevant, wheitier they occurred at the ifferen? Tin".es csid piaces." judjcial confeasion further iends support under Ex.-P/S and that Tabba! was (PW-!) who has stated -that on 21-10-92 <twn to him and he saw thct Tabbat was Tatlbat XI-HC-78 ^Ef^qrai?^, y-al'«<i<s,ft'riNiy'1 stcined with btood. Injur^ could 'nave been caused by Therefore, in view tiiat -ins dccused was tiia r\r,d any iiiegaiit?' or infii convicting the accui wife Mongrd 8ai. In the rssu't, iti^ devoid of any merit, is dismissed. No.4 founci on +he body of the deceased [Tabbal in question. His report is Ex.-P/Z. |of •the abova evidence, we are convincad iluthor of the crime in question. We. do not [•mily in the judgment of -tfie triai CourT for comfflisaion of murder of his sed/ajtpeilant Barts Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge wi<il»<ili•<i*)nV;^"fei<sl '(Rji»dr'' ^sif^qaii^CT cypeai of the accused/appeiiant being liabie to be dismisseei and it is hereby Sd/- j DHIRENDRA MIStSRA; Judge y^, 7«v&i.'y ^ f