CF0000060808 <<^ '3>'B%^; f3M89/(Jail) C.J.P'.R. 11/94/2,000 2-- APPEAL OF PRISONER '" 1 .1.Q).0 No......J.yi1^..,.......................... Name.... Father's name ..., Residence ... e^\^<^i^' t^c^A^- ^R^ri: [^.-^^•^^^- Sentenced to Under section ....-^.^.^..^y.i.^^^^.g. by .-.. It is explained to the prisoner that if he state's' or wishes to be represented by legal i practitioner the Appellate Court will not pFoceed'withthe base for seven days unless t^ legal practitioner appears . If the legal practitioner does not appear within seven ra he may not heard at all . If the prisoner states that he do^s not wish to be repre- SBted by legal pTactitioner the court may pruceed at once with the case and will nct be obliged to give a hearing to any legal practitioner who should appear ; 5 ^l 1 Dateof Applicationfor copy of Judgement ........ ..;::3Sa.'.' 2 Date-<!)n.,which copyreceived ............... .....P®-.®:®®...^.':^.-9.? 3 Date onSy^ich Appeal seat ........~^.'~.^\':'s3.<5.. ^..'?.1?~^*.'?.<S.. .^2^ "*".S3Rvq^ ^. ,r-^iether] the prisoner wishes to be represented or not - ¥es/ No ^ '5, <-' Name ..>. •Jail ~C^i r^-.'x. T^" •>a" ^^KUill^'^"C^QS\^a^ST;:%iy33R@'^<4^; ;d.&5\MAi3<g> . m .............. ":....'" Dated. ^warded to the CHIEF JUDICTAL MAGISTRATE .....'^l'^^A^. •</--s;"- .' • ' ': ,.' ' ' ' '& tggaiEBerwbich a copy of judgement or order passed in the case for favour of trans- rfliission to the proper Appellate Court. -C-^-J^- //'/' I- ^fl Date of receiptin........... ................... office ljy^i.\ Date of-receipt record 0 accompany the Memo ofAppeal to ihe Appellate court II: 1 't.. i. ^.C^O.^^'^Dated .;^A^^l99^j^:'.^^j^r^^nn^ .^3 orv^) C< Dale of receipt in Appellate Court !1 T XI-HC-22 SlI^T'qiT R-ii* sn^r '^«-1 ^^I Biwait '3^ '•:qPTRP(, ^Tily'l'c. '{^RTRTy wBR-trgitn^ ^^j2fr..^^S§g 2BO fc|<)<^' sii^i ?^iiwgf?(f Division Bench: - •» Hon'bie Mr. L.C. Bhadoo and Hon'bse Mr. Dhirendra Mlshra. jJ. 10.3.2006 Plib Miss Sangeeta Mishra, couns^ Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Additiona! Panei Lawysrforths State/respondsnf Ora! judgment dictated on DSM Per L.C. I^JJ: iythis appeai underSection R&miai has questioned ths legalit^ oonviction and order of sentence tearned Sessions Judge, Raigarh, undergo imprisonment for life. Ths case of Uie prosecution,| 8.30 a.m. in the morning Nanki Dai( Stetion Kharsiya to the effect that K4 Singh informed him that in the test summoned the Panch Babulal, Sam^ & Maheshial. They aiso saw the dea({ ths head and face of Manslu. R< / Officer, Pjdtice Station Kharsiya regh < / of offence under Section 302 of t •^NwNiffiRif •9'fecSiN^re ^73lf:OT3TI^( fortheappeilant. tic Prosecutor with Mr- Akhi! 74 (2) of t e Cr.P.l accused/ appeiiant and corrsctnsss of/ ^judgment of rth ated 7'" November, 1996, passed by n Sessions Tria! No.219/95, whereby learnecj Sessions Judgeafter hol|ding the accused/appeiiant guKty for commissioR of offence under Sectictn 302 of the I.P.C., sentenced him to in brief, is that on 10.8.1985 ai about (PW-1) lodged the report in the Poiics twar of Vi'.lage Parsapaii nameiy Chain light Ramiai has murdered Mangtu. On which he went on t!~,e site.and saw ti)iat Mangiu.was iying dead, therefore, he nukh Prasad Pandey, Jhaciyram Yadav body of Mangiu. Thsre were injuries on ^siving this .'•sport, th®Station hiouse tered the F.j.R. (Ex.P-2) for dbmmission :he I.P.C., proceeded to the scene of [Tft^^fe^ g?^ T XI-HC-22 •S^ ••^iqRTq, ^Ttly'lii. fartl'Hy "<' \^> *fl*<CTI WiWVa "^ 200 sn^i^ii M* sf^y -5S^ W?'CT an^I ¥i<ITW^ft?t -2-- occurrence and prepared ihe deceased Manaiu. He took into soii under Ex.P-4, sent the body f<j>i Heaith Centre, Kharsiya, where Dr postmortem cn the body of deceaseej 5 and opined that the cause of dea| sxcessive intema! hemorrhage. Site| One sando baniyan, one iungi and aossession-under Ex.P-10 from thel Ex.P-12 was prepared by the fnvestj' sent for chemica! examination to Fo< where report Ex.P-16 has received. After completion of inyestigati^ of Isarnsd Judiciai Magistrats, Fir^ offsncs under Section 302 of the eommitted the case to tearned The prosecution in orderto e^ examined as many as seven wltn^ recorded by learned Sessions Jydg^ which he denied the prosecution evii that he is innocsnt and has bsen fais4i Learned Sessions Judge afte|i counsei, conv'cted & sentenced the Para 1 ofthisjudgment Panchnama Dos^sssion Sessiohs / cblirffl4^l ^l^^f ^ 'fS1^ ^ •3lP?'T 3II^¥I (Ex.P-3) of ine dead body or tha blood stsinsd soii and piain ij>r postmortem examination to Primar^ if. fD.C. Kinger (PVV-5) conducted the ], prspared the posSmortem report Ex.P- h is coma & shock due to injurias and p.1an Ex.P-7 was prepared by Patvrari- ^thi, wsapon ofoffence wers taken into possession of the accused. Site Plan jgating OfRcer. Recovered articies wers fensic Science Laboratory, Raipur from ^n. charge sheet was flled in the Csurt ^t Ciass, Rasgarh, for commjssion or P.C. against the s?' jSsd, who jn turn |is Judge, RaigarH fortrial. ^fablish the charge againstthe accust ^sses, Staiemeni of the accused was under Section 313 ofthe Cr.P.C. in pence appearing against him and stated !y implicatsd In ths crime. |r hearing the arguments of regpective •ccused in the manner as msntioned in [^^3^ K \-3SSi^ -p XI-HC-22 -3^'?qpn?pt, t?Til+i<ia, 1^ray \(a wqnrshtdq? fci<)<itT' Sf^Wl [<-iW 311^1 "^IW^Tft^ 4>wffl''fl4 'qPRlf'? 'fS'Zt' <[altril< ^T Slfigil 2R1^I ; rtot tNere PW itn Wa have haard Miss Sang|e< appellant and Mr. U.N.S. Deo, iearn^d Akhi! ?<4ishra, P.L. on behalfofthe SNte/n Homicidal death of Mangiu is As far as invoivement of thfe murder of .Manglu is concerned,' convictionTests on the evidence of PW-4 Jhaduram has stated extra judicial confession before him. in the night, Chain Singh came committed murder of Mangiu. Ther^afte iViahincierwent to scene of occurretjce was iying and there were injuries oh Kotwar to lodge ths report in ths p4iK has statsd ihat when they wer®goin^ eutvert aecused Ramlal met and aNr that he has murdered Mangiu, at tha{ oresent. Thereafler the accused examination of this witness the de|f cireumstance which makes the untrustworthy. The extra judioial confession PW--3 Chayi Singh, who has stated ii]i about 1&;&0 p.m. deceased iWangiu] compiained to him that accused Ranti at that tirne he was also at the resid^nce ieta Mishra, iearned counsei for ihe .:'» Additionai Public Prosecutor with Mr. indispute. i^ accused/appellant In committfng the is no eyewitness in this case, the 3\fV-3 Chain SinghA PW-4 Jhaduram. his svidsocs that the accused made He has further statsd thatat about12.00 him and informed that Ramiai has sr he aiong with Sammukh Prasad & and saw that deaci body of Mangiu his head and face. They advised the s4«ce station. in Para-3 of evidence, he to ses the dsad body of MangSu, on the addressing Sammukh Prasad he sald time he, Mahinder & Babuiai were aiso Iwent towards Aurcsa. in the cross- Ifence has not been abte to elicit anv e'lfidence of mis witness unfeiiabie or iih ^tands oorroborated by the evidence of his evidence that on the fateful night at lcame to his house, met his father and 1iaS is not sending his wife and daughter, resid^nce. As his father noticed that Mangtu [Tt^^rt -t- XI-HC-22 ^^-i|l<s<l<rl^, ^•dl+l'lio, fawiy^ ^ 311^1 ^if Vw<h sv^v ^hW^ ^ft^T *<r*«Mrg^Hrai was in drunken condition, thersfon which deceased isft. Aftsr a shoilt sound ot l-ti'<4ic, therefore, i'.e a!( from where the sound was corrl standmg and Mangiu was iying on] on the face of Manglu, on which and he is going to cail the Pan|( nameiy Babula!, Shambu Prasa4 saw that Mangiu was lying dead report. When he aiong v.'ith Teers the first tlme, at that time Mans stariding there hoiding iathi in his| the pub!ic prosecutor, this witness| ha sald that you go away oth< examination 6f this witnsss aiso 11 ciroumstance which goes to sho', trustworthy. !n vlew of the above evidet dead on the ground, there wsre standing there holding stick in h| somethlng, the accused said that| the extra judiciai confsssion mad< stanss corroboraied. !n view of t| was made before Jhaduram (PW) his hanc^on the spot where ihe t thls establish that the accusedt 1il''l[f1<<ll W^ ^ fs^f Tfsre^TC ^siPgiisn^i (, his fathsr advisad him to go to house, on whiis at about 11.00 p.m. he heard the ilng with Teerathrsm went towarcis the side (ing and saw that accused Ramlal was ]frie ground. There were numerous injuries <e asked Ramiai to go and sit m the house fchas. Thereafter, he cailed ffie Panchas Mahendra. Jodhram & Jhaduram, they |on which Sarpanch advised to iodgs the lihram went on'the scene of occurrsncs for |tu was aiready dead and aceused was |hand. On astdng the leading question by |has stated thai he asked RamtaS on whteh Irwise 1 will kiit you also. in the cross- ie defence has not been abie to.eiicit any k that ths svidencs of this witness Is not |ice of this witness that Mangiu was lyms Injuries on his face, accused Ragilai was ^ hand and when this witnsss asked him lyou go away otherwise ! wil! kUi you a!so, by the accused before jhaduram (PW-4) ie afcove fact that extra judicia! confession •4) and accused was seen holding iathi in iead body of deceased Manglu was iymg, was the author of crime in question. [-^ifia^ f8f + XI-HC-22 an^T^iT- R"li+ 311^1 ^i<^ ^rit?T Roshani ,,^ \^^ f<-; -' ^'nr'-qpiRT'':f, ri'dl'y'id, («i<ni<ii< )fe *11H<?(if a»11°h "m, 200 sn^r^Riiwofet -•?. Moraovsr, as per medicai evidence injuries wers noticed on the bod' fracture of frontai bone, temporal b< were aiso found broken. Learned counsei for; the witnessss nameiy Babulai. Samn Jodhram have nol been produced. tt is t.ru8 that thsss witnes^ without their evidencs, from the ^ •Jhaduram the compiicity of the esisbiished, therefore, rion- consequence in the matter. ?v"oreoj $he manner in which the accused vlta! part of the body i.e. hsad, as found fractursd. the intsntion ofthel estabitehed; in the resuit, we do not find trial court, the appeai being devoifl accordingiy; dismissed. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge >. ./ -^l^li^^-T tTR^ff ^ ^S^ •(.f^i-^R '^'aipgii sntn }pi ur. D.C. Kinger (PW.5) as many as 13 ^ of dsceased out of which thsre was Ine & mandjble bone. Jaw and front teeth accused/appeliant argued Shat other liukh Prasad, Mahinder, Tearathram & ^es havenot been produced, but even ^idence of PW-3 Chain Singh & PW-4 accused in the erime in question js prodpctlon ~ of those wiinesses has no (/er, tooMng to tiie number of injunes and ssaulted the deceased mercitessiy on the resuit aimost aii the bones of head wsrs |accused to cause death of Manglu is ateo ny iiiegalityOr infirmity in the judgment of of merit liabie to be dismissed and it Is ss/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge [Tft^ ^a^