XH-189 (Jail.) C J.P.R-<9-94 CF0000061530 ^SKS-f h3SI---~?: O.^ <2. Z ^& :!^9a No ^ _ O ^l y/'ffd^ <s^7 n'^'c Fafher's name _ _ _ ____ l'^r^l^(yY(y o<s^-7^-y/ Residence srr^._ c'A-vn-/^- -ftTi-s—A- _Age_ ^//'-f(f y/^ ^y^ ^u- 0 ^^ t. -. . t .. SenteBcedt8A<B ^f^S^' C^K/^^J on 9Z/_ ^.^?- ,L^^^a 7^1^/^M~ ^V^Sre) , . -^L.CL.^^'—^ Under Sect-ron •^^-^^^-^^/ by_^^i^-§7'5^-^S_^^o '^^'s^Tp^ /^(y^4^yy/ ^t7^/cy^t^7^(y/^ — -.-^ —•• -y -.^^. i,^^^ Jt is explained to th.e prlsoner tjhat if.I% states h&.wislies to be represented by a legal practitioner the appellate Court will not proceed with the case for sevendays unless the |(?gal practitioner appears earlier. Ifthelegal practitioner doesnot appear withinseven iiays he may not heard at all if the Prisoner staies'Ahat he does not wish to ,be re.pre- sected by legal practitioner the couit may prcceed at once with the case arid will not pbliged to give.a heariDg to my legal practitioner wUo should appear: Date ofApplication for eopy -ofjudgement __•" •'1 : ' '•' :' ' n 2' Date on which cttpy received 3 , Date on which Appeal sept,_2.'^' '-• 10 ' <9'9 4 Whether the prispner wishes.to b? represented or no.t. No '^S7^y/5>^)4^"a— -y^y?<y^. Name_^ m- Confin'ed in Sfy'^y<y/y^o _^L^ Jail " ^A • ' ' ^ •^ /<£'Q^%^ < ST^&^ (y?^ Forwarded to tbe. D^ed -__^_^_^ 199 •7Z-' ne- /-<-"_.' ..,. y . ,,-.,. -,.- . . . . '_/i i^ff^T^/^ ^f^^y^r ^^^^V/^ifJ^^^^^ B^gether with a copy ofjudgeme.nt o.r or,(}er passed in the case forfavour oftranEmi- . ^sion to the proper Appellate court. ' Date of receipt in\__ Offfce -\ . - .' . . ' • . • —•••-•. Date ofreceipt ofrecord tp agcompanythe, Memo;_o£Appeal to tlie^ppellate court No Dated 199 Foivvarded to the Bate of teceipt in AFR6llate court ^.^.-.. ^•f^^^/if^-.'vf't T.0. a^. • lij.i XI-HC-22 ?ST -s|14!<"l'LI, dTll'Mil(D, faiini'yy nffR'irgawqi _<5x:.!e<.^3^^.Al a^T^l 1@y73ii§?r ^^i^ yf?^. aiiS^i'??aiwgf?a ^1<4^T^IT1 TTFMf ^ 'fe^t <P;R?l< i? 3iPaH 3ii&?r DIVISION BENCH: HON'I & HON'I NLE SHRI L.C.BHADOO |3LE SHRI DHtRENDRA MISHI^A, JJ Appellant CRIMINAL APfEALNO. 2346/1997 Anand Das Respondent \1?S. S|tate of Madhya Pradesh Shri Abhay Tiwari, learned|counsel for the appellant. Shri U.N.S.Deo, learned Afldl. Public Prosecutor and Shri Alok Bakshi, learned G.A. for the respjandent/State. ORAL J L.C. Bhadoo. J (1&.()1.2006) By this appeal under Sectj namely Anand Das has quesljioned conviction and order of senteni Additional Sessions Judge, Bil^i No. 42/95 whereby learned Adc|itional accused/appellant guiltyfor co^nmission convicted him under Section undergo imprisonment for life. Case of the prosecution in brief is that Rohit, son of the accusbd station Lalpur/An 18.04.9416 the UDGMENT |on 374(2) of the Cr.P.C: the accused the legality of judgment of ;e dated 21.10.97 passed by Fourth |spur link Mungeli in Sessions Trial Session Judge after hotding of murder of Kadam Bai 002 of the IPC and sentenced to jiecessary for disposal of this appeal todged a report Ex.P.4 in police leffect that on that day at about 12.45 f^^g^ Tj7- ^i.i-n'i--. ^sf ?qiqi^ra,riTi1yJiii;(«lclWi< 311^1'^iT te>-?snt?i ^iTWHTEn ^^a&^ .CO^A.^.S^.A.^.G snt^i'^giwdfta recejvj(ig p.m. he left his house for came running to him and inf| attacked their mother with his house and saw that his Thereafter he went to the lodged the report. On of Police Station Lalpur regis^ of the IPC, proceeded to panchnama of the body Ex.j panchas. The body of examinatipn to Primary Hea] Agrawal P.W.16 conducted post mortem report Ex.P.7. site pian from Patwari Halka investigation charge shpet Magistrate First Class, Mung< Section 302 of the IR; Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, Judge received the case on whb The prosecution in order to examined as many as 20 Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. we|s prosecution svidence and st^ted in the crime. He further sW epilepsy aridon accountof ^ / <*i')td4i-<v^ •? fezt <r«itdi< ^ STpgq 3I1^?[ tal<|ing examination, his sister Nirmata Bai inflsrmed that their father Anand Das has bri|cks. On hearing this he rushed towards (nother was lying dead on the ground. Kit>twar' namely Jhagar..Das and then he this report the Station House Officer (ered Crime No. 40/94under3ection 302 the place of occurrence, prepared .P.1 after giving notice Ex.P.IA to the Ka<?am Bai was sent for post mortem i]lth Centre, Mungeli where Dr. Sanjay mortecn examination and prepared Investigating Officer got prepared the >. 23 vide Ex.P.7A. After completion of was filed in the Court of Judicial ili for the commission of offence under in turn committed the case to the where Fourth Additional Sessions triansferfortriat. pjost Ttte- Itlo. filom e^tablish the charge againstthe accused wlitnesses. Statement of accused under also recorded in which hedenied the that he has been falsely implicated ^ted that his wife was suffering from |the epileptic fits she fell down on the [tft^-^fe^ S^WqiJ S: i7 2115?! SPWT' ~'^a 71 ~T"[ ''-fi'-iW-!, 'S^iWTs, ^cil^y __.&na....'3::&t<6/.<».9.., — "^ .aii^T^giw^fe ground where bricks were lyin^ as a result of which she received injuries on her head and died. Learned Additional Sessions Ji|idge learned Public Prosecutor andl convicted and sentenced the paragraph 1 of this judgment. after hearing the argument of counsei for the accused/appellant ^ccused/appellant as mentioned in We have heard Shri Abhay Tiwa| U.N.S.Deo, learned Addt. Publicj learned G.A. for the State. Learned counsel for the app^llant/accused homicidal nature of death. Aparl Sanjay Agrawal, P.W.16 wh|o examjnation on the body of K^dam witness P.W. 3, Ku. Nirmala ?ai established that the death of Kadam Now so far as involvement of murder of Kadam Bai is concerrted, of accused and the deceased hbs 1.00 p.m. her mother was slee^ing ground and his father was sleeFfing her mothsrto a wooden coluntn started assaulting her with bricl^s attacked her ten to twelve time^. •fes / T^q^ff.'^ ^i^! <[^i-(^.i<. ^7 siPtm sn^; i, .counset for the appellant and Shri a Prosecutor and Shri Alok Bakshi, did not dispute the from that, from the evidence of Dr. conducted the post mortem Bai and the evidence of eye Who witnessed the crime it is Bai was homicidal in nature. ccused/appellant in committing the 1,P.W.3 Ku. Nirmala, the daughter categoricaily stated that at about with her younger sister on the on the cot, his father after tying with the help of a piece of sari on her h.ead, mouth and nose. He .She started raising cries. She has [Tfl^1f^ "s^ -4i<<i"ici, s^ra'ito, ici^ii-ay CTir •M Si-"?r^I 1 -., ^-j r'lWRT^I ^ C^A2r^.k.^~).. , an^i'^giWHf?? furtherstated that she hersel) father had attacked her mothel of the injuries. She immediatepy gone to take the examination. Rohit has corroborated the day at about 1.00 p.m. he left| and by the time he reached crying and said that their faf hearing this, Rohit Kumar reti^i the Kotwar Jhagar Das andthe| witnessed the incident in which her KadamBai. Blood started oozing out rushed to call her brother who had l-1er mother died spontaneousty. P.W.9 fact and stated that on the fateful his house for taking the examination a well of thg village, his sister came ther had murdered their mother. On Irned back to the house and informed reafter lodged the report Ex.P.4. ablove ne&r Jhagar Das who has been ex^i above facts and stated that afler to the house of Anand Das an< On enquiry Anand-Das inform| the murder of his wife by atta|i and blood was oozing out ofth|i lying near the body. Thereforej Rohit Kumar and Jhagar Das the author of murder of Kadi confession before P.W.4 Jhag^r Learned counsel for. the prosecution has not been abli and intention of the accused/a He further submits' that on ^iFfeN •RTR?ff •? fest ^fWSR ^T aifitpT an^T Imined as P.W.4 has corroborated the |er hearing from Rohit Kumar he went saw that Kadam Bai was lying dead. ^d the Kotwar that he had committed jsking with bricks. Teeth were broken |e injuries. He saw that brick bats were from the evidence of Ku.Nirmala Bai, t is established that the accused was jm Bai. Accused made extra judicial Das, P.W.6 Banshi Lal and P.W.10 ^ccused/appellant argued that the to estabtish the motive of the crime f^pellant to commit murder of his wife. ^ccount of sudden quarrel accused [^ ^n^ . -..-.-i..--.-^, •S^SHV^I, 'S^SWTS, TEraTfff; -<» 2:-r^'-gr'^!' '^.^RST :^RN"^f^T ?'^;^^2^t-- ^1) _CM:?..2:^y..t-./.^.. a.n^l s^nwaftd attacked his wife and therefo) does not travel beyond Section| re the offence against the appsllant 304PartllofthelPC. Shri U.N.S.Deo, learned Additi(?nal Bakshi, learned Govt. Advocal of the trial Court. In order tci appreciate the argi|imsnts advanced by learned counsel for the accused/appellant we tjave perused the evidence on record. P.W.3 Ku. Nirmala is the daugl|iter of the deceased and the accused and in her evidence nothing shows that deceased in any w^y enraged the accused. The intention of the accused can be gath4rsd from the manner in wTiich the offence was committed, part of accused on the vital part of th^ inside, two teeth were broken. as well as right mandible. ^ therfefore nature of the injuries| indicates the intention with ^ serious injuries on the head o( due to the injuries caused to th "-4? +!<<i<-i-lil-l •WRJf'? fest <r<l^!< ^i'ariitm 3n^?r Public Proseeutor and Shri Alok e supported the impugned judgment has been brought on record which the b'ody where injuries were inflicted and nature of the weapon useSft. Perusal ofthe post mortem report Ex.P.7 shows that as many a^ eight injuries were caused ,by the body ofthe deceased Kadam Bai i.e. on head. He attacked the decelased with bricks as a result of which fracture was caused in the nas|al bone of the nose which depressed 'here was fracture on the frontal bone Iven the eye balt was coming out; |mentioned in the post mortem report ^hich the accused brutally inflicted Kadam Bai as a result of which she died spontaneously. The doct|or who cohducted the post mortem examination has opined that cjause of death was Nurogenic shock ^ vital organ i.e. brain. [Tft^ ^Hsi^ ;_-^C-22 3 •3CTRTO, "s'aRFTS, raCTW^ -<, ST^T^T fi?it:g3il^i iRri^'Hfer ^.Q.l^.f.:.^ 311^1'?^IIWHT??i 1|2{ In view ofabove, we are ofthe] arguments advanced by the find any illegality and conviction and sentence passep appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. 'S37-- L.G.Bhs.doo Judge tHe chT<4^4^ TFT?RTf^ 'fe1^ ^ 37f;<pT sn^r opinion that there is no merif in the co^insel for the appellantand we do not infirnlity in the impugned judgment of by.the trial Court. In the result the same is liabte to be dismissed.It is Sd/- Dhirendra M SWSS^y^ \. ^ y.^ 'K v '- - / t^ y<a<\