li. xn-iw/c^aa^ "v' 3. J.T.B. 11/94/2,000 No.....^^.(%..^i.I,..»NieS. Eatlier's name ...——^. /,,..... umQH^t^iiiis tt?^^.S^^:.^.:5%'':'t'''^""^ ^^s/o'ef^^"^"--^ Y 'i^ v^"ysa o WIT. i»!5*> ReskleBce;.s,7SZe^-.Z^ Seflteneedto^®'^<%^^,M^J.9^.©n..»^ -^•'1::1^^..''<:?W^^-^^^::.^^:.:?^^'^ Unders^^^m^^^j^^^^^^^ B-' '• ^. •'. ^l.;?ls:::l :@: :;^'.::;;K;^%.'! '^ It is explained t& th& prisofier thafdf'^lie statesiior w&Bes t^ be' repl'sseitted?16g'Iegal practitKtner the Appellate CBBte^wiU'ribtproceeiS^ the legal praetitipner apgears . I^the^^egat^aetitiQner; does.^not^a^ days he may not lieartfaf^all .jIf;tBe pnsoa^. stafefctKatB^;does^n^ sented by legat practitiianeE the court. may proeee(t^t;<)flc& wrtfr tBe case and %ilF n6t^/be obligedtogive a^lieanng^tQ aTiy^egalpracrtitibne&^ l-fe:ii 1 Date ofApplicationfoi^cQpyofJudgemeBt 2 Date on which cppyreceived ..;......;„........;. ..^ ...... ^ 3 DateOtiwUrchAppealSeatS.;...—.-..—',-.-^-—.;......' 4 Whether tlie prisOner wishes t6 be represented or nofc- Yes ^Na No.© Confinedin ......—< No........ ^...^.....»<...ja)i,.a^?^^^^a^4-".—.-....-""^^^^ ih^^^^r^d^..;.,^^^^!^^..^^^ EbrwardedtotIieCHIEF.KJDICIAI-MAGtSTRA'I'E^al -•'M WWty.HRfJ.^S. ?,; S\: ^':;''^ ^i :l''^^^iiS?:r:ty^2//J^<:l('o'3B«S?^fc>^ |tBgatherwMcha[^pyofjwlgefflenfroT;prdM mission to the.piQperAppellate Cpurt. ^K^f^~~ ^^^^^QS/Sf'^ Q^zn^7^^^^ Isfl^^K. ,i^w !^^iRaww^ f-» patecrfTeceiptin'.....;..^.-,,;,.,,^%:..:.-...^..."^oi¥^ .:.! l:-t.;;!':' ^'^i.::;; 1-.'..:?;;Y .•;i^^^ Oate of receipt reeord.'tb'.accoiteisaSy We. ...4..'......* ;--'S^--/-^"4""^T^'1 "'^•'^ •^".•^^.i..^^''- Memo 9fA'F^ealto't)ie,:Appe}lste,;coiirt'.;...;'.l,.,.;.;. f'i^KSWjfS,,:'' "' otAt«M>2i»flnijit.t.»;£ *•'*;•<•• "'•f-:'. -^..&.'^<fr': ,N<,^_-;^|..€.^ ^rwa^ed:»^e^i--^l--—^i|^|iti^ . 'c-"^-';:''K:ife~;;':i.:~*^A'i.^^:.;^?^% . ;-'^A-..'' '-.'-^-^•'•;'y'^^^::-^KJ'^^K :-''^^^^;.J^:^;^;^/',;^;'^;^'?^^ iDate^]iB<^'ptaB:.i&g^llate,^f^®rt-^A..^...^ ; ..'I! : ^' .' hl; '.; '"^:;-.''^'.1:^ •-'^^' .,^;^ 'y/ ^':^""'.:-.^^...1<.^-" •^?;\.':^\. ''^;r^:-:^"\^'-c.^;^^';;.y1:^^:^\:..D^-'^nF^ :';|| ^j :^/ :^ y%s^^»^^M?®^l^:^C&^£^^;xS® !:i.4 3<~ •'^r. asgii 'sSsSS •••ssSiavla^l!SynSS 'SS^:-Si**SCiils^'SUta£»iiS'- 'l^ XI-HC-78 ^1*4^1 shKlch 3sr"4Nici'i<,»TTl<i'i6,fsidi'y^ ^^.ft.^^^^7^7 ^ 200- 3ii^riach (t^3^Er) sn^r ^r feN? ^sn'3TI^?T^HI<t) STaTW: gfN'sn^r DiyjsiotLBench: - ' Hon'ble Mr. L.C. Bhadoo and Hon'blc Mr. bhirendra Mishra. JJ 28-11-2006 Mr. Abhay Tiwari , counsel Mr. Vinod Tekam, counsel Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Additional Lawyer for the State/respQndent. fdr the appellonts in Cr.A.No.2363/1997. for|the appellant in Cr.A.No.1741/1997. Ptublic Prosecutor with Mr. Akhll Mishra, Panel Oral judgment dictated on Wfis. Per L.C. Bhadoo, J; - Cfiminal Appeal No.2363/19p7 Super'intendent, Central Jail, Raip4r Rasbai are bein9 disposed of by arising out of the same incident and| By these appeals, accused/^ questioned legalit)? and correctnes^i sentence dated 29-7-1997 passed Sessions Trial No.402/95, where( holding accused Lalji, Sukwar-a Bo commission of offence under Secti) with Section 149, 302 read with I.P.C.. sentenced eaeh of the accuiji murder of' S6heblal, Ratanbai & <til<l?d<l1-< HIHdT ff fS^ tf^ITZK ^aTf^q-sn^r filed by Laiji <S AshokKumar throigh the r ond Criminal Appeal No.1741/1997 filed by rhis common judgment, as these appeals dre the same judgment. d/lappellants Lalji, Aahok Kumor & Rasbai have of the judgment of conviction and order- of |by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jonjgir, in »y leamed Additional §essions Judge after Ashok Kumar- Oilharcn & Rasbai guilt/ for >ns 148, W2 reod with Section 149, 302 read S4ction 149 & 307 read with Section 149 of the :ui(ed to under90 impr-isonment for life for each ISantkumar ond also sentenced each of the P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3n^T^TR?rffi tW3TR?TOTW 3^'"^l't|lcl<<, ®Tflyi<s,(sfdl+fy Kl*lMl sh^lcft ^200 •3ll^<fl ^iach (licl(^'s"^'ST) STaTW^TSTI^T yejars accused to undergo R.I. for ten the I.P.C. for attemptirq to cpmmi^ accused was sentenced to under9^ under Section 148 of the I.P.C. bedause The appeal filed by Sukwar(a dismissed for non-prosecution submitted that Sukwara Bai has aft therefore, he is not interested i| Dilharan namely, Criminal Appeal prosecution .because lea'ned accused Dilharan has been releoset Similarly, Mr. Abhw Tiwaf No.2363/1997, submits That ac4used petition on 28-8-2004. Therefoiti prosecirting the appeal as faras appeal of Lalji has also been dismi^sed Case of the prosecution, irj effect that she is r'esident of regarding the a^ricultural field be +Mfd41-1 Wlrit' ff fet^ lK\W{ ^ari^iran^r :.'r ""•'.^^^ ^i s^ under Section 307 read with Secfion 149 <y§ the mur'der of Shoukildl. Further, each of the| R.I. for three years for cotnmission of offen^e| A ,';,: Bai namely, Criminal Appeal Nto.l927/19971S learned counsel for appellant Sukworo Bg •eady been released on probation on 19-7-200|g ji prosecuting this appeal. The appeal filed ^(!| ^k>.178I/1997 has also been dismissed for non-i co|jnsel for appellant Oilharan submitted that| ^ on probation on 14-3-2006. • aa •i ^i, learned counsel for the appellants m Cv^^ Lalji has also been released on merc^ff [e, Mr. Abhay Tiwa'i submitted that he is nof; ^iccused Lalji is concemed, as on 4-4-2( for non-prosecution. Now, the appeals in respe4t of accused AAok Kumar A Rosbai ar®being ||g disposed of. <-• brief, is that Kum. Purnima (PW-1) lodged the report Ex.P-1 in out post Baloda <^f Police Station: Akaltara on 11-6-1995 to the >. / Village: Thadgabehra as there was a dispute ^ • : I'ween Lalji Satnami and her father since last 4- P.T.O. :ms» ;^3,^^,;^: ^Si^ I'iSBSI .ysia ".''. ^iiii^j^ .KI-HC..78 ?5( '^li<ld<4, aTn<rf<l<o, Rtivliy^< HWW\ ShHlch ^r 200 3TI^?r4acti (licli'i,ls)<,!iT) •WS1 W t; .sm.BRTrgnw '"i ['K ??<TTSIT tifstT 3ni?r ^rafefrr WRfr'^'te^ rfSfRTc ^arRtiTsn^T (ii) incised woundon head 2 crjis. back injury No.(i) - 4 cms. x i cms. x bone deep with fraeture on pari^tal region; (iii) complete ainputation of ri^ht forearm from wrist joint 6 cms. above, all skin muscles, arteries, |veins, nerves">'& bones were completety separated; (iv) complete amputation of left leg8 cms. from ankle joint, oll skin, muscle, bone, ar-teries, veins, nerv^s completely separated; (v) left radius and ulna fracti^red from the centre with accumulated blood clot, there was a fracture A II injur-ies were ante-moi^em under injury No.(ii). in nature. TTie body of Santkumar was ^ent to Primary Health Centre, Botodd, under Ex.P-9 where &r, S.C. Mishra (PW-$) conciucted post-mor-tem and pr-epared the post-mortem report Ex.P-10. He w^s of the opinion -that the death was due to shock A haemorr-hage and same was (lomicidal in nature. He noticed the following injuries on the body of Santkumar: - incised waund on head t^mporal r-ight side 10 cms. x. 2 cms. x broin mortter head bone fractur^d; incised wound 5 cms. x bo|:k from injury No.(i) on head 5 cms. x 2 cms. .x brain heaci bone fractur^d; incised wound on left par-i^tal bone 5 cms. x 2 cms. x brain matter head (0 (ii) (iii) (iv) bone fractured; left leg completely amp^tated with bones separcrt'ed blood vessets / "^- abov? i^,ft ankle; P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3ST -^ww-i\, wv5\wi<c, fsldiy^-l. ^rqc'TTsb^llch ^ 200 3iTCT^Tf^ibfi TOTSn^Tg^T^; 3TI^?T'-iilch (Lt':<id°<^lir) B^arw: HI%(T 3n^r (v) right forearm sepa*ate|d bone muscle vessels ancj -26 After givin9 notice Exs.P-i Officer, prepcred the inquest Ei body of Ratanbai and Ex.P-28 o'l Investi90ting Officer seized th^ Under Ex.P-31, the 1.0. seized^ of accused Lalji. Clothes of Lalji Bai were seized under Ex.P-33. Qt 34. House of Latji was searcheej carpenter axe and axe stained wi^ soil were taken into possession Under Ex.P-39, one axe, one boml^oo Rampa were seized from •the plac^e iron Barchi, one bamboo stick custody, Dilharon gave memorondpm were seized under Ex.P-42. One| 43. The site plon (Ex.P-44) of| Patwari. Papers regardir^ the lar^d After completion of inve; Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wlfe^T TTTOt'ff tec^ )J^RX ^srf^nsn^r amputated 13 cms. from wrist joint with both skin was cut. aitd t, P-24 <S P-25 to the Panchos, the Invest^ating f.P-,26 of the body of Saheblal, Ex.P-27,of the body of Santkumar. Under &.P-30, the clothes of Sdieblal, Rotanbai & Santkumor. iron carpenter axe and one axe from the house Iwere sei2ed under Ex.P-32. Clothes of Sukwara tothes of Ashok Kumar- were seized under Ex.P- and search memo Ex.P-35 was prepafed. One Ih blood were seized. Plain soil and blood stained From the place where thr-ee bodies were lying. stick, one boit of Kulhodi, one Kulhadi and one |e of occurrence. Under &<.P-40, one Lathi, one one bomboo 6endo were seized, &uei Ex.P-41 ond in pursuance of thot,his Kori, weapon of offence, was seized under Ex.P- •the place of occurrence was prepared-ty/ the were alsoseized. inve^ti9ation; chor9e dieet was filed in the Court of "anj9ir, who in turn, committed the case to the Sessions Jud9e/Bilaspur, from w(i&re tearned Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, r-eceived th''e ^ase on transfer forf trial. P.T.O. i^ ^3 XI-HC-78 3:5T -^WMf, W-S\WIS, [^fiWy. HiH^'n ai^iich ^ 200 OT^TT Tg^i' ( 4CI?-j°f^ff) sii^Tipr gsfTsn^gwR; :'ste"iS8.i. gT<TTW;Hf?cT3TT^T The prosecution in order to examined 14 witnesses. Statement; Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Accused appearing against him in the he has been falsely implicated on incriminating material appear'ing stated that she is innocent, she animositv. establish charge agoinst the accused persons of the accused persons were recorded under [^shok Kumardenied the incrimjnating material prosec^ition evidence and stated that he is innocent, (iccountof animosity. Rasbai also denied the a|gainst her in the prosecution evidence and has been falsely implicated on account of After hearing counsel for r^ Judge convicted ond sentenced eac^ We have heard Mr. Abhay /^shok Kumar; Mr. Vinod Tekam, Mr. Akhil Mishra, leorned Panel Lawf Learned counsel for both death of Santkumar, Ratanbai & S^heblal (PW-2), the injured witness, as als<( 5), it established that the deatljis homicidal in nature. As far as involvement of acl; crime in question is concerned, pe(' given by Kum. Pur^fmaTpW-1) shjows me(itioned.. only itlias Baenmentio^ied L +i<<Fc<<fl-f irrarf)''^te^l'<f»iwR ^? arf^TT 3fT^?T .spective parties, learned Additional Sessions of the accused as oforementioned. fFirfari, le<»'ned counsel for accused/appellant leo^ned counsel for accused/appellant Rasbai and ^er on behalf of the State/respondent. tjie appellants have not disputed the homicidal I. Apart from the evidence of Shoukilal the medical evidence of Dr. S.C. Mishra ^W- of Santkumar, Ratanbai & Saheblal were used/appellants Ashok Kumar & Rasbai in the 'usal of the first information report (Ex.P-1) that the nome of Rasbai has not been that Lalji, Ashok Kumar, Dilharan, Sukwara P.T.O. 1 XI-HC-78 3 T^rraT?pT, «Tfl'M'i6,Isi^iwy MIHCll SftHlch ^ 200 OT^7T4^ch (^ci^aqiT) ^III^ER <|W3?R?T?ITW ?%TW:flte'3n^T Bai ond others murdered Santkumat, evidence of Kum. Purnima shows that incident. While the accused persc^ns only went to the place of occurre^x after the commission of crime. matd'ial Shoukilal (PW-2) is the with the deceased persons and who ( were chopped in the incident. In hi| five accused persons came in whicji atated that Sukuvara Bai & Rasboi hedd. In the same para, he has also^ In para 6, he has further stated t| Lathi. In cross-examination para 2j not known at the time of incident, hj was not seen in the village before statement, it has been written tha1| written he does not know. It is ind< the scene of occurrence. It is also and she has not assaulted. It is alst broken his teeth. this was disclosedl mentioned in Ex.D-1, he does not hgspital by the doctor, he disclosedl a-tttacked ha&not been mentiojfed in the dying 5), he does not know. Whereas, pe ^rqfefrr WRfr'tfteA <(»iw;i< ^srf^irsn^T Ratanbai & Saheblal. Even the perusal of the it'in fact she was not the eyewitness to the were attackin9 •the deceased persons, she ce dfter •rfie.occused persons left the place ^ial witness who wos present in the field a!on9 tlso sustained severe injuries as his hand & le9 evidence as PW-2, he has stoted that oll the Rasbai wos also there. In para 5, he has his mother Ratanbai with Barchi on her stated that Rasbai attacked her with a Lathi. lat Rdsbai has broken his teeth by assault of i, he has stated that the name of Rasboi was ^r name was disclosed by hissister wid Rasbai |he incident. In Ex.D-1, the police case diary Rasbai was throwing stones, how it has beerr ^orrect to soy that Rasbai was not present aV lincorrect that there was no stick in her hand t> incorrect that Rasbai had not assaulted and by him to the Police, but why it has not been Inow. When his statement was taken in the |the name of Rasbai. Why the nome of Rasbai |decforation recorded by Dr. S.C. Mishra (PW- ,tusal of the dying declarationof this witness P.T.O. ."?0 Xf-HC-78 3FST -^WM^, ©Tfly'IS,Rcll'My tlTfl^Tshtll* W^ 200 gn^rq^T (yi^ci^) 3fI^TW OTTsn^Taw^ ^RTTW ;Bfg(i'Sn^T r'ecor'ded bv the doctor shows thd1 Kumar, Lalji, Dilharan & SuRwara attacked, but it has not been discl fifth person, the lady, has attacked^ attacked his mother Ratanbai on''H< statement (Ex.b-1) it is mentione); Therefore, this witness has made ii and there is nothing on record whicfi broken. In the cir-cumstonces, in vie|w witness (PW-2) in respect of Rasbdf based on that without any corroboro|'ion Rasbai cannot be held guilty for of| 149, 307 read.with Section 149 & sentence. imposed upon accused/a( clinchin9 evidenee and finding of sustained. As -far as involvement of ac< question is concerned, the name of Shoukilal (PW-2), the injured witni incident hos stated in his evidence t Lalji regardina the ogr'icultural land, ~/ -». - • Adiok Kumai?- A Sukwora Bai came '• / . them, Ashgk Kumar- wascarrying a> ^rafepfpT im?Fr if fei^ tf^RTC ^; SlRtIT 311^1 in para 4 it has been written that Ashok iai and one lady whose name is not known ised by this witness to the doctor that the him'with Lathi, broken his teeth and she has ii* head. Whereas, in the police case doiry that Rasbai was throwing earthen clots. iprovement in his evidence before the Court shows thot the teeth of this witness were of the obove facts, the evjdence of this appears to be ag9ravated improvement and in material par'ticulars by other evidence, :ence under Sections 302 read with Section L48 of ttie I.P.C. Therefore, conviction and Ipellant Rasbai is not based on any legal, H'he trial Court to that extent cannot be used/appeliant Ashok Kumar in the crime in tshok Kumar has been mentioned in the F.I.R. ss, whose hond & leg were chopped in the lot there was a dispute between his father & On the fateful dw, occused Lalji, Dilharan, i|i the field and they stcrted quarreling with ^, he alon9 with Lalji & bilharan attacked his P.T.O. »)M XI-HC-78 Tc? ^fTOcTq', riTflti'ld, f°fdl*iy .3TR?T?iTR-ii=ft OTisn^TgOTW tTTRrtl St)^l<^) W! 200 10 341^1 4^* (llc<tl°"<,a') ^tIRP; (rf?(T 3n^T father with the weapons the^ w^! froro the sharp edged side qf tl^< also attacked with the axe on the| was chopped by occused Ashok the injuries sustained by him. li that Ashok Kumar chopped leg & Kumar- and Lalji rushed towards hi^ with axe on his head, which was 4' was chopped by accused Ashok his leq also to ttie Court which stated that they left him considei one hour, he regained conscious, t\ Thereafter, he was taken to the admitted in the Seneral Hospital a\ Mr. Abhay Tiwari. leamed Ashok Kumar, was not able to poii 2) anything to show that the evidei not trustworthy or reliable. Th involvement of Ashok Kumar stand, even hand A leg of this witness w< accused, which this witness had inflicted by this accused on this the Court. Thera is nothing t< Efirafepft-T iiTiRff ff te^t •rf»i%rt ^Slf^ITSn^T 'ecarryin9. Ashok Kumar attacked his father oxe on the head of his-father. Ashok Kumar lead of his brother and -Hie hand of his brother K)jmar qnd thereafter, his brother succumfii^ti %rf para 5 of his evidence, he has further stafed Ijiand of his mother Ratanbai. Therecrfter, Ashok to attack him and accused Ashok attacked him (hown by this witness in the Court. His left leg Ki^mar by the assault of co<e. The witness showed «as chopped beloiw the knee. He has further ing him dead and he became unconscious. After is sister Purnima came and gme water to drink. hospitals at Baloda and Bilaspur. He remained Bilaspur for about 2 ^-3 months. jounsel oppearing on behalf of accused/app< out in cross-examination of this witness (PW- ice of this witness in respect of Adiok Kumar is ib evidence of this witness in respect of the \ corroborated by the medical evidence also and sre chopped by making assault with axe by this s^iown in the Court. Even head injury was also ^itness, which olso was shown by this witness in indicate that this accused has been 'fQi'sely •^Sis'S :X'K ;afiji lani XI-HC-78 w^r<CTf?TW 'Si-iaT^r^'w^ ^QF"!C. j^^Wld^l, t*Tftyi|<i, Rldiy^ »Tranishw*> W^ 200 11 311^1 4^* (^ol^ct^d') TOnwHfs^w^r implicated by this witness ond tl^i medical evidence inspires confide^i e evidenceof this witness corroborated by the ice of the Court. Th&refore, we do not fincf tria! Couft convicting accused/a^pellant with Section 149 for each murdel with 5ection 149 of the I.P.C. fdr his iflur-der, also under Section 148 member of the unlowful ossembly. In the circumstances, ther| r-espect of accused/appellant jAshj hereby dismissed. As fw as Criminai Appeal Rasbai is concerned, same succe^ds imposed upon her for commissi< Section 149, 307 read with Secti| acquitted of the said char9es. Sfie are discharged. She need not swi Parties are entitled for cerjtified copy of this order. SdA "C. Bhadoo •Tudge <-/ <t>i<iiri4)-< WRft'^te^rfSRzn: ^aTf^lT-W^T any illegality or infirmity in the finding of the 't' _ Asholi Kumar under Sections 302 read of Saheblat, Santkumar & Ratanbai & 307 read attacking Shoukilal and attempting to commit of the I.P.C. for cwrying deadly weapon while ! is no merit in Criminal Appeal No.2363/1997 in k Kumar, same is liable to be dismissed and it is No.1741/1997 preferred by accused/appellant ond it is aflowed. Conviction and sentences tn of offence under Sections 302 read with i|?n 149 & 148 of the I.P.C. are set aside, she is fie is already on bail, therefore, her bail bonds tender before the Court. Sd/-. •. DhirendraMNira Judge to P.T.O. 1