‘ “i: V “XII-1 89 / (Jail) c. J. RR. 11/94/2,ooo 1? ‘ ‘ umnmlullnm’ululynm V \ 1 r ‘ CF0000061 20 V APPEALOF PRnsQNE‘ R _ I I Father’s namg 6‘. :5?p\.% ‘faai go$g§1ah .‘.. MH‘Q‘EM‘C‘E:5%SQ‘ Resid§nce.§Z%.\.G_‘.‘.,.{.\..):.‘.._j.‘\.‘..bi..5.%§.¢‘u(....r. Age'....ig..7~“q&§‘...:.r;. .. m ‘ v Sentenced t9 «xixg‘at‘tsbxgm‘ ,éwg’b‘_§mg)n3.x‘\h\ 53g. . Undgr section \f:§g~ ?;G:$>§‘§’Rf by gyamy‘ >‘z Seugh {Criminai}, “Jan Name Qiwke‘uu m-m-oi{2\'%xif'z‘%c&mxr%cw (~—' o p { ,v I E It is explained to the prisoner that if he practitioner the Appellate C tkgg/legal practitioner appear d2%}e he may not heard at all sented by legal practitioner th obliged to give ahearing to a ourt will not proceed states with or wishes the base to be for represented seven days .by unless legal s , If the legal practitioner does not appear within seven lfthe prisoner states that he does not Wish to be repre- e court may proceed at once with the case and vvill not be ny legal practitioner who should appear . ' ‘ tDate‘of Application for copy of Judgement l 2 o 3 4 Date on which copy received Date on which Appeal sent .. .. \a‘\9§‘ Whether the prisoner . Wishes . to be represented or not — Yes l/ / No ogeuw\t,\% Name. \ K NoS‘l2lL’ma‘ Confined I in gfbkgik‘ Jail V &\3{:;{Q‘7S-) cg.b.93‘..w.é£..,,y.‘.‘wa..q.&..t .o y‘ - yforwardeq to theWagw .a°s%ia$:am:. .‘Algather J. which \ acopy of t judgement or order passed in the case n. «.3\¢¥\Q.\3 for favour of trans— pmamarg i, rnission to the properAAppellate Court. QM n o‘rr <\‘>l‘ 95M 31m {2% m i? a 13 Ql 9 \J‘ Date of receipt in... office e. Date of receiptrecord to accompany the Memo ofAppeal to the Appellate courtow-mm gW hoi Forwarded I?) th‘e . v H _ V . 3 Date of receipt in Appellate Court W 1 N I g ~ XI—HC-78 EWWW o WW In 200 Wm (W) Wwm WWW mm&mm i WEI%H311%¥I éawm Vhr, DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. l_.,_C. BHADOO & HdN'BLE MR.DHIRENDRA MISHRAbgE 19! 12.2006 l 1 Shri Abhay Tiwari, Advocafa for fhe appeHaM Shri Akhil Mishra, P.L. for- 11he Sfa‘l'e. since 6.6.1994. V ‘I.A. No.1628/06 for early hearing of fhe mcrfer is aliowed, as The accused is smfed To be in defem i—ieard. Oral judgment did-«ted on ais. Per L C Bhadoo J This appeal is direcfed aga ns'r The Judgmen‘r of conwcfion and order of senience dafed 24.11.1995 d by fhe Addmonai Sessions Judge, Khairagarh in 5.T.No.136/94, wh reby The Addifionai Sessions Judge affer- holding The accused/appeiianT gui for commission of offence under SecTions 449 d: 302 of The I.P.C. senTen iife and To pay a fine of Rs.500 i usv . him To undergo rigorous imprisonmenT for , in defouIT of ooymenf of fine TarfurTher undergo RI. for 3 monThs on boTh ounTs. The case of The prosecuT , in brief, is ThoT on 5.6.1994 aT abouT 6.00 o.m. calf of deceased Kunjbai enTe ed The house of accuseed, Therefore, Kunjbai wenT To The house of accused To b ing back her colf. ATzzéhaT Time accused was of his‘house, he said someThing To Kunjboi on which aITercaTion Took place beTween Them, in ThoT process Th accused picked up The pickaxe (Kudali) and oTTocked The deceased wiTh The h die of Thai' pickaxe (Kudali). When Kunjbai ran To her house, accused chose her and There aiso he inflicTed injuries on ,w P.T.O. p e c l - i XI—HC-78 EW,WR$,W o o.o....ooo..o‘.o.oo.. WW<W> mWW . WWW WW§WW é3aw%w311%31 J“ mmm Magis‘rrafe 15‘ Class, Kawardha, who in +urn ‘commi‘H‘ed fhe ‘cnse ‘ro iearned 5 ssions Judge, Rqjnondgaon from where The Addii‘ignal Sessiops Judge recei ed fhe case on Tran§fernfor Trial. The prosecu‘iion in order To esTablish The charge ogainsT The accused examined eighT wiTnesses. STaTemenT of acc ed was recorded under SecTion 313 of The Cr.P.C. in which he denied The ma al appearing againsT him in The prosecuTion evidence. Learned AddiTionaI Session Judge ofTer hearing iearned counsei for The respecTive parTies, convicTed nd senTenced The accused/appellant herein, as afore-menTioned. i Ker. Kunjbai was faken To fhe hospifal forefreafmen‘r. Mmfer' was repor‘red To firiie Police simian Bodla where The offence under Secfion 307 of fhe I.P.C. was regisfered, however, on receiving merg in‘rima'rion, offence was converfed info section 302 of The I.P.C. i Affer comple‘rion of usual investigafion charge sheet was fiied againsf Themccused in fhe courf of Judic i We have heard Mr. Abhay wari, AdvocaTe for accused/appeilanT and Mr. Akhii Mishra, Panel Lawyer for he STaTe. / Learned counsel for The accused/appellanT has noT dispuTed The homicidai deaTh of Kunjbai. AparT rom Thai, from The evidence of PW-8 CheTi Bai, who is daughTer of decease & wiTnessed The grime, and The medical evidence of Dr. 5R. Mandavi (PW was homicidai. As far as invoivemenT of T e accused/appellanT in crime in quesTion is concerned, CheTi Bai (PW-8) has c Tegoricaliy sTaTed ThaT on The faTefui day P.T.O. ) , iT is esTabiished ThaT The deaTh of Kunjbai \i i T i - XI—HC—78 saw,whw,1%m¥rgt m 200 3mm (W) WWW WWW § mmer‘wm wmwm %31f%1:311%$1 .“ fshe alongwifh her mofher‘ were (x11 *heir' residence, as fheir ca!f enfer'ed the jkifchen J garden of fhe accused, fherefore, some alfercm‘ion rank place bemeen her mofher :i accused, in Tha‘r process, accused picked up The pickaxe (Kudaii) hnd affacked her mofher wifh The said pickaxe (Kudali). Her mother susfained injuries on her head. She informed The Villa9e Kofwar' & Village Paiel. In ’rhe cmss-examinafion of fhis wifness, fhe defence has no? been able 'ro elicif ‘anyThing, which discrediT The evid nee of This wiTness. Moreover, The evidence of fhis wlfness has been corrob rafed by fhe medical evidence of Dr 5R Mandaw (PW—5),. who has sfa‘red ha? he conduc‘l‘ed fhe posfmor‘l'em on fhe body of deceased Kunjbai, noficed as many as 11 mJuries au'l’ of ‘l‘hai' 7 mJuries were on fhe various paris of The ead and There was a fraci‘ure of fhe' skull bone and fhaf was fhe reason f The deaTh of Kunjbai. Therefore, The involvemenT of The accused in crim in quesfion is esTablished. Learned counsel for The ccused/appellanT argued ThaT The accused aTTacked The deceased in a sudde quarrel, Therefore, There was no inTenTion of The accused To cause deaTh of unJbai On The oTher hand lear ed counsel for The STaTe supporTed The judgmenT of The Trial courT. In order To appreciaTe Th argumenT advanced by learned counsel for The appellant we have perused Th evidence of eyewiTnvgss PW—8 CheTi Bai, who has caTegorically sTaTed ThaT Th ir calf enTered The kiTchen garden of The accused, when her moTher we To Take back The calf, accused sTarTed quarrelling wiTh her moTher and i ThaT process assaulTed her moTher wiTh The handle of pickaxe (Kudali). Even T e accused chased her moTher To her house P.T.O. G XI—HC—78 EW,W,W Wm...a’i&.ogg.z6o.... W 200 Wm (13W) c+