) ‘ \ ' ' 1mm (Jame J P RIM Kcwpooy§§5g4 > C:m (lg/W“ 9 " A “EOA‘ZL: F3: WRIS I . 7 \ WV“ ‘ Father's name ‘ ResMence ‘ Sentenced to Under Section It ls exp1amed to the prisoner that 1f he states he w1shes to be rvpresented by a legal practutloner the app‘llate Court Will not pro:e:d Wtth the ca» fat vim days unien fh4 'wal practmoncr appears earlier If thc legal practmoncr does not appear wmnn seven i ys he may not hcard at all 1fthe pnéoner states that he does not w1sh to be repre- . ~‘ ted by legal practitioner the court may proceed at once With the case and w1ll not ‘ /g be obliged to glvea heanng to any legal practmoner who should appear. l Date of Application for eopy ofJudgcment a )0 / l y { l. 2 ‘Da'te on which copy received, , _ e ’ V 4; ‘ ( 3 ‘bate , l on whlch Appeal sent 4 Whether the prisoner wnshcs‘to be represented or not VV :1 \‘ N. No. Ség I Name D Conftgxedm ‘ 't ~ Jail <4! wakig Nolauu‘ ‘ ~’> \. . HDMedf I “39:9 *-—r I Forwarded to the m o to geth‘er with a copy of judgement or order passed in the case for favour of «. traasrmssron to the proper Appellate court ‘01 V Q(@g_\;f‘ W Date of receipt in ‘ Office Date of receipt of record tovaccompany the” ,« Memo of Appeal to the Appellate court. , . t M WW 1r“ éecoe/dw Date of receipt in Appellate court XI-HC-22 XI—HC-22 offence ie axe under- Ex P—5 m pu auance of fha memorandum (Ex.P$) given by *he accused/uppellan‘t Srre inn was prepared byfhe Patwari under ExP-Q. CMhes of deemed were f en Info possession undef EXP-8. Body L of deceased Sukhimm whssenf for p s?mor1’é$ examinafio‘n fo fhe Hcspi‘ml Pdhalgm under Exp-10, where b . m. Dubey (PW-9) conducted me pbsfmarfem examinafion and prepa ed #he posfmorrem feper? Ex.P—22. Recovered arficles were serif for ch mica! examinm'ion 1'o Forensic Science Labcm'fory, Raipur' ffom where rep Ex.P-18 was received; Affer- cample‘fian of invesfig ion, charge sheaf was filed against fhe accused/appeiiam' in The Cour? of Ch ef Judicial Mhgisimfe, Raigarh, who in ’ ‘mrn commifi'ed fhe case +9 learned ssiohs Judge, Raigarh for friah The emsecuiien in' order 1' es'rabiish ‘rhe offence againu fhe accused/appelianf examined nme w: nesses On ‘i'he ether hand learned Sesswns Judge recorded fhe sfafemem of accused/appellan? under semen 313 of +he Cr.P.C. m which he demid the prosecuhon ewdence appearing against him and sin-red fhaf he has een falsely implica‘red in fhe crime on accoun‘l' of animosify of fhe witness. ’ ., ' Learned Sessions Judge after hearing ‘lhe argumen'is of Additional Public Prosecufor and counsel for fllie accused conwcf'ed & senfenced fhe accused in 'l'he manner as mentioned n ?oro 1 of fhis Judgment l We have heard Ms. Shipro Biswas, Advocate for accused/appellant and Mr. U.N.5. Deo, Additional Publr Prosecutor wi‘i'h‘Mr. MRS. Bha’l'ia & Mr. Akhil Miehra, Panel Lawyers for he Sfa'i'e/ respondent es v l * ’ . new XI~HC—22 As far as involvement of 1' e accused/appeiinm' in fheerime in quasi-ion is concerned, PW—l Dhobir m, who lodged fh’e reporf in fhe Police ’Sfa‘fion Kapu, has s‘mfed fha? his h use is in from ‘of The house of accused shaniciiar, on hearing. ‘Hne noise he em f'owqrds +he house of accused and saw ‘iha‘i’ sukhimm and his ife‘ Ifwari Bni were sifting and _ accused/appellant was in ano‘l'her Ercom. Accused 5p deceased surfed quarreiing while faking abou? me agr cui‘iural field. Accused/appellan‘i came wi‘i'h an axe and «Hacked Sukhi Sukhira‘m died sponfaneously and a cused Shanichar fled ‘away. He calied Bihanu and informed him' fha‘l' Shanichar has murdered Sukhimm. (Ex.P-1) in fhe Police S‘l‘n‘i'ion. PW-E I‘rvlmri Bai, who is widow of decease Sukhimm, has sfafed in her eiridence ihaf Sukhimm was her husband, The fes'iival of Nawakhai accused Shanichar called her husband and h r an fhe feasl' and af'l’er faking meals Sukhimm asked Shanichar ‘iha‘i he as given his sister in fhemarriage to him and also ‘l’he iand, on hearing fhi accused Shanlchar brough‘l' an axe and a‘H'acked fwice an fhe'head of de . Thereaffer They Iodged 1’he repo Homicidal deafh cf deceased .5ukhiram is noi' in dispufe. on his head as a resul‘i' of whiéh Sukhiram. Af fhai iime she was siffing there. Therefore, in view\ f the, above evidence i'l‘ is clear fha‘l‘ amused/appellant was ’ihe author o i’he crime in quesiion. In the cross—examination of above wi'i-nesses‘ ’the defence has 'no'r. been abie “i0 elicii any‘l'hing, which akes the evidence of above witnesses untrustworfhy or unreliable.‘ Moreo er, +he weapon of offence i.‘e. axe was . [View c r XI-HC-22 recovered unden Ex.P~5 «1’ ‘I'he ins? mce of nccused/dppenam in put-mama of 1'he mformn‘l'ion given by him un corraborafes'i'he evidence af PW—l The irvoivemem' of fhe ancused/ ppellan‘r m The crime m ques'rlon Is esfabhshed and +0 fhts exfenf we no‘r fmd any Hlegah‘ry or mfwmufy m‘ fhe finding of fhe Trial courf Learned counsel far ‘l'he «cc sed/appellanf argued fhaf m a sudden ' quarrei The accused/agpeiianf brcu hf The axe and macked the deceased, ibuwd +0 fhe accused/eppelhn‘f. 3&1’ der Ex.P-6. The medica! evidence $5 h‘obiram & PW—2 ITwari Bai Therefore +herefore, 'l'he in'fen‘l'ion canno‘l' be z - as per seh‘ied {aw The infenfion ca'n be ascertained from ‘rhe fee? of nature /&/ emf offence used, perfs’ of i’he body here H' wasvasseuh'ed, force wifh which ~ if was ossauhed and The focTs le ding‘To crime. In The IighT of above principles, if we look 'inTo T e evidence of PW—Z ITwori Bni, accused/appeuonT assouhed Twice a The head of deceased wiTh The deadiy weapon axe wiThouT any reason or rhyme Moreover as per ewdence of on injury on The head of deceased m The size of 6cm x %cm x 3%cm in T e half moon shape, There was cuT from fronTal bone To occipiTai bone, b in maTerial was coming ouT, oarie‘i'ai, fronTai 6T Temporal bones were f docTor (PW-9) he found ThaT There red and Turned info oieces. Therefore, looking To The naTure of injuries as, also The weapon of offence, iT is‘ esTablished ThaT The accused/op eilanT assaulTed deceased wiTh The inTenTion To cause his deaTh. user N ‘ J ' [View 0 r { u r v XI—HC—2 / mm W “I? is an unfor'runafe case wher a me parents of decaased namad him as Sukhiram sq malt he may 13w {on unfomna‘rely'fhe accused, whose nan .ihaniehar star is cansidered‘ as very harmful unless fhe same is corrfro Shamchnr has proved heavy an Suki“ d any iilegali'i'y or infirmii'y in +he In fhe resui'i' we do noi’ 1'1 judgmen‘i of The friai court and The judgmen‘r of ‘Hwe friai court. Acco ; peacefully and wifh happiness, bu? 1e is Shanichar, proved defrimen'i'ai & ' inauspicious h Sukhimm. Normaily led by performing puja, therefore, and commmed his murder. is no reason To interfere with The ingly, fhe‘appeal is devoid of merif, 2 W