^^-—.^^\^t&r XII-189(Jail)CJ.P.R-/9-94 CF0000060297 APPEAL OF PRISONER No ^(s^^^r^<^^(^- Name _^< r<^ -^^^^^^^ <J)0,P^~) Father's name ^MJ&^<^ ^^-^ ^^ - ^^4>^^ ^^ A^ Residence -fc_..- ts^^. ,,j~ni^.< (uF^i^r!\ A^e <& ^ .^. ^A^ Sentenced to ^,,«r^ ^^^ ^ ^ _^ ^J^~ ^\\ (^.^' ^-SR^C^]^" Under Section on »t^^\»q^ ^ £.lni^oc-^^^ ^'^W®'^^^'^WTL^^^, ^- -^ ^ <"1 IM Tt is explaine(ft^%^^%^iLf^^^Ri^tates he wishes to be represenfed by a leg^. C^t^*) practitioner the appellate Court will not proceed with the case for sevendays unless the legal practitiqner appears earlier, If the legal practitioner does not appear within.seven days he may not heard at all if the Prisoner states that he does not wish to be repre- ^seftted by legal practitioner the court m^yprcceed at once with the case and will not be obliged to give a hearmg to my legal practhioner who should appear. 2 3 Date ofApplication for copy ofJudgement Date on which copy received . --.....•. -• .,;-,. Date on which Appeal sent '^ 1-^9^' . Whether the pdsoner wishes to b^ represented or not. ^" -3^- No Confined in No. Jte^^^^T^r^^ a^£^_ ii—py^ ^ y^CL^^p)—— Dated ^_^ ^^g^ 199 Forwarded to the s^^M^^< ^^[^ ^Aq' -^^ f ^^'^^ |^o gether with a copy ofjudgemeator order passed in the case forfavour a ssion to the proper Appellate court. Date of receipt in _ Office Date of receipt of record to accompany the Memo of Appeal to the AppeUate court No Dated Forwarded to the 199 Date of receipt in Appellate court '^.^" ^^ (P:T;'0. ^. XI-HC-78 ^TT^T ^)T f^TN)' cfS[T3TR^T$b^|cb ^^r^^ X): ^1*1^11 ffi^lich 3^r ^ii^icn^, ^TH^^Ko, ^cni^y . r.r.^^0. ^777^ ^.................../.^ 200 3Tr^T^RRF (yii^^) ^cTTW ^rf?<T 3TI^T DB:HCtl HON'BILE SHRI PmRENDPA MISHRA, JJ Appellat Respon4ent : Shri Abhay Tiwari, Ad ShriU.K.S.Cliandel, Pland Pei-L.C.Bhadoo.J This appeal is directe{ sentence dated 29-1-1998 pas| Trial No. 141/1997 whereby lejamed for commission of offence unfter imprisonment for life and to fiiie, to fuither undergo R.I. foi 2. Case of the prosecutio] lodged report Ex. P-1 in Polic chl^?d41-1 ^l^dT^'*tec^<F3l<-^l< ^"3Tf^T3TI^T N'BLE SHRI L.C. BHADOO AND riminai Appeai No. 477/1998 Sudarshan Singh Versus State ofMadhya Pi'adesh (now Chhattisgarh ^ocate for the appellant. Lawyer for the State. ORAL JUDGMENT (19-12-2006) against the judgment of conviction and order of ^ed by leamed Sessions Judge, BUaspur in Sessions Sessions Judge after holding the accused guilty Section 302 of LP.C., sentenced him to undergo p^y a fine ofRs. 5,000/- and m default ofpayment of Itwoyears. is fhat Rainliu Singh P.W. 3 father of the accused Station Pali to fhe effect that after taking dumei' all P.T.O. XI-HC-78 w^T^rf^ri^ cT^TW^T^IT^ ^ 94 HTR^II Sft^lW ToET^Tpn^ZT^ ^Tfl^^G, (cKrtl^y c^^.^c.. w7/lfn^ 200 3T(^5T q^R7 (^cii^q^T) ^Rn'W^T^ST <=hi^Id41^ ^n^ff ^ te^ <^<<i< ^3Tf^TW^T family members went for sleep. ^t about 12.00 in midnight liis youngest son Bhuwan Singh P.W. 1 came and ii| after closing doors ofliis room from open the door, on which Sudai-shan formed that his elder brother Sudarshan Singh |inside is beatmg his wife Dhankunwai' on which he asked his sons to go to Sudarshai|i Singh's room. They asked Sudarshan Singli to ^emanded a Bidi. Wlien he opened the doors to •b take Bidi, he was caught and the ax| they saw that the wife of the accuse<j ofblood. Receiving this report, Stati| an ofibnce under Section 302 of I.P.< noticeto Panchas vide Ex. P-2, pr ? was snatehed from him. In the Ught of lamp, namely Dhankunwar was lying dead in a pool m House Officer, Police Station PaU registered p., left for the scene of occuiTence, aftei' giving l&pared inquest under Ex. P-3. Dead body of Dhankunwar was sent for post mort^m examination to Community Health Centre, Pali under Ex. P-7-A where Dr. Prajkash Bhalerao conducted post moitem on the body of Dhankunwar and prepared t)ost mortem report Ex. P-7-B. He noticed as manv as 13 incised wounds on head, |face and neck region and opined that cause of death was coma as a resuft of head iitjury. Site plan Ex. P-8-A was prepared by the Investigating Officer. After completioli ofinvestigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court ofJudicial Magistrate First Cla^s, Katghora who m tum conimitted fhe case to the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur whei'e p|rosecution examined 10 witnesses m order to establish the charge against the acci(sed. Statement of fhe accused was recorded P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^TT^T^rf^ri^ c^TT3TI^Tsb^i<=h -^^ f ^} *ll+icrll Sh+lich 3'^T ^l^lcn^, ^Tfl^41(o, fc<cll<H^< __ C-r.A-No. ^77/5^ '^ 200 311^1 ^i^ch (^i^^r) ^RTTW: 9f?cT CT^T under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in ^hich he stated that as he saw one Prem Singh fe, theitefore he attacked Pi'em Singh wifh an axe and he never wanted to commit murder of indulged in intercowse with liis wife which liit Dhankunwar by mistak|e Dhankunwar. Leamed Sessions Judt convicted and sentenced the accused 3. We have heard Slui Abhay appellant and SM U.K.S. Chandej respondent. 4. Shii Tiwari has not disput^d that, from the evidence P.W. 1 Bhu^fan went to the room where fhe accusdd 5; So far as involvement ofthd 1 Bhuwan Singh, youngest brother brother and name of his wife wa^ cbi^?<-i41-i ^i^^iT^:teT^'<r3i^i< ^3Tf^T3TI^T ;e after heai-mg coiuusel for the respective paities as aforementioned. 'iwari, leamed counsel on behatfofme accused- leamed Panel Lawyer on behalf of the State- homicidal death of Dhankunwar. Apait from Singli and P.W. 2 Ram Bai who immediately was attackmg the deceased with axe and also from medical evidence ofP.W. 8 E|r. Prakash Bhalerao who conducted post mortem cn the body of Dhankunwar, it |is established that death of Dhankunwar was homicidal in nature. accused in crime m question is concemed, P.W. f accused has stated that fhe accused is his elder Dhanaiva Bai. Thev are 4 brofliers and he is youngest amongst them. They havejtheir parents. All the 4 brothers and mofher and P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^TT^T^lf^t^ cT2rT3TTGSTsb^lch .^: +11*K-11 arHlcb ^ET^qTzn^pT^ ^Tfl^^^, fa<ni<M^< c-^fi^D. '^•7/53 ^.....................^ 200 c^ •^ 311^11451* (^t^^) ?^<TTW ^f?cT W^r father reside in their houses separate chi^Td41-i ^i^<nT^:teT^<^i^i< ^^rf^TW^T y but all the houses are adjoining. On fhe day of Chherchhera festival they were slee^mg in their houses, at about 12.00 ia midnight his brother Kalyan woke them up a4d disclosed that Sudarshan Singli is beating his wife, on which he along with his Sudarshan Singh. Door of the hol Inother Rambai went to the house of accused [ise was closed from inside. They requested Sudarshan to open the door on whicl|i he opened the door, they saw in the light of a lamp that Dhanaiya Bai was lying d^ad m tfae room of Sudarshan in a pool ofblood and there were injuries on her head. rpie accused was holding axe in his hand and he was trying to mn away, therefore, hej thereaftei' he was tied with fhe help Kotwar and reported tfae matter in caught hold ofhim and took liim to liis fathei', f rope,^^ta the mommg, liis father informed lolice Station Pali. Similar is the evidence of mothei' of the accused P.W. 2 Ramlbai and father of the accused P.W. 3 Ramhu Singh. Pemsal oftheir evidence estat| in his room with his wife and at ab] namely Kalyan who was not keepitt Ushes that in the fatefal night, the accused was mt 12.00 in the night, hi'other of the accused g good health on account of mental problem heard noise ofbeating and infoimed l^is mothei' and father. When Bhuwan Smgb and Rambai went to the room of Sudarsl|ian which was bolted from inside, they asked him to open the door and cn fheir re^uest, when Sudarshan Singh opened the door, they saw in the liglit of lamp fiiat Dli|anaiya Bai was lying dead m a pool of blood. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3TT^T^T^i<t) cTSrT3TT^T$b^|cb ^^?:\ ' w *ii+iwi a»*ncb 3^T ^i^ticn^, ^Tn<i4i<o, f^cni^y C^^.MD.M"?7/^g7 ^ 200 3T(^T q^qRT (ytt^^r) ?^TW^f?cTW^T There were injuries on her head a^id axe of the accused was snatched by Bhuwan Singii, he was tied with fhe help of| Station Pali. They are closely relate|d to the house of accused. Even the I Cr.P.C. has admitted that Dhankun^ him but his defence is that he saw Prem Sm^bi, therefore, he iifted an wife, therefore, by mistake, Dhankubwar counsel for flie accused to the witnel Prehi having illicit relation with one witnesses and they have stated fii^i defence ofthe accused that hesawl Singii does not appear to be plausibl then how it was possible for a tlwd with his wife, as such the defence be^n conclusively proved by evidenj 3 Ramliu Singh that the accused evidence ofP.W. 8 Dr. Prakash BN the deceased with axe and inflicted cbi^tc-i41^ ^i*4<nT^:fe1c^t<{^<-4i< ^^rf^TOT^T >ope, thereafter fhe matter was reported to Police to the accused and residing in adjacent houses accused in his statement under Section 313 of [var Bai died on account of injuries itrflicted by Qhankunwar in a compromising position witli one |ixe to attack said Prem Singh but the axe hit his sustamed injuries. The suggestion made by |ses ofthe prosecution that Dhankunwar Bai was Singh has not been found favour with these h^t fhey do not have such knowledge, therefore |his wife in a compromising position with Pi'em le. When accused himsetf was in the same room t>erson to come to liis rooni and have intercourse ijaised by the accused is not plausible and it has i{;e ofP.W. 1 Bhuwan, P.W. 2 Rambai and P.W. bommitted murder of his wife. From medical tlerao, it is established that tfae accused attacked ^s many as 13 injuries on vital part of the body, P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3n^?T^T^i<+) cTSTT 3TI^?T ^TT^ ^^.-. - / F~( ^v ^ s. ^' TS[ ^i^icn^, ^Tfl<i^(o, f^cni^^< *11+icrll Sh+lich ^ 200 3T1^?T '^97 (^<sit^<s«:^T) ^cfTW: ^f5cT ^TT^T as a result of wliich, frontal rig|it hal£ riglit parieto-temporal and occipital region were fractured at various places,|therefore, the accused had beaten Dhankunwar Bai mercilessly. Looking to the inju^es accused is itsetfbelied because ^ by accident he has inflicted inju^ wife for 13 time, itsetfshows thai mflicted bv the accused, defence raised by the ^hen he inflicted fh'st mjwy and came to know that injuty on his wife tiien why he rcpeatedly assaulted his the defence raised by the accused was false. 6. Counsel for the appellant| argued that the accused is a poor person having no |and fine of Rs. 5.000/- has been imposed on him ii|ch is not possible for the accused to deposit. means of eaming his livelihood apart from life imprisonment whi 7. Looking to the argumentj not disputed by the State Couns|el, reduced to Rs. 100/- that will me^ 8. In the result. convictio^ appellant is upheld and instead ^ upon the accused and in default month. Sd/- L.C, Bhadoo Judge <=hi^f<n41Ti ^i^ic-iT ^* te^t <f^i<-<i< ^3rf^T3:fI^T |raised by the leamed counsel for the appellant and we are of the considered opinion that if fine is ^t the ends ofjustice. and the substantive sentence imposed upon the )|ffine ofRs. 5,000/S a fine ofRs. 100/- is imposed of payment of fine, he shall undergo R.I. for one Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.