r \ y _ 3 vr /w a _ mQ® i} J d g mg iwmloiiuwmwum ; APPEAL OF PRISONER, NBwesal— V / Father s name‘mamb. XII-1 89' / (Jail) r 5/ @ x I \c.J;r.R‘11/94/‘2,ooo 'J $3“; L/H </ r ‘ I (77‘ ......."...,...3Namew.$i.‘ / “.‘aé‘géy‘xg‘k‘3 \' “i K = ....éK ;.......u....... I / ) t.*Ncbws ‘ . \. . ’.. R'SH y.‘ T. awn . ~... mam ....... -u..\ :3} .... d1 “§\ 45 64° .'... s .fsmw H. L... Res1dence.‘;§\.a.\.\.\ia$‘é\$<§v ' V’\ \.. . . .. .. jAge gpqw . p r .g.....’.... ‘ ‘ ‘ /’ Sentenced to gi\g}“a\.r§.§\a\¢w <“f On§\§‘q §e . Under segtion 3.8%“9,_.§.%%a;t...’...V byki$wfxawiu%g?¥ww A‘ ,i"..{\w&.vagx ‘ L " ‘ ’ r Vtv3§ It‘is exfalained t9 the prisoner that if he states or wishes to be represented by legal practit§oner Ithe‘ :Appellate Court will not proceed with the ‘base' for seven days unless the legal practitioner appearasw, If the legal practitioner does not appear within seven aays he may not heard'at all . lf the prisoner states that he does not wish to be repre- sented by legal practitioner the court may proceed at once with the case and will not be obliged to give a hearing to any legal practitioner who should appear . \JQ' t x l ' Date of Application for copy of Judgement Date on which ciopyreiceived‘............... ..t&.t;g\ §\3%l . Whether the prisoner wishes to be represented or not - Yes/1 No 2 l l ‘ 3 ‘Dateion/which Appeal sent .. lg’étgg 4 i Not... m $$$ iS L— IName‘ H,Mg\{_§&_.m§.v1\%wh\ .Coniined in 'gécg‘ . ”Jail Q‘Hb‘twg‘. “ No-52’4t M}- Dated/3/5/199 g . Forwarded to theW 34‘.Q&Wsxgmguga;¢ gums togather which a copy of Judgement or order passed 1n the case for favour of trans- ag” . n... ... ... ... ...... mission to the proper Appellate’Court. a: wary» l l\se‘o , .;'\ ’1‘ ) nil 9M j (\l s ' gage keelné" p Date of receipt in"; .. .r office]... an... Date of receipt record to accompany the Memo of Appeal to the Appellate court $ No _ $ (I W % a t . Forwarded to‘ the Date of _ . max; 31 receipt in Appellate Court 3-. ’ Elva-wet 37f ll 't t ‘9‘ F’ r tn in \ .,“m ”l \ XI-HC-22 mmmw DIVI5ION BENCH: - HON’BLE MR. LC. BHADOO AND HON'BLE MR. DHIRENDRA MISHR. 9-3—2006: Mr. Ravindm' Agruwal, counsel 1‘ Mr. U.N.5. Dec, Addifiona! Put Pane! Lawyer for ‘f'he SfaTe/respondex Omlrjudgmenf dicTa'l-ed on Dam. PEQ L C BHADOO 3. The accused/appellam has pre ,(2) of The €r.P.C. quesfioning The leg of convicfien and order 9f sen‘renc fiddij’ional Sessiorw Judge‘ Biiaspur‘ Addi‘fional 5ess‘ion’s Judge affer ho commission of offence uhder Secfim undergo imprisogmen‘r for life. The case of The prosecu‘rion is (Ex‘4P/17) in The OuTpos'T Belgahm, F on 6-4-95 some donce was going on i p.m. dance was over. Therem‘Ter‘, t t came To The house of deceased NoT have given iess share in The kiTcheng furious and wenT To his house. AT-c NnThThn (E Phool Singh having bOVL l T 4! JJ’. ‘or The appeiiam'. >iic ProsecuTor‘ wiTh Mr. Akhii Mishm, 1T. ‘fer'red This appeal under-SecTion 374 aiiTy and correcTness of The judgmenT ‘e daTed 25—4—96 passed hy The 2'“ in.S.T. No.293/95 whereby learned ding The accused/appellanT guil‘l’y for 1 302 of The I.P.C., senTenced him To ThaT PW-l Kujal Singh lodged The FIR‘ '.5. KoTa To The effecT ThaT yesTerday 1 The house of Dhanuhar. AT abouT 11 iccused Man Singh @ LaThi Dhanuhar hThu @"Phool Singh and said Thar you, arden and sTarTed quarrelling‘ He was \ bouT 12 pm. he wenT To The house of' nd arr,-owjn hishand. who wasjusl To Ne é‘fan l XI—HC—22 mmmm vj‘y The prosecu‘fion examined 1; s‘m‘remem of the accused was record which he denied i'he prosecufion evi Judge affer' héar‘ing The argumenf « seni’enced The accused as men‘i'ioned ii The homicidal deoTh of deceased NaThThu @ Phool Singh is noT i dispui‘e. accused/appellant in assaul’ring The deceased wifh arrow is concerned, PW -1 Kujal Singh has s‘i'afed Thai in The fa‘reful nigh? he was of his iesidence bow and arrow. He sho‘l’ ‘i'he arrow oi The lrigh‘r side of fhe‘ ches‘i and’ Na’rl fime, broi‘her of Na‘rhfhu @ Phool s evidence, he has sfaied iha‘l' 'fhe’ accused Was raising The wall which was objec'l'ed by deceased NaThThu @ Phool Singh,"i’herefore, The accused s hoi' arrow on Na‘rh‘i'hu @ Phool Singh., In ‘i‘he cross-examina'rion, he has s‘la‘l ed Thai on Tha‘r day boTh The accused ' and The deceasedconsumed liquor an There was dispuTe amdng Them. On hearing The shouT, he came ouT of Th house. There was a lamp in his house and in NaThThu @ Phool Singh’s housealso; He saw The accused,’while arrow was being shoT by him. PW-Z 5onkun ar is The moTher of The deceased, she Was inside .The' hduse..- She has sT ed ThaT arrow hiT on The chesT ofi [new As far as invoivemenT of ‘rhe wdnesses. On ’rhe oTher hand, 2d under Section 313 of The Cr.P.C. in dence. Learned Addi‘i’ionai' Sessions )f respec’rive counsel, convicfed and i para-1 of i'his judgment for The par‘ries. We' have heard learned counsel He saw ’rha'i' The accused came wi‘rh 1 Na‘lh‘lhu @ Phool singh which ’hii’ on ifhu @ Phool Singh fell down, af i‘ha‘l‘ accused ran away. In para-4 of hi Singh, Ifwa'ri was also There. The 5 n ' XI-HC~22 We: Wmmm WWW WW $Wm A \4,“ Na‘rh‘l’hu @ Phool Singh. In para—4 of ‘i'haf accused Man Singh sho'f arrow Bechuf‘am has s‘1’a’red That on hearihg and saw Tha'r arrow was sfuck in The 5ingh which was informed by Sonkunw fhe accuéed and fhe deceased and ear fateful day The accused came and sc Phool Singh and murder him. PW'—4 Tiih'aru has also si'a'red fha‘l‘ in The'nighf @ Phool Singh. Moreover; from ‘rhe rpanch and Invesfiga‘rin‘g Officer RP. if bow was recovered af fhe ins‘l'ance i ‘i‘he above evidence; if is established ime in ques‘i'ion. Learned counsel for ihe a ccu'sed/appellan‘r argued Thaf fhe lish Tha‘r fhe accused shof arrow wifh prosecu‘iion has no‘r been able To (esfa Nai‘h‘rhu @ Phool Singh. He aiso argued Thai” as per The evidence of P -I‘ Kujal Singh, boTh “the accused and fhe deceased consumed liquor and 1' ere was some quarrel befween fhem. The accused wen‘r ‘i’o his house, Ther offer broughf bow d arrow and shof The arrow. Moreover, he shot ar ow 'i‘hrough' ‘i'he hole of fhe door,‘ Therefore, if was nof possible for f accused i'o aimai' The vii'ai parf of The deceased. When The arrow was s oT,‘ There was nighT Time. fhe accused shof arrow on Nafhfhu evidence of PW-5 Tihari Singh, Up 5c Sharma (PW-10), if is es‘l’ablished ‘rh: of 1‘he accused. Therefore, in View oi ihai *i'he accused wasvau‘rhor of The cr / , «er cross-examinafion, she has sfa'i’ed Through The hole in i’he door. PW-3 ifhe cries, he came ou‘i' of i'he house chest of deceased ‘Na‘l‘hfhu @ Phooi 1r 1'0 him There was dispui‘e be‘rween lier also fhey used To quarrel. On The Lid i'ha‘r he will nof leave Na‘i'h‘l'hu @ [‘fréW ‘in‘i'en‘i'ion 'i'o cause dea‘rh of~ deceas mmmw » ' h ~5/ On The ofhe’r hand, mama counsel Tor The b‘mre/responden‘r suppolrfed The judgmem of fhe Trig! Goum‘. / From The evidence, if has‘ no‘r some on record ‘rhm‘ The accused sho? arrow infhe syur of momen‘r or in a f of passion or in a sudden fight in order 1’0 affrdcf The provisions of E epfion 4 of SecTion 300 of The IPC if should be es‘rablished That fhe occu ed commif‘red The crime wifhouf pre- medifo‘rion,‘in a sudden fighf, in a’h a‘l‘ of passion and in a sudden quarrel. There shouid nof be Time gap befw en The quarrel and assault If There inTervenes a sufficienf Time for pass on To subside, giving‘The occused Time 7 To come To normalcy and The fighT T kes place ThereafTer, The killing would be murder buT if The Time gap is no sufficient. The'accused may be held enTiTled To The benefiT of excepTio 4 of 5ecTion 300 IPC. Applying The ‘abo/ve principle, if we look info The p esenT case, There‘is noThing on record To show ThaT on The'spur of mom nT .or in d sudden fighT The accused assaulfed. En-facfr The accused we‘T To his house and broughT bow and arrow, andThereafTer-he shoT Th arrow on NaThThu @ Phool Singh, Therefore, There was Time gap; Ev if iT ise presumed ThaT There was any gquarrel beTween’The accused and T e deceased aT The place of dance or - when The deceased sTopped The accu ed in raising The wall. As far as quesTion ThaT The a cused shoT arrow Through The hole of The door is concerned, The. defenc has, noT been able To show ThaT The disTance beTween where The accuse was siTTing and The place from where The accused shoT arrow was so m ch ThaT iT was noT 'possible for The ,V ' v [WW h c e XI-HC-22 ‘ m I“ 200 mm mmmw‘w , ~g,— accused To qim The vim! parf of fhe dg n01" come on record That ‘rhe hole ThmL f WW$®2§W ' was so small hole fhm' if was nof possit pa’m‘ of fhe deéensed fhr'ough hole. T fhe ‘argumenfs advanced by learned cm ‘manner in which fhe accused shoT ‘rhe ' as a resul‘l' of which lung of The d ins‘lanfaneously. Therefore in‘l'enflon ‘l'he murder of Na’l’h‘lhu; Barve . eased correctly. Furfher', if has also gh which The accused shol' fhe acrow le for The accused 1'0 aim a‘l’ fhe vi‘ral herefore, we are now“ convinced wiih insel for The accused/appellant The arrow on The chesr of The deceased, zceased was rupl’ured and he died of The accused was clear To commiT In The resul‘l', we do nof find ny subsTance in This appeal, same is liable To be dismissed and iT is hereby ismissed. Sd/~ Sdl- l Dhirendra Mishra- L.C.BHADOOz l Judge i i Judge _ l r ' l Maw