9/(Jai1y , R,fl‘1/94/2,000 . \f: L, $6.09. Name r§75r§ ther’s Iiame mgffrgant i‘Residence§igzg§.T,WT-FFHEV, WED. Age‘ 5i ai? ‘ .... ...,...‘........;'.. .....’........,¢. ..... ‘ isénteneedm 1 ' EWI‘HJ; aina°r2§ig§.6u£.r..a%..§a....... 200 UT I‘ mg Frag on‘....1..Lz4.a¢./.9.;6...7__:..~.‘.‘L._ ‘ I . ‘ r f£ J ‘f ‘Undsr‘seCtiown Z.3.@2X3.‘i,?.?ngao£§0......... by 11V.aa’fa awn; .aaanaifwRWWEEF RJF‘O , I ‘ “days the ractitioner legal he It may is practitioher,appearslf explainéd the not heaf’d‘fafall’l Aippellate to the Court prisoner lf the will the.legalxpractiti‘onerr‘doesinot thg€ii£7hqsjgtés prisoner not proceed states with that or wishes the he does base to be‘represented not for gppearr'withiri wish seven to Vdays be by unless repre- segen legal u - , ' ; ..' ,1 I sented_ by legal‘<prafctitioner,ithecourt may proceed at once with the case and will not be 7 f; _ obliged t9 g\irve‘a hearing to any legal practitioner who should appear . ' 4 l Date of r Appliction H L forcep)? of Judgement 7 H r / , ' ’ \ H1 x \7 a 1 " 2 ’ Date on‘whifoh'copyreceived ’ 3 t ' Date onvt'hich Appeal sent lg...[.l.l.Z96:,_;;......r ‘ll 4 ' , Whether the prisoner wishes to be represented or not — Yes /,i No/ m. ’No,... l »y\ ; ;;Confined' ill g.. as," ' i o? togatherl which/‘rg‘éobi: of judgetnent Or ,> \/ x gg ; 2 1‘609 Name §ast7ianfmgmgwr§W/ 4"...§.-a-.... Jail FWE?,§QggG.§. ‘ /c .’....Zf§(FaX9.6aoDated..,.2l53../.l.l.{. .. i99¥>.... . t vorw‘évrdéd ‘ to the Qwgngtgtatzmgt’srwe V 7’ ”>4“ yeraeewe T} . N 1" mwTxTét-an, wegmw, t _-mission to‘tihe‘propjer Appellat€Court. L order \ pasSed i in ' the ' ' v asef I \ fofrfa‘ a " I: mmfw gmwig’mitasg/q 53ft rt i / ‘ ammo fanta yttrfv’iftr t 3.. , ,V\ (pate of receipt mono”... gofrrce w. ~ Date of receipterecord" to’ accompany the Memo oflAppeal tolhe Appellateconrt N9 ‘- > ‘ _: r ; --....';:.”adatedz’g...:...2.:.‘.:.1:99:.‘.: I a .7 * *N " r , r 7- _ v 17: ' ...\... nu"... .-..., .u. ...r... .-. .. ......... .. 7’3} Forwarded to the ....-......... -..~... . xv atejof receipt tn Agapena‘te; Court}....x 8 . m/ é .. x “ p > ‘ .‘ ' ' V ‘ D XI-HC-22 mmmw DiVESiaN SENgH: HDN’SLE ‘ & HONIBL SHRI LilEk-‘mDOO E RI DH§REN§R& MiSHRAa éé $H $RIMINAL APPEFAL NQ. 224$ a? ’19§$ aiuram Verma ,Qpmklam ‘Duk Réspondeng Sgat Smt.‘ Kiran Jain‘ learned cou‘nsé Shri Akha Mishra with $h’ri M. for tha reapondéntiSiate. Q R i3. L J t {14.m L£.Bhac§ae, .J . The appeuant has‘ preferred thi Criminal Procedure Cade questioning judgment of canviction and arder of 3n Judge, Raipur in S.T. No. 35335 §§earned Third Additionai Sessions " conviciing the accusediappeuam for i Seciiuns 324 and 302 of the indian ‘ undergo Rigormm imprisonment for s fme cf R3. 200%, in defauir of paymen month respectiveiy. 13's. e’oz" Maohva Wadah‘ a! forthe appeilant. 1.3. Bhaiia, learned Pane! Lawyers rD G M E N’T 3.2098} s appoa! under $ection 4(2} ofthe tho iogalit'y ano correctness of the menco dated 11.10.199§ passed by commission of the offence unoor Fenal Code and $entencing him to x months dnd iife imprisonment With of fne to further undergo Rt for one '2‘ Case of the prosecution iri \i’erma Sarpanch of Viiiage Bhaismu brief s that PW t3 Mohir Kumar a gave merg intimation P44 to the ween—so 3? 3 XI-HC-22 'XI—HC»22 3.? The prosecuiian in order to exammed te'n ac¢usediappeliant wasraiso reccrded wh;ich he denied the, prasecution ‘evy piéaded §gnorance and stated that he eis‘o‘eiamined one witness nameiy Paigvan Kumar Yaday in his defence. witnesses. Statement the gnder Section 313 of the CrRC. in dense appearing against him anti is innacent. The accused/appeiiant 4. teamed Addttionai Session Ju jge atter hearing the arguments e‘ii the Addtiona! Pubhc Prosewtor and conmted and sentenced the accuseg; this judgment. Kn'an ‘ accusediappeliant and Shri Akhii Misi 5. We have heard Smt. hra with Shri M.P._S.Bhatia, Panet Lawyers for the State and perused the rmpngned judgment and evidence emanable on recnrd. 5. : Homicida? death of Shrn‘am Ven ?. As far as the involvement of tr the murder 0f Shriram Verma is concr stated 'tnat an the fatetui day at about trent of his shop accused came \M‘th estabtishlthe chargejagatnst the ‘ot‘ a aceusediappettant ccuneel for the accused/appettant, as mentionezt in paragraph one of Jain‘ learned counset fer the ha is net in dispute. e accuseJ/appetiant in committing lined PW 1 Bhagwan Smgh has 7 GO a m when he was Sitting m axe and started abusing. When t and in the meantime Lakhan Verma c me thereand he intervened. Biood [new i Bhagwan Singh enquired tram the ac sediappeiiant as to whem he was abusing, he said that he was abusing him and'attacked him on his nectt i XI~HC-22 mm e,wA.;..QLw.-m%tl LZLg’é’ tha repart. After half an hour Sarp nch and V§pin Bihari came to the police statign and infcrmed him that acc sed has committed murder of Shrtram.. 'P.W.-4 Kejuram has stated that o the fateful day'he along with Mehtt and } Mahesh were standing near the shop'of Shriram; Mahharan was atsa gt : sitting in the shep and accused Dukaiu came with knife and attacked g’ V ‘Shriram with it as a‘ result ofwhich Shriram felt down. P.W.u6 Mehit Kumar Verma who is an injured witnese nd Sarpanch of the vitiage has stated that in the morning at 24.67.95 t abeut 71m and. accused Came and attacked Bhagwan Singh with the xe as a resuit of which Bhagwan Sin'gh received injuries on his neck. The eafter he went to the shop at Bhagwan Singh where he met Manharam on of Bhagwari Singh and Shriram a younger'hrether of Bhagxivan Sin h. Hewever in the meantime accused camethere with Iathi and knife an said that he wduid eemmit their murder and accused Dukaiu attacked 'S riram with, iathi. Shrirarn tried to save himeeif frem the biow of lathi with his hand and seeing this the accused attacked him on hie neck with the knife which he was heiding in the other hand and the knife pierced in his'neck, aa a result oi which Shriram feii r do'nm, blood started oozing out of he injuries and he died spontaneouely. He lodged the reportP-d. Panchitiama of the body of Shrira’m P-‘5 Was’ a ‘iorepared. Acoueed‘gave memotandum and based on that he got recovered the weapone of offence nife' and lathi. iii the cross examination we o‘fthese Witnesses P‘.W.-4 Kejiiram and P.W.-é Mohit Kumarthe defence counsel has not been able to eli it any circumstance which makes the evidence of these witnesses untgustworthy or unreliable Moreover. the evidence of the eye witnesses éstands corroborated by the medical evidence given by Dr.D.C. Jain P.V§i.’—5 who conducted the postmortem on l {doéfaa ,Awegk, ’;r~\ :A..-nvi r mm L 1 >mm§1 $35 Wm§§wm r $amsn€§w wHr 1 started oozing mi: of the injury. H went to the/pvime statisn and ladged W QL: 2%Hg (Cm anéyjimm $ V mwgwm mmam‘, ' -S# the bady 0f Shriram and stated til at there was inci5ed wound an the right side on his neck in sive of Vzx 34‘ V ” anci as a reauit ofthis injLiryjuguiar vein was faund cut and on accciunt of that there was bieecimg and the injury was sufficiant in the ardmai'y course of natuia to causa death and the aame was homicidal in natur? Therefore m View of the abeve oruiai ewdence o; IniLred Witness MGM Kumar and meoiicai exricience ii ie establiehed that the accused w ‘3 the author of the mutder at Shrttam Verma and to this extentvwe do not ‘t‘snd any iiiegatity or infirmity in the jugigment of the trial Court. 8. As far as the offence uncte Section 324 of‘the IPC is concerned as _ mentioned above Bhagwan Singh himsetfhas stateE that in the morning at about 00 a m accused came resuit of which he sustained inju h axe and attacked on his neck ae a n his neck. P.W.-8 Dr. S.H.Jaiswal has stated that'he examined the inj ries sustained by Bhagwan Singh and found that therewas an abrasion n the neck of Bhagwan Singh, therefore in View of the evidence of Bhag Ivan Singh, and this witness Dr. Jaiewai’ that the accused assaulted with a sharp edged weapon onthe neck of Bhagwan Singh, we are of the ‘c nsidered opinion that the accused has n‘ghtiy been convicted under Section 324 of the IPC for cadetng votu ntariiy aimpie injury with a sharp edged apon on the neck of Bhagwan Singh. 9. '_ However, iearned‘counse for the accosedlgppeiiant argued that there is nothing on record whic shows that the accused assaulted tte i deceased with agn intention to cause death as there was a dispute between the parties regardingvth tand but we do not find any substance tn the'argument advanced by te med counsei for the accusediapp’eiiant for the reason that in the early orning accused “hrst attacked Bhagwan ~ {new ;r~\ ’t o i XI—HC—22 3a mama, W W 321w W Jamaiu2%k gm “Sfmram was present at the shop was mane eise bui younger brother of Bhagwan Singh when the accu not f‘nd Bhagwan Smgh there h *deadiy waapon i e krme as a re 1 ? i i y § W ‘ " 1O ' mpugned judgment m the tnal ourt and the appeai deserves +e be ed / x ,LM‘K r ed came prepared 5ecand time anci dad sduited Shnram en me neck wih a it ofwhich juguaar vem was cut and he was bieedmg profusely, as a r suit of whim he died epcntaneoueiy Therefore the mtenhon ofthe ace gee! to cauee death was wrh !arge in View efthe abeve we din not fnci any megahty or mfrrmty m the demissedsh Is accordmgiy drsmls Sdl— L.C. Bhadoo Judge * < Sd/- V DmENDRA MISHRA" Judge iw' éfe'e “ may man mm Wimw ' mmmeea mmmeeem - earRfqm -(5 - i I Singh with axe on his neck am when he was saved one aecount 0f intervention by Lakhan,.the accused did net etop and again went to his house and came prepared with tethi after tying the knife with the hetp of i 'string to commit the murder of Bhagwan Singh. Fortunately Bhagwan g Singh was not present there ét t}rat time as he had atready gone to the i potrce statton to todge the report fthe earirer moment and unfortunate!”