v IN TEE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATU'RE AT BILASPUR g CHEATTISGARH) Cn'minalAppealNo.‘..€‘%§§.of2001 Meelulam @ Meeleshwer, Aged 26 years S/o Kejuram Sahu R/o Vlllage Jeevangarh App ellant RS. Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS State of Chhattisgalh Through S‘H.0., PS. Mahasamund, Di$tt. Mahasamund Resp ondent EMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 2 CLIP. COD M E $" i i , @ XI—HCv22 XI—HC-22 of rice (kodo), when 1i” 12.00 noon’ 1'he accused and his wife did no? i refurn, his fa‘l'her' Keju Ram (PW-2) Wen'l' in search of accused and his v‘ wife. He saw fha‘i' Dular-i Bai.wg‘s iying in dead condi‘rion and Meeiur‘am f was also lying. The accused »an, anded wafer from his fa‘l'her' Keju §ahi arid on enquiry, fhe accu d‘disclosed Keju Ram fha'r he has commiTTed murder of his wif Dular'i Bai’ by afracking wi'i'h axe, i Thai-enf'i'er' TO'commi'l’ suicide h had‘jumped down from 'i’he free as a i resuh' of which he has sus1'ai ed fracTur'e Keju Ram immediately " i refurned 'i'o The Vlilage Inform d The Vliiage Koi'war- Surendra Kumar and gave merg Inflmafion u der Ex-P/3 In the Police Sfa‘hon Mahasamund Thereafter Vlsh m 5ahu (PW-1) on coming 'i’o know abou‘r The meldeni', also wenf 'i' ‘i’he-place of mciden'l', on enquiry The accused informed him also Tha his wife Dulari Bai was insis'rin'g for going To her paren‘i's place, feeli g insulfed and harassed, he af'racked her wifh axe and commi‘r'l'ed h r murder; Vishram Sahu (PW-1) gave ' FirsT InformaTion ReporT un er ‘Ex-P/l in The Police STaTion, Mahasamund. The Sfa‘i'ion House Offic r, Police Sfa'l'ion Mahasamund, af'i'er registering The case for The co mission of offence under SecTion 302 of The Indian Penal Code, lefT or scene of occurrence, afTer giving noTices (Ex-P/2) ToyThe Pancha inquesT reporT of The body of Dulari l ” i ‘(Q‘loaiiam d m XI-Hc722 XI—HC-22 WW WW§WW éawm learned Addi‘l‘ional Sessions Jud e received The case on Transfer for ' a trial. The prosecuTion in order- To‘ establish The charge againsT The alccused examined 25 wiTnessesr On The oTher hand, sTaTemenT of The accused was recorded under‘ 5 c'Tion 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure in which he said ThaT e along wiTh his wife Dulari Bai wenT To The field for The purpose‘of a'pingThe crop of rice (Kodo), where some unknown person came and TTacked him as a resuIT of which he became unconscious and Thereof er ThaT’person aTTacked his wife, as he was in unconscious sTage, he as'noT aware abouT The person who commiTTed The murderof his wi Learned AddiTional Sessio s Judge afTer hearing The AddiTional Public ProsecuTor and counsel r The accused/appellant convicTed and senTenced accused/appellan as menTioned in para one of This judgment Florensic Science Labora‘ror'y, Raipur' from where The report Ex-P/33 was received. Affer comple'rion of The ‘ sfiga'rion, charge sheaf was filed in i e 1'he fourf of Chief Judicial M gisfrdfe,’ Mahasnmund, who in turn u comriiif'red fhe‘case To the sions‘ Judge, Raipur', from where u s f . o XI—HC—22 XI—HC—22 EW‘ ;m‘ 'JWW Wm£1€ffinl§§lwm mm 1E 200 , W : mw mm WW mm§ww ém%urm Dhruve, Executive Magis1’m1'e {PW-14), i1' appears Thaf The dying aeclam'rion of fhe accused was recorded whiie he was in The police cus‘rody; therefore, The said ex m judicial eonfession in The form of oying declamTion was noT admis ble' in evidehce. He also argued ThaT Th‘e inleap‘on of offence was reco er-ed from The open field, Therefore, iT cannoT be held ThaT The re:overy-was' aT The insTance of The accuéed. On The oTher hand, Shri lDeo', learned counsel for The 5TaTe, supporTed The judgmenT of The T ial ‘CourT. '; As far as The evidence o Narendra (PW-12) is concerned, he has sTaTed ThaT on The faTeful ca'y he was going Towards Jeevangarh in search of his bullock; when he reached Kamharmuda he heard The scream of a lady ‘sal/esavd and when he reached near Theplace,‘ he saw ThaT The accused carrying in his hand was running away afTer commiTTing The murder of some oneuBlood was oozing ouT from The body of Dulari Bai and afTer seeing her condiTion, he became frighTened. In The cross-examin Tion, .he has sTaTed ThaT The screams of The lady became silenT ofTer om‘e Time, he saw The accused from behind; aT ThaT Time he was ca ing Theaxe and he also saw him while aTTacking some one wiTh The a e. AT ThaT Time, The accused was wearing lungi and. shirT. Decea d Dulari Bai and The accused were (To W) e r XI—HC‘—22 WW WW mw \‘x. wéll known'fo him. From fhe aBo‘Ie eyidence of Narendm (PW-12), if can be said fha‘r in fac‘r this wil s aéfually did no‘f see the accused whiie affacking fhe deceased. Wimess hds s'rafed inpam 5 of his evidence That he snw‘l‘he accusé Whén he. was running away, whereas f u f ' fhe father ofjhe accused Keju Ram (PW-2), whc went in search of accused and his wife, has sfa‘red‘i’ha‘i'When‘ he reached 1'he field he saw thaf fhe accused and fhe d ceased bo‘i’h were lying, ‘rhere was injury on The neck of Dulari Ba whereas bone- of The hand of the £ ‘ . ‘ . accused was broken, fherefore, as per The prosecution case affer i - i ’ . chmmif‘fing 'rhe murder of his wifie accused jumped down from a 'rree as a resuh' of which he sus‘rained the frac‘i'ure of his hand and he was aiso lying on 1'he field, Therefore; The evidence-of Narendra (PW-12) To The exTenT ThaT he saw The accused running away cannoT 'be believed and his evidence does n‘oT inspire confidence of The CourT, - hence no reliance can be placed or his evidence. As far as exTra judicial. cor fession made by The accused before ExecuTive MagisTraTe AR. Dhurw (PW-'14) as also Narendra Prakash (PW-1.9) and Vishram (PW-1) is concerned, AR. Dhurve (PW-14) has sTaTed ThaT on 30-11-1999 on TheyrequesT of The Police, he recorded dying declaraTion of The accused aT abouT 9.35 a.m. which is EXP/'17 and in which The accused confessed ThaT There was some dispuTe “fl i " ' ‘ ~ (mm) 1 i m s s i XI-HC-22 3am,ww,m3§ . (J'Pr- VPr§IL60l mm E 200 Wu”; X1-Hc-‘22 *“w—m W 10 XIvHC-22 arésmaa: Qnm‘. \’>s&‘ r 790M ' ‘ 200 ' m Wm XI-HC—22 1‘. m CV \ k Wm a“ mmmwa , , WW WW §:w%m311%w V §Narendm Pkakash (PW-19), Th refore, The circumsfances Le. fhe :accused lef'f his house along wi fhe decéaSed and fhereaffer he was ifound in condifion fhe’ of ‘l'he deceased further injured neqr body icormbomfes fhe exfm judicia! ' nfessioh 'made by him. - “f For fhe foregoing reaso , we are of ‘rhe considered opinion fhaf fhe prosecu‘l-ion has esfab ished The cése ago'msf 1'he accused ‘bosed on The 'circumsfanfiai evi rice beyond reasonable doubt From i‘rhe i above cirdumsmn'l'ial evide ce, The irresisfible conclusion can isafeiy be drawn fhaf The accu d was 1'he aufhor of fhe crime in question and fhere was no possi ilify o'f coming in befween any 'rhird person. We do no? find any ille ali‘ry or infirmity in the judgmen‘l‘ of k The Trial Court ~ In the resul‘l', The appeal devoid of meri‘l‘, is liable ‘l'o appeal being dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. a; Sd/- Sdl- : e~~i_‘i, - , V.K. Shrivatava L.C.BHADOO Judge Judge 6owri 6V) (down)