{ .id8 '•i'&^-'^ :fii&, ;^;S> •^. •^^@ v%^<-, , "fi;^ ¥)i-n:t'" &»:n'->'' {t?<?T"'i»! /- ^?PjaL..^GF_PKISQNER.-/ Kiiae •/' •No.__^^(_„_ ^- .. Fctther's Sa.me _ ~^^7f^ , . ^ Rssj.dtince'^g^-;^___^ ~*^"\tj- \^(c-<^ ^ge _2^_.,.,.senE snced to .,35SSseE..-^ai3®i'a;—.-.._".^-., o" ^/' _ -^ --3^.,4-.2—.SA'^.'—un der S ycti on -3-o5...^.,£^.__l=Y"%_35CS. S.T.NG. 2^C/C?3 ,/• It is explalned to the prj.soner that if he states or Wishes to fce represenced fcy 'a legal prdctltioner the ^ipellate Ccurt wl.il not proCced ..with the bdse for seven days unl ess the 1 egal practitioner appears. If the Isigal practifcicner does nct appear with the seven days he ma.y fce heard at: a.11 if ths •' pri.soner scates that the does nct wish tc bs rsprsSgnted fcy legdl pructlcner the Cburt m=iy proceed at c'nce wj.th the case and will nct fca ofcliged tc ^ivs d heaEing to dny legal proct-• j.tioner -who shculd appear. • . 1. Dat e cf dpplicatj.on fcr copy cf Judgaasnt ; ^Jo, 2. Ddteof which copy received :- js,C' S-'9'ti . 3. Date on which /^pelisent s- f& • ^•?£( 4. Whethsr the prisoner wisheS to ise represented oc not ;,. Co^i Ifc'. ._%2 jKame &. £L S'l" ves^^r- 'v^^'s O^inued in J2 /9Z^/2-9 ^•Jalr'^wy^lEJp-u^ -L^ l-i.X ./f^ Ddted _ 1C E'crwarded to the CHIS'' JUDICIAL MA3 IST a.ff i3cqs2^eia_U-L-t-, Bu3t3>f;a^/. tcgether wlth d copY of judgamant or oraer pa'sSed in'the ease fcr fovcur of trdnsmlssicin to the prcpe^ ^pllate Q;urt. Superl Dat e cf rsceipt ln C.J.M's Offtce. Date of receipt of reccrd of accompany. Meiiio SS. Apped.1 cf the Appelliate Ccurt. _2fiZizf_Dat ed 1/EElstt../ f3 & f ff . /l.q^^v" Porviarded tc the 1-t'f-ts- -?e^<>f"dK& u-aAt^'-Jc^c^a^^: ;.J. M&gistEate N Dat e pf, receipt of ^.ipel.Lia.te Ccurt. b-:-- Xi-HC-78 an^si^ ai«nn::ifas ^d^nqTH??, g^twre, tteray e-Y-^w-^- i^\[s'\ '^^.r ^•s.&.'^t'^ ^'^,1 •J unn.l'RI a¥li^. fc. ;fcff S~a*s^,. ^ J5 a^^ 15. -^-?Srf?^?L i K-K. Sinqh, Advocd Shri U.N.S. Oeo, 'Adc) Bakshi, ©overnmentAdvoccrM Ora! Judgment dictate(f y* ?s s i" L..&. Bl By ThiS appea! yr AAcdvi i5angu has questioned orfler of sentence dtttsd 30 Sessions Judqe. Bastar at whereby learned Additionc accused/appetlant guiity' foi convicted hiiT under Secti sentenced hirfi to underao na< The prosecution case 10.2.1993 accused/appellant 'the fii'st instance deceased H he paid Rs.lOO,/- to tl"e accu 3.00 D.TI. accused/aDDetlant ^sri^Tsn^s TT ^•J re for •H-ie appeiiant. tiona! Pubiic Prosecutor with Shri Alok fos the State. on 'D'. Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C, o.ppeilant -he tegaiity of JudgiTient of conviction and .8.1994 Dassed by learned 3 Additioncl Jagdalptji-' in Sessions Trial No.290/93 Sessions Judge after holdinq the mission of rnurde" of So r? ^oct i KOJU |n 302 of 1-he Indian Penal Code and rous imprisonn'ient for life. in brief, is that in the'iTtOrninq of jen-ianded Rs.100/- from deceased Raju, in iju denie.d to give fne money but later o" i^ed/appelhnt. On the so.me. day at abcut a|jain demanded money from deceased RQJU <IIS.. ..I.. .ai . :i w XI-HC-22 ^s; ^i-ijidti', a^iti'is, T«!di*iy t't.'- •S"'.,. 2-.! 'l •' i ».;!a! 'a aiii^i^r Rt-<i.+ an^^i *.4J'»'af%?( •fa^g' l^;^k'1^1r1 41^<^ll' ^ TS%t ^RrT-^i? ^7 3i1?gir ant^r he again gave.the money. Oji cccount of this money, some quarrej E took place between the decease|J a the accused/sppellant, therefore, accused/cppellcnt o.tto.cked'the.iieceased with the axe, as a. "esult of whlch deceased Raju received in^ senf *o N.M.D.C. Hospi-tai, Kiran. was taRsn to 'VVaitair (Visakhapa'i tiu! aoain sefit To Kira^»iul 1 l^/^ ? uries cn his head. beceased Raiu wa: u! fo" treatrnent and therscfte", hs 'nam), but he could not recover there. Hospitai where he died on 1.6.1993. During investigation, o" 10.2.199p a report was lodged by PVV-1 Sundri i +ha i~TD estigcting Otticer registered ths f-lR the axe under fcx.P-3, He also took and plain soi! under Ex.P-6. Site pldn Po.twcr'i. The Investioatinci Officer Bai, Fnother ot deceased. Ihe ln'i| (Ex.P-1) and took'into possessior( into possession blood stained sol (Ex.P-6) was prepared by the prspd-'ed the Panchanama (EX.P-IO) of the dead body of deceased Raju after qivinci notice to th.e Panithas, sent the body for ^Dostinorteiri sxamination to Primary Heaith t (PVV-4) conducted the postrf.os prepared the postmortem .repon that TT-ie cause of deat'h of ded par-ts leading to death, After comoletion of "nvesl .ouft of Judiciul nAagistrote [entre, Ki"andul, where b". A.K. Singh ^tem on the body of deceased and Ex.P-1'1. PW-4 &r. -A.V.. Singh opined ^ased Raju wns paralysis on rnany vitai figation, cho.rge she-st was filed in the -irst Class, Dantewada, :who in tum committed tne ca.se. to learned fe.ssiori.s Judge, Jagdalpur from where [Tfr@ 1 A—.'T • r-—-.^ y-ocj -qi<4|<>)<(, U-rfl^^trf, sn^CTwfem; aairan^r^trtt !iS::J|iS'l:i»aj-4 B'li;Nte"!ts 3II^?Tqa?P(<jc|fje|^) gTOT8K'Hfl?ran^?T learned 3 Additional Sfession transfer fo" triai. The prosecutio" 'sn or accused/appeliant examined accused/appeliant was recor'ds under Section 313 of the Cr. evidence and stated that he is in the crime. Learned Additioi AdditEonaI Public Prosecutor convicted and sentenced the Para-1 of this Judgment. 5h| accused/appeilant and Shri i, 5overnment Advocats The homicicla! dsath of The Invoivement of tH VVe havt cnme 'n questioi Bai- mother of reoort at the Q'ying declaraTi which he has s" the axe thr.rce stands estd cfeceased, who| policte statien. fFv P-Q^ h; i-f' tated that ac4i sn his head onl. SP/FS/2005-20,000 . ' Wqfe^WqHT^fe^ ^fSRSR ^si^ran^OT Judqe, Jaqdalpur received the case on (ier to prove the charge against the 6'ght witnesses. Statemen t 'of d by leamed Additional Sessions Judge p.C. in which he denied the prosecution inrt.jcent and has been falseiy impiicated wl Sessions Judge afte" hearing learned & learned counsel for 1ne accused laccused in the manner as menti'bned in •i Singh', learned counse! for the )eo, <4ddl. Pybiic Prosecutor with Shri or the State/respondent. leceased Raju is not in dispute. accused/appeliant in comrnitting the ilished by the eyidence of PM-'-l Sundri witnessed the crims and aiso lodged the Apart from that aeceased Raju made Fore the doctor (PVV-4) on 10.2.1993 in ised/appellcnt herein attacked him with account of dispute regarding payment of 3-HC-22 'S'SS^'-WWi, WSTK'W.-WW.W, "Wi 2m :3:alE^F ^>r<L!S<?i4lrf 'RRcTf,^' "fe^- <[^^E^ monsy To The accus- t bl-, 2J1/ the deceased. Dying declar'ation lce of PVV-1 Sundri Bai, therefore, invoivement of the accused/a^peliant in the crime in questjon is ted by the evi es Learned counset for the cccU evidence and facts of the accused/appellant does not traval Indian Penal Code. On itie other hand, learned State supported the judgment of t' sed/qipeliant argued that froir. the ^ase . the offerica against the seyond Section 304 Part-II:of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the !B trial court. ;1 for •{lie parties; we hav'e perused cinasinq iiquor, which was iniTiai lavina heard leamed counsst the evidence and impugned judgmer|t. I* is cn admitted positi^n that on the fateful day the accused/appeliant demanded nior^ey from the decaased Raju fo" y denied by the deceased, but iater on sa.me was paid by him. Ther^after, the accused/appeilant again Ased and on account of that some tksed and the accused and ail of c axe and assauited'1+ie dsceased on iremeditation in a sudden fight, in a lafter fc-ur months of the incidsnt on rrom Tne ae diSDute arose between the dece< sudden the accused picksd up th^ his head without any pre-plan or- heat of Dassicn and deceased died accoyn1;/of panilysls and not gettin^ proper treatmeR'fc. Therefore, from [^lfe^ 's^: '<<|ii!iy]4, »iilti<!6. iex-ii-yy an^fqii' •f?:if?i'3Tg?I ^^!cft '^iT^T 3n^?r ?«iiwHft;T ^ '..•;•• 0 ^ ^^ ^K the above facts it can Be said that 1^ie eiement of intentibnat cousing deati-i is missing butat.the time of the accused/nppelbnt was having d irijur-y on ttie head he may iikely to'c^ against the accused/appeihnt under •made out. : T*in Tne rsSulT, The appeal ''s pq chi'fi<-l<il-< WRTf 1; -fs^T WSR3R ^aiPgtraiR^ tttackinc! on the head of deceased i^finite knowtedge that by causing to appeilcnt flAadv' 6o.ri.gu under Sec"t|on 302 of the Jf.P.C. is hereby sel aside, insTead ThereoT appel commission of offence punishable Iridlsn Psna! Code and sentehced to •'eo.r-s. ADDellant AAadvi ©anguiij more than l.Syears, therefpre.he required in'anyother case. 1# Certified copy' as per rules. ;use death, therefore. the offence Seetion 304 Part-II of the IPC is •1-ly succeeds. Conviction awardsd 'i ©angu is conyictsd toi :r 5-sction 302 Part-II of the-,e undergo rigorous ifflpriSQnrnent for in custody since 11.2.1993 i.e. for se se+ at iibertY forthwil+i, if not Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge [«^fe4