/^ 'CIF"0'(;00060166 No. ^ '^ Q-5.5Jrv\^ 5>c> [&^^ APR6AL PRISONER s>T'Na' 3SI/97 Name^^^jS^^ ^a&er's Name '~eCsfT l^s7^ _ ^ Res»dent^^ra?9^s!]3^^I[G5E' Age _30_3S:_ Sentei?ced to aTP^ ^%«T=^1^- on^Jf^/^a. ^e "X&^) UnderSection ^O^&TTo^^ by ^P^/^/^^^^^N' ^ v It is explained to tbe prisoner that if he states or wishes to be represented by a legal practitioner the Appellate Court willnot proceed with the base for sevendaysunlessthelegalpraclitioner appears If the legal practitioner doesnot s8||pear within seven days he may be beardat allif iegal practitioner the court ffliay proceed at once with the case and will not be obUgedtogivesbearingto legal practitioner who should appear, 1. iTXate of application for copy ofJudgement:- 2. Dateof which copy received :- ^f7f-93 3. Date on which appeal sent :- 4. Whether the prisoner wished to be represented ornot :- _ Yes / No. No. 1-^9^ Continued in ^ .Name"~^' (N^/r -^ ^ ^f WL Jail ^^(^v No. 3^y.8^^7^-9& Dated ^ /^/{?^ Forwarded iQ the CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEJ^?7^(1W (9^? <3^e;) ~\1—^. |ther with a copy of Judgement or order -< - ;'' '—- . r tr^tosmission lo the proper Applleate Court. Su perinte Da te of rcceipt in C. J. M. Office. 7» Date ofreceipt ofrecord to accompany. Memo of Appeal of the Appellate Court. ^<S_dated i'0-^-^^ TOtt^Sub-Jail. . •^-. No. FR^T ~^W ?SWl ^/)xf~>i &J^ Porwaided to the,_->7 lr":'71.^l':'J>l '" " ~' Tk^~ ' T?7i ^v^^Z' mr } ^4 ?^ife^ ^N^S^, ^^^ &R.MAGISTRATB__ ftate ^ receipt in Apptieate ^ourt, XI-HC-22 ,<? 3TT^T^T. ^Jcb 5h^l<=b ^l^a w/ w '3'^T';:3TPT1cT4, ^nl^^Ko, f^<ni^y 3^9T ^T^ ^ _<A*:*.:::.laf^4.<1?' ^•••""••"•••"""•••"•"""""^ '200 HW^l $b^lich '^TC^T' 31T^r'^TT^R ^rftcT DIVISIOW BENGH: - HON'BI-EMR.I-.G.BHADOOJ^i HQN'BLBMR.V.K.SHraWST^ft.yj. 02/12/2005 Smt Kiran Jam, counset fc Shri Ashish Shri^sta^, ct)l^t<rt<flrl "RPT^f ^ f^^il <F3i^l< ^ ^Tf^HT 3TT^r Irthe^ppeBant. Addjtional Pubtte Pres^yteKWittt Mr. Al^iit Mishra, Panet Lawyer for the Stat^/respondent. Wtth consent of counsel f€|rthe parties, the appeat »sheard finally. Oraljudgment; | By this appeal through f»e SupeFmtendeflt, Centrat Jatl, Jagdaipyc, accused/appellant Rava F^diya |has questioned the JegaUty of judgment of conviction and sentence dated Judge, Jagdalpur. in Sessions 16/07/1998 passedby the leamed Sessions Frial No.381/97, whereby leamed Sessions Judge after holding1haaGGUsed/a|>p©tJantguiltyforthecomm^ his father, convicted under Seo<ion 302 of the I.P.C and serrtenced Nm to undergo imprisonmentfor Ufe. The case of the pros^Gution, irr brief, fe that on 30/08/1^7 accused/appellant assaulted wiljh a wooden club to his father Rava Hadma on account ofthe dfepute regardingjgmng lesis shareofthe^^fa^ partition. However, the report was not toflged at the PoHce Statton. The same WQS todgedon 05/09/1997 afterlhe ideath ofRava Madma on 04/09/1997. The 'Station House Officer, Police Station: Dornapat after regjstertng the ca^, sent the dead body of Rava Hadma ffar postmortem to the Primary Health Centre, Dornapai whereOoctor S.K. Sh^ndilya (PW/5) conducted postmortem on the body of Rava Hadma' and gav^ his report Ex.l'/B. After eompletion of investjgation, charge-sheet was fiped against the aecused/appejiant in the Cburt Sukma, who in turn TOmmitted the case to the ofJudJciaiMagistrateFirstClassJ Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur< ['Tt^'^fe^ XI-HC-22 ^IT^T^T l^iN^ni^T ?hHicb <i[^a j»N»^8fc^- ~=F ^^ ^NKrt^, ^Ti1^^<o/ f®i<ni^< 3ffi^T XRW ^I^C^I 'gpfjg^""""—'—••—••——••—^py 200 ^^^...-.....^.....^.......,... CM^f<n<flti ^Tpq^f'? f^Tzt 'tfS?R5R ^ ^rf^FT 37T^T The proseeution ih order |to prova the offenoe against the accused/ appellant examined eight witnesse^* The leamed Sessions Judge recorded the statement of accused/appellant ur{der Section 313 of the Cr.P.C:, in which the aooused/appeJlant denied the prlosecution evidanoe and stated that h©is mnoGentahd^hasbeenfalsejyimplJcatedintheorirne. After hearing the arigumen^ c^tearned GounselfQr thepart^ Sessions Judge convjcted and sei^teticed the accused/appellant in the manner merrtioned in the eariier part ofthi^judgment. We have heard Smt. Kir^n Jatn, tearned counsel for the accused/ appetlant and Shri. Ashssh Shuk|a, jeamed Additional PubNc Prosecutor w%h Mr. Akhi! Mishra, jearned Panel L^wyeronbehaffofthe State/ respondent. We iiave also perused the evidencea»|idthe judgment of the trial Couct. The fact of the homjdda! learned counsel for the accused/sjppellant. Apart from that, PW-4 Rava Bandi, wife of the deceased. has stateld that the accused/appellant assaulted her husband with a wooden club a; Hadma died. PW-5- Doctor S.K death was injuries on the chest a nature of death has not beeti disputed by id on account of which her husband Rava Shandilya has also stated that the cause of id death was homicidal in nature,. Thefefbre^ m view of the evidence, it is eMablished that death crf R^ Hadma v^s' honnicjda} in nature. Now, coming to the jnvotvtsment of the acoysed/appellant in oommittjng the murder of his father,PW-4 R^iva Bandi mcrfher ofthe aocused/appellartf and wife of deceased has categ<j»ricaify stated that in her presence the accused/appellant attacked Raw mouth and stomach, Docfor S.K. stated that the deceased gave ^ Hadma with a wooden etub on his chest. Shan^ilya (PW-5) has stated that on account of the injunes sustained t^ Ravji Hadm8,.he dfed. PW-7 Barse Suktei has oral tiyjng declaralion before Nm that the [Tft^ ^Rsi^ ~F XI-HC-22 ^s? ^i^r<rt^ ^Ti1^1i<o, fa<ni^y 3T^T TT3W ^n^r^r f<'iisb ^n^r 5n*ii<=b <yf^a '^ J: '-^ ^l^dl ^^jch "-———————^p^ 2QO 'I^^T""""""""""""":- accused/appellant Rava Podi^ after four days of the incident. of the accused/appeilant for established. Learried counsej for tN definite medical evidencethat Gr)nI<n<flTl ^i*i<^I* "^ fe^ Tf^T^R ^ ^rf^R 3TT^T attacked hlm with a wooden ctub and he died In view of the above evkience, the jnw)h^ment commission of murder of Ns father stands any treatment and looking to between the father and accusi Sand in partjtion and inthat pro<^ Therefore, offence under Secti(j ^ accused/appellant argued that there is no |vhioh tt^yry^ was fatai that wa^ suffteient in the ordinary course of nature to c|ause the death of the deeeased. She further argued that Rava Hadma diect 8|fter foyrdays of the injunes as he had not taken |the weapon of offence, there was a dispute ^d/appeltant regarding givmg tess share crf the tess, theaGcused/api^jtantassaultedhtsfather. in 302 of the I.P.C. was not made out against the accused/appellant. if we examine the evjde^ice of PW/4 Rava Bandi, wife ofdeceasect. she has stated that the aGGused/adpeIlant assaulted deceased with a wooden Glub on chest, stomach_ and mt)uth because the deceased said that the accused/appellant was not djaing any work that is why accused/appellarrt assauited her husband. It is a4mitted positiorffhat dleoeased Rava Hadma died on 04/09/1997 after four daysjof the inoident. No treatment was gwen to the deceased. PW/5 Doctor S.K. phandilya, who conduoted tho postmortem.has stated that the injuries were 4n the ohest and the v^iote body was pytrefied, therefore, he was not abte totjlecide about theweaponof offencebywhiGhthe injuries weFecaused. Therefcjre, there ss nodefsnitemedicalev^ that the accused/appeISanta^aulted the deceased vrith such a weapon and caused such injuries which w^re suffiGient in the ordjnary course (rf nature to cause the death; [T?t^ ^fo^l ^ XI-HC-22 3T^r^T R<li4) 37li?T st)^icb <Mf^a < '^,... Raj \rf^/ '^sr ^i<4id4, ^Til^^Ko; f^<ni^< @' 3nit?r xnra? HW<ri{ 5b^icb "M 200 'fN^sr: 3^T^r '^TT^R ^rfin .^, From the record, it can be| deceased that on the fatefuli accused/appellant scolded the ac4 th©aooysed/appeliant piokedupth|9 and assaulted his father, as a r^ult incident. Therefore, from the abov|e indicate that the accused/appetla^t cause his death. From the evidem passion, when the deceased scol€|ed wooden club and assaulted his fallher, ftiur days of the incident. Theref^: under Section 304 Part II ofthe 1PQ in the resutt, the appeal is passed against accused/appellant | Instead thereof, the accused/appe|!ant under Section 304 Part II ofthe i.f years. The period of detention al] during investigation and trial aocused/appellant shall be entjtle<|l yeara of sentenoe. < In view of the above, M.^p< standdtsposedof. Sd/- L.C, Bhadoo Judge | . chl^f<rt<flt 'RT^f1? I^^i <P»l^l< '^'^rf^m^TT^T |inferred as per the evidence of yyafe crf the day, the deceased - father of the l^used/appetlant fbr not doing any work and wooden clubfromthi&pJaGeofocGurrence of which he died after four days of the evidence, there is oo positive evjdeiiee to assautted the deoeased with intention to ^e it appears fhat all of a sudden, Jn a heat cS the accused/appejlant, he picked up the flher, and he reeeived injuries and cB^l afier )re, we are of the opinton that the offence is made outagainst the accused/appeWant. ^artiyaJlowed. TheGonvicti'onandsenfenGe lunder Sectton 302 of the iPC are setasicle. is convicted for commissJQn of crffence .C, and sentenced to undergo R-l. for eight ^eady undergone by tt accysed/appellant and pendency df thi8 appeal, the fbrset-offctfthe^ameagamstaboveeight tr^P. No.1540S004 and I.A. No.3^72003 ^ Sd7- V.K. Shrivatava Judge [Tft^ $Ra4