l—l-uld"']-^ r f aSss8Si11:wooo573ss' fi;.,^:ttf&^'ij jkiooo i- APPSAL OF PHKONiR No._3,5^5._____ Father's name ~s^!?i c^fC^ S^<Y Name • CT>I~I-<'CT •;,h1' \^.~^- !' .^ Residence^t^^-_(^^/<:i-<l^%T;Tt.-. Age ___^_3_ u-^i^J^c~(S([wi,^''^(^'c.sFo) - Sentenced t-03Ks^_fSsisi^.^f<:9^_ on ._1- U-_1S50 / _ ___ .._ _. .. i' Under section 2QS,,S<o'SO~f^^_i by^i'^'?4A"s^!-L<.lc'i-4 .'d3'^3:rfSf^:S5F. 1 ^l—l^E^'Slt^C^Siag^-cass'o)'-! -ftx >fnb>^U('^S^i-S-- &<S'/.t .3 cy^~ - -7---. —o-^^- ^ it is explained to the prisoner thatif he states he^wishes to be represcnted be a iegai j 'practitioner tbe Appelate. Court wiH not proceed witii'tfie base for seven . days unless j ths legal gractitioaer appears either.'If the !eg3l practitioner does not appear withj m seven days he may not be heard at a!l If the prisoaer states that he does iiot wish to l )8 represenfed by legal practitioner the cburt may proceed at once wish the case andj wii not be ob'iiged to give a hearing tp any lega! practitioner who shoyia appear. i 1 ( Date of Application for copy ofJudgement P&-4' rS»»!-^•^T a>@^^r T'aTCB , ^S^^^^wsr^f '^•^T^.f 3 2 ' Date of which copy received-—^-.ih-.&e- __ _ . .' i: _ __! 1 ' ! ! . ...... - . ' . . i 3 Daie on which Appea^sent ^ • l i-ci0 ,__,;__ _._..,_},_._.._, _^j ,4 Whethpr tlie nrisr^^^jj^. to be represenle^or not . yfeTISe- 1 i SSsK'so^o' NO./ TS^!^B^:_(Sl_oJ?o> \ejebo/<)0 dated_l6 • i;t--90 19 Forwarded to the eepttQi-eeffi»is»e»w^C_^J^*^_^lckAE^^rT^P^_ iT ,,j^__l|ilather which a copypf judgement or order passed in the case^^,javoui of . - t^semission to the proBer^P^e^fflapT^-:-—^^^^ ^^^,gg '•""T^'.f^^ Date of receipt in Deputy Commissioaer's OfBce Date of receipt of record to accompany / . Memo of Appea] of the Appcliate Court. \ ^•ym^'-s ?r\ .: -; :- v No. Forwarded to the .(rr}'%C. ^t^-C^ dated iM.'ll^—— -197 rt-'- :- •T'. •^'••'.:J.^.'. .2--" Deputy Comrrussioner,__ ^ •1:' •'• 'r"''i!l!5i':«>N(..'s,..,- ....4- :;i^-R^:-.i^j ^s-^'^'^;^' Date of receipt in Aypqlitte €eBFt^-;l Mln.il ::i.'' \ i' "' !: '-•-..'• ~';:l'ye":iAs-B&, ,;i»(.•-:•-.''.--• f.'l'Sfii 11 'l Ith^.s'-N^'^-'^S-'l'o:^L\ ' ,& 'j -:i^3tfly3ilu.-h;'/ /l'^iU lli":,lf:»8tt_'" ':IQ3^^.;''»^:T3'^^^'-tiB^'"N^ISiSS'^^^^ .-M //y^ ||:,,||[^ P.TMi' /^:; "--••< «fet'S!S-' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBlLj^PUR Cr. Appeal No. 124/1991 1 ^ Gorelal •» Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (aow Chltattis^rh) JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATION Sd;- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Hoa'ble Shri Justice L.C.Bhadoo i!i!tt!B(sliS»( Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge Postfor S< -11-2005 . Sd/- A; Judge ' -1 r-2005 / HIOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BII<ASPUR Crimittal Anoeal No. 124/1991 Gorelal Vs. State ofMadhya Pradesh (aow Chhattisgarli) 1 WK'iiia Coram :- HON'BtE SHRJ JOSTICE L.C. BHADOO a, SOS'BIE SHRI JUSTICE DILIP RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH, JJ. Preseat:- Stiri Abhay Tiwari, counsel for the appeUaat Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Panel Lawver for the State. JUDGMENT (Delivered on 30 -11-2005) The foPowing.iudjisnent ofthe Court was delivered by DiUp Raosaheb Desluaukh, J. 1. This appeal is directed agamst the judginent dated 01-11-1990 delivered bv Shri. K.C. Sharma 4& Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur iu Sessions case No. 83/1989 whereby the appeUaut was convicted under Section-302 of fhe I.P.C. for coimnitting inurder of Paras Ram aad was sentenced to undergo imprisoument for Ufe. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution stoiy is that on 09-09-1988 at 4.30 P.M., the deceased Paras Ram being fhe Sarpaaeh was uiidertaking the construction of Panchayat Bhawan. While,.^te was disbursiag wages to ttie labourers co-accused Kauchaaia Bai came and held his cotlar aud the appeUant dealtseveral blows by a fcnife on the stoinach, fh^h aad scalp of Paras Rain. The •' rajitred Paras Ram soniebow reached the shop ofAwadh Bihari Jaiswal. The appeUant Gorelal agaia dealt the fatal blow by a knife on ttie neck of Paras Ram., due to which Paras Ram died: F.I.R. was lodged oa 10-09-1988 ia PoUce Stetion-Pasan by Prem Siagh, younger brofher of the deceased. Assistaut Sub-Inspector Dil Ram. Sin.gh PW-10 reached fhe spot aad prepared inquest Ex. P-3, seized blood staiaed aud plain soU vide Ex.P-4 and also seized one Racapuri Knife, BaDyau aad Paat on fhe nieinoraudum of the appeUaiit vide Ex. P-5. The dead body of Paras Ram was sent for postaiortein exainiiiation. Dr. Sunil Kiuiiar Shanna PW-4 who conducted the autopsy on 12-09-1988 found as inaay as 10 iacised wounds on the bodv of Paras Rara. These injuries were ou the left side of neck behiad the right ear, below fhe left rib on the stoiaach, on fb.e left luiabar region, oa the right scapula aad fhe left scapula near the 6th rftyon the left shoulder, fhigh and stoinach aad at fhe luiabar region. Dr. Shanua PW-4 opiued fhat fhe cause of death was haeinorrahage aad shock due to inultiple incised aad penetrating uyuries which were suf&cient to cause death. The iajuries were aate inortein and honiicidal ia nature. 3. After coinpletion of investigation, the appeUaut wifh co- accused Kaachania Bai was prosecuted uiider Section- 302 oftfae I.P.C. f<WSK a!II;»a The accused-appellant Gorelal abjured the giult, pleaded iiuiocence and examined one Sudarshan D.W.-l in. his defence. The prosecution examined as inaay as 10 witnesses. Relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution, ftie Trial Judge coiivicted the accused-appeUant for coiiunitting inurder of Paras Ram uader Section-302 of fhe I.P.C. and sentenced him as aforesaid. Co-accused Kaachania Bai was acquitted of the charge iinder Section-302 read with Section-34 of the I.P.C. siace fhere was no evidence against her. Leamed counsel for fhe accused-appeUaat did not dispute that fhe death of Paras Rana was caused due to inultiple sta.b iujuries inflicted by the appeUaat but mamly contended that the appeUant had inflicted the mjuries upon grave aud sudden provocation in a sudden heat of passioa siuce fhe deceased had kept his elder sister Vachni Bai as wife. He placed reUaace on Shanm.uflam. ® J?ul<tndcrii>clu ys. State of Tcunil bdu_reported in 2003 Cr.L.J.-4l8 and argued that the offeace cominitted by the accused-appeUaut did not travel bevond Section-304 Part-I offhe I.P.C. Itwas also argued that the appeUaut was iu jaU siuce 13-09-1988 i.e for over a period of 17 years and 2 inonths. Therefore, custodial sentence already undei^one should be sttfficient to nieet fhe ends ofjustice. On the ofher haad, .—;.-;=.-E.-ltCL ^ iw;«te(a leanued counsel appearing for fbe State argued in support offhe impugned judgment. 7. We have heard rival<:ontentions and have also perused the record of Sessions Trial No.83/1989. Awadh Bihari FW-5 has stated that at about 3.30 P.M. when he was at his Shop he saw that the appeUaat was assaulting Sarpauch Paras Ram by a kaife. He saw that tbe appeUant iaflicted several injuries by a kaife on the body of Sarpanch Paras Ram, due to which Sarpanch Paras Ram feU unconscious. Shvam Lal PW-6 has also corroborated fhe evidence of Awadh Bihari PW-5 aad stated tbat on 09-09-1988 at about 3.30 P.M. ia fhe weeMy inarket he was taldng tea ia a liotel. Upon hcaring noise he saw that fhe appellaat was assaultmg Sarpaach Paras Ram by a knife. He also stated that he saw that the appellant iaflicted inji.uy on the left side of slioulder to Sarpaach Paras Ram. lu paragraph-3 ofhis evidence, he has deposed that Sarpaach Paras Ram had sustaiaed 9 iajuries and iutestine had come out of his stomach. There is absolutely nothing in the cross- examiiiati9h of aboveinentioned witnesses which would either rebut their testmioav or render it unworthv of .credit. Nothiag has been elicited ia their cross- examiaation which would show that they bear any grudge against the appellant or have aay inotive toj s. Bittfcjj falsely itapUcate him. Their testimony is fiilly corroborated by Dr. Suxiil Sharma, PW-4 who fouud as inany as 10 incised'uijuries on the body of Sarpanch Paras Rain. These injuries were on the left side of neck behiad fhe Tight ear, below the left rib on the stoinach, on fhe left lunibar region, on the right scapula and fhe left scapula near the 8ib rib on the left shoulder, thigh and stoinaeh aud at the luinbar region. Assistaat Sub Inspector DU Ram Sin.gh has also proved the seizure of kuife fi-oni the appellaat. The evideace led by the prosecution fhus fuUy estabUshes that on 09-09-1988 the appellaut inflicted several iajuries on Sarpanch Paras Ram by ineans ofaktdfe aiid caused his death. The only question which now requires our consideration is whether the appeUaut had caused the death of Paras Raoi upon sudden heat of passion so as to bring fhe case wifhin exception-4.to Section-300 of fhe I.P.C. It was aiyied by the leamed counsel for the appellant fhat Paras Raui had kept the sister of ftie appeUaut as wife which had provoked the appeUant to such an extent that he causpd tlie death of Paras Rani. In order to briag fhe -^ / offence withia exception-4 to Sectiou-300 ofthe I.P.C. it has to be estabUshed by the defence fliat fhe accused had acted ia a sudden heat of passion nieaning fhereby that the deceased had either provoked liim or had done soiaefhing at the tune of occurrence which suddenly J Itil' £. * s(8>s!(a aroused the passion of appellant to such an extent that he caused fhe death of Paras Ram. There is not even aa iota of evidence which would go to show fhat Paras Rain had in aay inartaer provoked the appeUaat or that the appeUaat uiflicted fhe iajuries on Paras Ram ia a sudden heat of passion. 9. Having consjdered the evidence led by fhe prosecution iu its entirety, we are of fhe considered opiruon that the act of causing fhe death of Paras Ram. by the appellaat by inQictiag several iajuries on his body was an act of deliberation and upon pre-iaeditation. Deafh of Paras Ram. was caused by the appeUant ui cold blood. Thiis, we are of fhe considered opinion fhat the trial judge has righfly convicted aad sentenced the appeBaat under Section-302 ofthe I.P.C. 10. In fhe result, the appeal has no substance, faUs aad is herebv dismissed. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge