m 1L3 s P OF . PRIsoNERgéw’wéw @mh m AUG 20% _g />’ 7(7/Nf@m.“rim (mm o ‘ APPEAL Rog. .. I7§J2—mq—- Name u RWzuk “"W-‘W .._...~.,- m Eg‘HCwn. waspm Fa ther' s name Residence 3i a & V . . we ..,.w.z4,s:sm._L ..‘..V.-".-._ ~ {Ts m 3’17‘7 llgq 37? Sentenced mm‘%9'*$730%3’é1‘73u1§m§z L2:.$.:..‘? (NC/“4+ . ._.‘.-.. Under section b W°§§§J§ Wem§w§£ m¢4v Wm $9 “WW vg l O 1...- --g"-/mr.L it ls exnlalned to the prisoner that if he statou or wishes be renresented bv legal practitioner the Appeliate Court will not proceed with the baee for. seven days unless thelegal practitioner appears. x If the legal practitioner does not anpear withe-in seven days he may not heard at all. If the piisoner states that he does not wish to be representeo’hy“ ' gal practiotioner the court may proceed at oxce with the ase and will not be obliged to give a hearing to anv legal practitioner who should appear. Date of Application for copy of Judgement D. g v a1;— Date of which copy received ’ Alix: .J:- -‘g'.Q ”i- which appeal sent ‘ r? is new 4. Whether the prisoner wisned to be representerl or not~Ares/Nm “173/mA—n- .. -l. Name 3. Date on m Wm‘ Continved ih ew‘ “we“. Jail wee? i No. 4to§u .* Dated )9 $8 4 19 o gather whicn a copy of order oaseed in the cage %§ favour transmission to the proper Aooelliate Court. Korward to thyé$% HeguT$¥¥owe:- mméi+‘e'$y‘€a¢€97? «eehwvrew s m7 va/ ’ J’E‘ZC r713. Sdperintendent Date of receipt in C.JaM‘s Office a“ Date of receipt? recordv‘to accompany H Memo of Appeal of the Appeliate Court No. ' Dated 199 Forwarded to the C.J. Date of receipt in Appeliate Court i’il" $air‘l’ent uz J2 ,lkapm. i. 1 Ma gistra te Engage. e t v f q ' 1M XLHC—78 EW,W,W WTm ‘Qm/A‘Jm/‘Jhm 200 WW(W) XI—HC—78 3am, m,W Wm .. .. W 200 mam Wm<m> WW§WW WWW mm$aw $WW {DRAM JUDGMENT {Dated 14—3-2907} LC. BhadonJ The accusedlapp'ellaht has preferred thiS appea! against the judgment of conviction and prder of sentence dated 12.8.2004 passed by 5‘” ‘ Additionai Sess§ons Judge (FTC) Ambikapur (Sarguja) in Sessions trial i\ o. 379/2003 whereby he has been heid guiity under section 302 of the indian Pena! Code for committing the murder of his brother Pahar Sai and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further ur dergo Rt for one year. 2.” ‘ r Sase of the prosecutioniin brief is that on 19.3.2003 PW-3 Mania Bai lodged the FIR Ex. P-2 in Police Station Shankargarh to the effect that on 18.3.2003 at about 4-5 pm. her husband Pahar Sai went to the house of his elder brother Jagtu for consuming Hadia liquor on the occasion Hoti festival. When they wete consuming liquor, quarrel erupted between them regarding partition of the land and the accused threw her husband on the ground and started beating with hands, fists and stone as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The incident was witnessed by this witness herself and her daughter namely Nitmala Kujur (PW-2). After registe'ing the case, the investigating Officer ieft for the scene of occurrence, conducted inquest on the dead body of Pahar Sai and prepared the inquest report Ex. P-t. He also prepared the site plan Ex. PV-4 of the place of occurrence. Blood l P.T.0. XI~HC-78 HW,WW,W WW m 200 WW(W) WWW WWW WWW stained soil and plain soi! we of occurrence under Ex. P- taken into possession under sent for chemical examina' Raipur from where repolt E body of Pahar Sai was senti Health Centre, Shankargarl' lhe post mortem examinatio the post mortem report the death was haemorrhage du bait and the death or’ homicidal in nature. WW§WW §¥WW g\ s taken into possession from the place 5, one stone stained with blood was Ex. P-6. All the recovered articles were ion to Forensic Science Laboratory: r. P-9 was received. Thereafter. dead or post mortem examination to Primary where Dr. J. Kujur PW—‘t conducted 1 and submitted the reoort Ex. P-l ln doctor has opined that the cause of a to head injury and injury to the eye t 3. After comptetion of th in the Court of Judicial Mac turn committed the case to t1 from where the Additional Se same on transfer tor trial. order to est: 4. In - accusedlappellant the prose witnesses. Statement of th section 313 of the Code of denied the material appearir and oleaded his innocence a \wt 5f Learned Additional‘Se for the respective parties cor mentioned above. e investigation charge sheet was filed iistrate First Cla3$"Ambikaour who in 1e Court of Sessions judge Ambikapur assions Judge, Ambikapur received the abiish the charge against the cution has examined as many as 10 a accused was also recorded under Criminal Procedure in which he has g against him in the prosecution case dd false implication in the case. ssions Judge after hearing the counsei ivicted and sentenced the accused as P.T,O. ‘XI—HC—78 . o.ooo‘o‘.o..‘ WW,W,W o‘o...‘. m 200 WW(W) WWW wmm mmwm WW§WW §1azf§mm k g" r. a. We have heard cm xaemsed the materiai availa iudament of the triai Court. x 7. testimony of the eyewitnesses namely Mania Bai (PW—3) wife of the deceased and Nirmala Kujm (PW-2) daughter of the deceased. F‘W-2 Nirmaia Kuiur has stated in her evidence that when she retuxned to her home at about 6 p.m. after grazing goats, she saw i that Jagtu was beating her f ‘ather with hands and kicks and except this she did not see anythirg. However, in the cross examination she has admitted that it is correct to say that the fateful day being the day of Hoii festival an consumed iiquor on that day; deceased has stated in her evidence that on the day of Hoii testivai . at about 4 pm. Jagtu, Sunesh and Barso Bai had attacked her husband with wooden tog (G nsel aypear‘mg fey the pames and :ie on record insluding the impugned i the viliagers inctdding her father had PW-3 Mania Bai, wife of the enda) and stone in connection of some iand disnute and he was thrdwn on the ground. Thereafter, she ran away from the place of in witness has also stated that on the date of incident as husband had also consume witness has stated that she and she witnessed part of the incident. She did not see the accused stone as she left to her house along mala (PW-2) has stated that she saw father with hands and kicks whereas P.T.O. :tdent. ln the cross examination this ali the villagers had consumed liquor it was Holi festival on that dayi Her :l liquor many times on that day. This had also consumed iiquor on that day ‘ attacking her husband with with her chiid. Thus Kn. Nii the accused attacking her The conviction 'of t‘he accused/appellant rests on the \ k XI—HC—78 WW(W) @g) HW,WH§,W WW. ‘ o.. mam WWW mmwm PW-3 Mania Bail has stated that aécused Jagtu, Suresh and Barso Bai attacked her husband with stone and wooden log (Genda). In the cross examination she has stated that she had not witnessed the accused attacking her hL sband wttn stone. ln View of above. tl'e accused cannot be held guilty for commission of offence for the reason that in the first instance this so called eyewitness has stated in the examination in chief that the deceased was attacked by Jagtu, Suresh and Barso Bat but in the cross examination she has stated that she had not witnessed the accused attacking her husband with stone. Similarly, Ku. Nirmala PW-2 has stated in her evidence that the accused assaulted het father with hands and kicks. lt has also come in the cross examination of Mania Bai F‘W—3 that she as wetl as her husband had consumed liquor on the date of tncident. WW§WW amagm 8‘ Thus there is no legal and clinching evidence to estabtish that accused Jagtu was the author of the crime in question and both the witnesses have not stated that they saw the accused attacking the deceased with stone. There is improvement in the evidence of'Mania Bai PW-3, therefore, based on this evidence accused cannot be convicted fOt the commission of offence u ider section 302 of the IPC. ln the result, we are of the considered opinion that the findings of the trial Court convicting the accusedlappellant under §ection 302 of the tPC ard sentencing him under that section cannot be sustained as the same is not based on the legal evidence. Accordingly, the appeal is aiiowed. lmpugned judgment P.T.O. e, N a1 200 XI—HC—78 mwm WWW matq%am acquitted of ail the charges l appellant is in custody sin forthwith if not required in an y other case. w Sdl :1L.c.BHADoo Judge K} LA_ H ‘1 \" H‘D WW<W) Sdl- RA ERA Judge mmtwm $Wm aveiied against him. it is stated that the :e March 2003. He be set at liberty