CF0000057862 "yQf- 8/(Jain C.J.P.R.—5,000-9-81 -\9^ ^*-; s-^:-:.'^•f'S1.^ 1%-! ,p No.—u-s—— -——— Name —-j6ns3S— Father-s name —SIK-XISL^31^ST^S Residence-3*-I.S-C-i'J-i-«M«lLSei<LAee—33--M'* ...-.„<;,.. Ata'JOT.MiSBSr^Age 35 gsf- ,.^1:^,i yft.F;T?t A?— Sent&cetf'io^ff^ ffVW^^JJ6f-^^a^-^S^-— - ff"afeJ&T^M@cs5?T»"mypi? ^•pt R5R ^ .'pt.S.TT^ SG£ -Tn-n',^\r"l <?'TU^ 5TcM, TTf^gr ."r-^^fff'VT^lhgtS' 'TW' IWi'"Y^T?; 't' t"fSn?T?'' Tf ^p"TKl'^.t;' •"fy•••••• itis exprame?toXiB?frisWer%:'tfTtFe sit'ateW%is?^S'SrB(pre®j§b'?:3^®j ^ . j^xiyio^ist t^Q^pfl^& ^or^^'en d^vs i nie-s; pnsoner ,ifgteiregi;eseate4'.b»T6gal pcacEttiflBpr tSetgoujr'gm^^gSe^S oii&Ti'.fth the c;~se anu wi.il naf' be ohUged to-;give.;aJ^eai^Eig, (:o-4ny,JSgaI;"pra^t'i^iaiiEe.r v^h.o shpuid appea r. ;• ^^- l-^'/o T-v i- i"^ l'- F^ i F ^i^ i ^ ; i^i ^ ^t ^{-~s ,,';''i-syF. .'••n TF'fp f s-'-.^. ....,...^. ,.•,.. •P i l*"1 t^ *ri */ e;o^ Applici^fgiifip e^pyof}Jpdg^aeyt —TC-e-r——CTg^S———— y ..^ ^ .. ^ .J^a;tle ,Qf which;copry;,.reG,eiyed','- i-flX-i-i- 3 Dalie on whichiAppe-aI ?etri-tl-—'-4—~~-^^^iL|@jJ^4i.* ^ -- 4 , Whether th^-prisoner wishes to be represented or iiot -: Yes/No. ?•'';.. ..-;'^ y-^' ^y'.;'^ ;.'•-•;'. ~i"^.-'? u'-' /' K^,; i..?' i -'.;•'.;.- er ;J.".IA. i .J ' ffr^i^ i'y^ ^ i ^ .-•.''^i;1/L /". .. .. /• /•- •.. Y' ^IJL^^2^^____^^,e-=TOBOW^yw^n ; >*^ i i •- •Jail _^ted—2'5^^l*-^-_,98— Forwarded to tlie CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ——J *lifitf V'T^ ^—to gather with a cc'py of judgement or order passed in tfce case for ia\'ouj- G!' transm.issipff'to the proper AppiIIjate Court. ^•ri^ . ^ Superintendenfc^ei^jKiyE)i6,Bff/''SiB^-'J.i]i Date ofreceipt in C. .1. M.'S Ofnce- Date of receip^<?frecord to accompany- Memo Q^Appeal^f the A^peJtate ^ourt. oA^Appeai o.t tne Appeitate fe,ourt. -^————^—,—— .—-_———__ Z^r^^I^i^ldI^:^:^ .^J^^^^m^^_^zA^-^'^-.^^=^ Date of receipt in Appliate Cpurl- '^ %•»• C.J.Ma.eistrate • '(•P.T.O.) 'f , , XI-HC-22 sn^T^ii R-ti'* 3I^?I ^^ . •Hfid @ '3^ •<<l<lt<'l«, aql'y'is, (°«'ll'My w^?r ^SK ClrLX H11CTI (hHlttl ^Q.lblC "^200 ' (cl^tlff' aii^i ^wiwafta DIVISION BENCH: - HON'BLE MR. L.C. BHADOO Aft HON'BLEMR. V.K. SHRIVAST^ 07/12/2005 S.K. Chandel with in Shri appettant. Shri G.K, Beriwal, Addl. Panel Lav^erfor the responden^ Oral judgment. By this appeal through S| accused/appellant - HeeFadhar conviction and sentence dated T. /Sessions Judge, Jashpumagar, it iearned .Additional Sessions Judg for the commission of murder o1 the I.P.C. and sentenced him to L<I The case of the prosecuti^ Bhawar Ram was lying in the they were talking ail of a sudde( assaulted and attacked Bhawar a result of which Bhawar Ram' <)j people of the vicinity came and' rope. Bha^at Ram Yadav Ipdge^ Station"H6use Officer, Police ease reached the scene of.occur^ ^if^fl^ *ii^<?iT^ f^^l <f«i^)< ^7 StPan 3D^f, ID . YA.JJ. Ku. Nlrupama B^jpai, counsel for the Public Prosecutor with SMri Akhil Mishra, itate. S|uperintendent, Central ,Jail, Jashpurnagar, ^as questionecl the legality of judgment of ^/09/1W4 passed by the learned Additional S.essjons Trial No. 147/1994 whereby the id^e after holdingthe accused/appellant guilty his father, corivicted under Section 302 of (.(ndergo imprisonment for life. |in, in brief, is that on 16/Q5/1994 deceased co|urtyard of the accused/appellant and when aceused/appellant picked up a Lathi and Ram with Lathi EfeatereBajfwt 3-4 times as ied on the spot. On hearing the cries the tied the accused/appellant with the help of |d the first information report (Ex.P/1). The Sltation: Pharsabahar after registering the I'enee "and prepared F^nchnama of the dead n [''ft^ ^fe^ K-l 1.1 XI-HC-22 •31T^?r?iI Rli* Sd^I 'gTqWHSCT -3^ ^Wvpi, •^aNns, S^wi'yy <n*iwTa>«n<*> sii^i^gim^fe? —')- body of'BhawarRam (Ex.P/2). H soil and plain soil from the pl; postmortem ofthe dead body . thedead bodywas' conducted b^ that Bhawar Ramdied on accouri the death of Bhawar Ram was offence of Lathi was recovered investigation, the charge-sheet wa\ First Class, Jashpurnagar, who in Judge, Raigarh from wherethe leal the case on transfer. The prosecution in 6rder| accused/appellant examined Sessfons Judge recorded the Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in v| prosecution evidence and stated implicatedjn the.crime. Afterhearing the arguments] Sessions Judge.convicted and ^ manner mentioned in the earlier We have heard Shri S.| jiccused/appellant and Shri G.K. Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Panel took into possession the blood stained acje. pf occurrence under (Ex.P/3). The w|as (Ex.P/6). Thepostmortem (Ex.P/6) of PW/5 Dr. G.S. Paikaera, whoopined ofthe head injury and hemorrhage and h^micidal in nature. The weapon of the tinder Ex.P/4. After completion of the a^ fited in fte Court of Judicial Magistrate turn committed the case fo the Sessions I'ned Additional Sessipns Judge, received also peru^ed theevidence and the .^. / . :• . '• '• . • . Accused/appellant has Mayadhar Yadav In the defsncg t:til<lW<flTi ^W^l''^ 1^^ <f^^T^ ^r3ri;giT3[p?% to prove the offence against the witnesses. The learned Additional of the accused/appellant ynder fhich the aiysused/appellant denied the he is innocent and has been falsely sev^n stdtement Wiat |of tearned counsel forthe parties, learned ^entenced the accused/appellant in the pa|1: of this judgment. Chandel, leamed counsel for the Seriwal, Additional Public Prosecutor with LaMl^er for the respondent/State. We have judgment of the trial Court. DW/1- Vimla Bai and DW/2. exlamined [4i^4. ,z, •g^ •CTTqRp?, •STftWTS. fawi^y WIRW^qrai sn^r^iT Ki-ii.'* snl^i •*l)l<* 'sw. afl^r'yraiwgftw 3 4>M^^l4 •w-ifif'^ rs'^.l <Rn^i< . ^i SlPgif 3Ti^I f4>r Rbm sudden evid^nce Thefactofthe homicidal n^ture disputed by the iearned counsel from the evidence of RA//2 - estabiished that the accused/app^llant on the parietal region as a resultt They have statedthat Bhawar was sitting on the cot.all of a the head of Bhawar Ram. Thi^ defence witaesses. Therefore, inh?olv< crime in question, a^sauttirig Bhajwar effect is'based on th6 legal eviderjce'. corroborated by the medical G.S. Paikara who has stated postmortem- on the bpdy of Bhaw^r were closed, stomach was in swe| the parietal region from mandible was in the size of 3 %" x 2". fractured. Learned counsei for the incident the accused was not in a! on record, which shows that tbe with an intention to kill his father. On the oth'er hand, .learrfed respondentfStatesupported the jupgm< of death of Bhawar Ram has not been .the accused/appellant. Apart from that, K^nchan Ram and PW/4 — Rashida, it is assaulted the deceased with the lathi |of which Bhawar Ram died on the spot. was lying on the ground and accused he plcked up the lathi and assaulted on fact has not been denied even by the injvolvement of the accused/appellant in the Ram with the tathi and finding to this lerjce'. More-over, the aboveevidence stands which has been proved by PW/5- Dr. |that;on 17/05/1994 he conducted the Ram and saw that the mouth and eyes (ling condition, blood clots were present on lextending upto mastoid area and the same Tljie mandible bone and parietal bone were acjcused/appellant argued that at the time of Rt state of mind, moreoverthere is nothing ^ccused/appellant assaulted the deceased Additional Public Proseeutor for the jupgment ofthe trial eourt. In order to appreciate.the ajrguments advanced by learned.counsel for the accused/appellant, if w5 exAmine the pfuseuutiufi evitj%yg~By)d the r :XI-HC-22 -S^ ^IAII^, ^Ti)yi|<», facll+iy snisiT^i Sis.-v'h ang^r' 's^t^"?ifl^[ Raju wqpnr aiwcii sn^r ^giw ^ifttf -^ evidence of eye-witnesses PW/2[ there is nothing in their evidenc^ having any grudge against his f^ther or that there'wasany quarrel. • The simpte facts are that the deceas^d Bhawar Ram was lying on the ground » whereas the accused/appetlant wjas sitting on th^ cot and when they were talking in presence of Kanchan] accused/appellant picked up a L^ of which he received injury'on thji Ram and Rashida, alf of a sudden the Ithi and assaulted Bhawar Ram asa result ^parietal region and died. But, from the Vne (spur of moment. Therefore, passed under Section 302 of the| Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Ju(lge ^r<<Tfl<i1n yi<TCif ^ fe1^' ^ ^srfigifsn^i Kanchah Ram and PW/4 - Rashida, to s.how that the accused/appellant was above facts, it can be inferred ttjat when the accused/appellant assaulted Bhawar Ram with the help of Latljii on the parietal region, he had knowledge that by such act he was lik^ly to cause death. The act of the accused/appellant was without pr^-planned and pre-meditation and was on |the offence against the accused/appellant iP.C was madeout. urider Sectipn 304 Part -II of the IjF In the result, theappeal is jjiartly allowed. The conviction and sentence I.P.C. arp set aside and instead thereof, accysed/appellant is convicted ur^der Section 304 Part II ofth®I.P.G and is sentenced to undergo rigorokjs imprisonment for nine years. The accused/appellant is in custody sjnce 25/10/1994 thereby he has completed mpre than 11 years, as such he flias already been served outthesentence. Therefore, he be set at liberty fort^with, if not required, in any other ea^e. fc. Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge '[T^'^f^