I CFooooos94o (gig ‘H%%X3Q / J ammgw 3J’a’‘n3mH bm‘KAE /.. APPEAL OF PRISONER -/ /” % Name W§§k R$si dance‘Ew- x” .w No. 3L3 Father's Name Age 3w Ser'menced to B‘TQVw ’ e" on ,3q,;w_wj§ ‘_under'scction K$a2h£ a“; by fl; $aM3E§Ql§£EMW S-T-NO' 447/93 It ls x9ld1n d to thé pmsenez that if ha SLates or r11 shes ta be rvprea entgd by a legal practltlvnar cha Appellate Quru mu nut procwd With tne base for seven ddys unlesc the 1 gal practltloner dppedrs. If. the lmgdl practlblcner aces mt appear vuth the ceven ddys he may ba’heard et all 1f. the prlscner bedtcs that the does nct Wish tc. be £epr s ntvd by legal practl ner the aurt may preceed at ence With the case and will net be ebliged tc give =1 hearing to any legal proct_~ iticner who sheu‘ld appear. 1. ana 912 apolication for copy of Judgement ida A 2. Date 3, Date on which Appelisent :.. 4. Whether the prlsoner wished to be No. gig Name W§V W W igi continued in A *Efo“ \ Jail Mr.“ 2&7 ¢ ag‘cg_=n( Dated /‘f‘§"‘ Fcrmrd d to the CHIEF JUDICIAL MISTRrwE eggele‘il Pa A ’4’” / :f De L of. which copy ,ze‘ceived a... 3c - (i k 7f y ‘I'G ‘ i2 ; representea er not Y‘/s[Ne t gether With a cotuy of Judgement or ord r passed In the case fer taveur o£ transmIsSIon to the prcper liate (hurt, LW Superlm t eruien mine lg$ i/Di stt . / Date o£ receipt in C.J.M's office. ‘ éLDtlQ‘<i3” Date of receipt of record of accompan. Mane ¢IE Appeal c£ the hppelliate Ccurt, “HQm Dated iwbm" bE‘;... Forwuded ta the H’Hi- MAHMAA q mitt 3ccq a! mij 0 C.J. Magistréx' te of receipt of Appelliate Ocurt. " I HI s u ‘ J / p y L te ~ _ XI-HCvZZ DIVISION BENCH: ; SST HRIVA 'ELE MR. ‘v’. 19-12‘2005 Mrs. Kimn Jaimcounsei f0 , ’ Mr. RR 5inha, PanelLawye Oral Jud‘gmenf. By 1’his appeal mrougH 111a 5uperinféndehT, 'Cen'rrai Jail! diyn has questioned 141a Egalih’r of ‘nce damd 30414995 paged by fhe 1" gfur a? Jagdalpur_ in Sessians Trial Edmonal Sessions Judge after holding 4he accu$edfappellan?‘guiiw fJr fhe" commissian af affence under $ecfion 302 of fhe I,P.C. sen? cad him 1'0 Lind-Ergo imprisonmen‘f for H152. The éase of The prosecu ion, in.brief, is That 3—4 years before The dam of incidem" i‘e. 9-6-1 93, kmd' was pari'ifioned be'i'ween 'rhe accused/appenam an& his yourfg r broTher Mangdu. The brcfhers were naf sqfisfi‘ed qbcuffhe parfi‘rian on; Af‘mr- pnr+i+ion, fhe accusd! demanding Shara again from his ii has no‘i’ baen pari'ii'ioneé. On #1 4 i 1 Jagdaipur, - appeiimf Madvi Po judgmenf of convicfion and sen‘re Addh‘ionai Sessions Judge, Ba NBA4719’3, whereby learned As fhe appeiiant ‘r‘ for the 5Tafe/respanden1'. and Thereforet some dispu‘i'e was gaing d/nppaiian‘i- soici his shnrz and shrfed wo‘rher under- The preiexf Thaw Th€ iand ha da‘i‘e of inciden‘r 9-6-1993 &eceaseci .‘ [@W N K. m; XI-Hc-zz ‘ The prosecm'ion in order 1 ¢ preve ii‘ie charge againsf fha accugec'i: fafemem' of fine accused was recorded RC. in which he denied‘fhe ma‘i'eriui Lied 'i'haf he is innoceni' and féiseiy ,. 3‘ y examina‘d in aiHi wi‘fnesses, @der-Eacjjen 313 of The Cr appearing againsi' him and s11 impiicm'ad in The crime. ‘ We hcva heard ‘sarngdxcoi Learnw coun$ei for The fac? cf’ homicida! namre'o'f The from fhe po’s+=mor1'em report Mourya {PW—9) m which he hc mér‘i’éfn an 11-é-E003 and fhgre fhe .in'igs‘i'ina was caming cu? even TheV : (:‘rhg s'i'omach, fram ,‘rha‘i wound infesfine Was injured a? Two p :acestihe iiijuries ware anie—mortem in .mfure ané ‘i'he dea‘ih ims hommidai in naiure. She aied dué ‘i'G shock an accoun'i' ofin‘jur‘y Ncii.’ rMéévi Mqdvi Dhur'va (PW-8) {We 1he have shied fha'i' fhe a§cusei Therefore, in View of ’rinis ocuiar evidence and ihe medicni evidenca, it is i eshbiished Thai frhe aeaiia of Whdiii Aay‘i'e ‘was hamicidcl if! rm‘i‘uré. ' Now, coming ‘i'o “rim invqivémen'f of The accused in 'rhe crime in quesTion, same has n0? been msgi for i-ha paH-iea. aegiiséd/appaiiam‘ ha§ no? dispui'ad The ieath 9f Madvi Aay're. Agcri from Thai, ' Ex.P-7 and fha evidence of Dr. KR. is smigd ihcd he canduc'ied fhe posi— was a wwnd 9f fhe siza (if 3 x 5 5mg. m1 eaive (PW—6), Madvi Mangau (PW-77); & eyewitnesses i0 iha incideni' and iiiay ati-ack2& wi‘i‘h +i12 axe an Ma&vi Aayie, dispuiedv by learned gounsei for the ‘appeiian-r. PW—é Madvi éaive halis sin-red +i1a+ +he accuse& is his son: on i i i i [@W XI—HC—22 fhe fa‘fafu; night fhe gccuse& ai‘tacked wH'Fi ‘fhe axe on Madvi Aayfe and ran away. ’ ef The deceasedrnnd PW—S ivmdmd G’qurva Eva fmuw Aayfe. he h‘ lodged He repom‘ of THe irwdders‘.’ PW—4 hhhadev rms smfgd Tim 9mchaya+ was convenzd nffgr fhe incid’en? ma m The Panchqyaf ‘i‘he accused mane ex‘rm Judmlm ccnfessian ma? he a'rTacked Mad i Aay‘re wi‘rh The axa. PW-5 aomdc in 9am 2 of his endgame has si'a'i'e ' fhai' bafore Panchayat he accused' ' riudc exma Judic"i confesswn re ardmg u‘Hackmg Madw Axiy‘a Wi‘i1 *ka gxg Thgrzfrxz m waw cf mg a. idgnca qf fhé zygw‘mgsses 'Hwg extra Jumcml com-essmn made by Tina accuseu and based an ma madmai aawdenue, 11* smnds preved fhm‘ ‘r e acvusea aTTacked Madv. AayTe MTh fha axe. Léarned coumel far The eilah‘? argued fha? smca There was a dwpu'i'e bemean fha ncuua d and his Drgfher ManrdL regarding parfifion of land; on i-he fakful y Mangau assaui‘rea 1412 accusea wri'h *5 .é woeden bamboo, and whan f accused was a‘n‘acking wifh ‘rhe axe en Mangdu; Ma&vi Aay+e came in' fween and fhe axe Sa'mied cn her sfomac'n arid shé received *i' Tnerafore, fhe insider}? happened a}! of a sudden, as suc ‘rhe offente dees ne‘r Tmvei beynnd " Szci'ion 304 par'f-EC o1: 1'he IRC. [11%W Before fha‘i', ‘ihé acCLIS‘éa‘ quarreliéé wii’h Mangdu regarding maney. The: abave avidancz. 0f Mndvi §afva has bazn aorrobcm‘md by Mangd'u husba‘ e mums. I p a h h XI—HC-22 Wm ’n The wer Paand, Mr. aJpuf: iana Panel yer er fhe Sé‘fe/r'esponden‘i' suppori’ The udgmen‘r of The trl ou' and argued Thu 'this is n’of u case of sudden gh i orr to uprecia‘i'e ine anmen‘ advaed b iearne counse fr e rTie, we have pere 'rhe evidence of eyewi‘messes )namelyi W— Madvi al o i fofhe of fhe eccuse She hae sm‘re hed- ere wa a ip efween ‘fhe fwo rofhers e. The accus and Mengdu, huband fhe decas, aou fhe arTiTion of money. The ased came wifh ax and asauh'e Madvi ay' wi+h The axe on her- ‘mmac and T eaerl e ra awa‘ n The coss- exmina‘i‘icn, she has frTher s d ThaT when Te ecee was going ’ To 'feTch waTer', m" ThaT Time, accu assauh‘ her. PW-7 ndvi I‘Aangdu, husband of Te eceas , as aTed in para 3 o his evience TheT s he 'poughe The fiied of accuse,‘o acc‘ounT haT There as V a dispuTea on acunT of ThaT a osiTy, he ccusd assauiTed hi wife wh, The xe In T crass-ea aT, h has sTaTed ThaT i i corect To sa Tha his maT was si in The couri'i'yarci, her we wen To f w a h ced a a h Th I evidece of PW-8 Mad hur-va. n Vi D Learned ounsei for The elianT hiie rawing he aTTenon o The €ur wds para 2 o evidenc o Poami Mangiu (P-m) argued ThaT angdu firs‘i' ,a cked' Te ccused Theraf‘i'er Th . [haw d T Th s dsm b b L ed s o eed bf p ccu n e sa Are sh h rfT h n y I r a u T e h dead Th sed ed M / h de h sT f d a id e dn T w co n m T ae s iT a. he xm nion e T s r y T her TT n9 if T eTch aTer nd Te acus cked her wiTh Te axe. Same is e ' mmmm‘a‘ r §_ ’%wf<anm £®2§ g WW€W a—?mé O h Q ard Law f f ed j ia Crr ? fit n de p f gufs nc y d l o Th pas usd P6 Gve wh : he/mr d. c a b w d T Ti f aT Toar f T e e f y W ’ M T a h a, e, e XI-HC-78 M G>‘ mWai anéwm (W) mam 311w (_£ y accused affacked wii‘i"! +he axe. The abeve eviéenca of fhis wifness mane“? bé accep‘i‘ed, because. i'ne mofher of ‘The amused, fhe husband of fhe dacea5ed & PW-.7 Madv Mangdu wara praseni' an fha sgane of cccurrencz and nofhing has ‘come in fhe cross-examinafion o1: fhese wimesses fha‘r Mdngdu had assauh'w The amused and #hereaffer, The acwsgd assauH‘ed Ag‘xadvi Aay‘ra; In fhe examina-rign-in-chiefg also fhis wiimess has sfq'fed Thai: fh£ «caused came wifh fhe axe frem his hcuse I and assauikd Mcdvi Aay're. Therefar'e, in View of The above evidence, ‘Hqere is noi'hinq on record, which shaws fhm‘ Sam quarrei “rask piace a? $2 féme sf inci&en‘r b¢?wzen fhz bra’mgrg and in fhq'? pragaw, 141: accused ail of a wddgn ‘ bicked up The axe and assau fed fhe deceased wi‘fh The axe. In “the aircumstances‘,aygle do nof fin any subs‘rance ,in The argumenf cf Iear'ned counsei 'fcr' fhé appeiian‘i'. T infen‘rion of +he accused can be gafhered from fhe manner; in which \ accuéed assauh'ed The decedsed, ‘i'he weapon 0f offence wi‘fh wh +ha crime was commi‘H‘ed and ‘rhe vi‘mi par“? of fhe organs a? fhe mmm aananaam mm§%w a» ' $W3né21 i dy en whith ‘i'he accused nssauifed The deceased wiTh The axe while assauh'ing Madvi AayYe, 1'haT #he accused wan‘red' To cammH' her murder. Therefore The finding 1‘ i'he iriai Cour? convic‘i‘ing rhe accuaed/ aggpelianiunder‘ 5ecTian 302 f 'ihe ERG. is based an iegai evidence and same does no? require any im" rference by fhis C‘ourt .29“: i h e o In ‘Hne result fhe appeal is devoid of merit same is liable 1'0 be -dismi3$ed, and 51' is hereby dismisseci. Sdl- ‘ 3, L.C.BHADOO _ ‘ Sd/— Vijay Kumar Shrivastava ‘ " Judge , Judge Fr a; TY Soma