,^~ / ^."' -• •'"^..^ CFooobbeos's's' / .L_. ^.)._.-?_2^. Fcitherl.s NAme ^w _^sl^:;. /-. ^£^L,..OF.^.PRisoNER.,»-/ Naine. te^"ch(:rjn^|) .^a.asQ.^ R^sid^c^ .-:J^^^5. Sencenced to .^^®L^~:S3?01@:.-...., / —X: ^ ^»TTT< -"^rs^: [2M: on -v^ AJ^l£^^.un<3sc Sectlon ^^,;^Z,^_^^J;y jLS5i- S.T. . |6/^^ , It is e^plained to fche prisoner thdt if he stcites or Wishes to fce represented fcy a legal pr^ctiticnsr the ^ppellate G^urt wlll nct procc-:ed v?ith the base for seven da.ys unless the legal prdctition^r appears» If thelegal practlfcAcner dces not appear v?ith the seven days he may fce heard at all if the p rl son-er s c ate s that the do es not v?i sh t o be. r qp r es :-jnt ed by legcil pr^cticner the ODurt mciy proceed at cncQ wlth the case dnd will.not fce obliged tc jivs d hea-ring to ^ny legal proct-• iticner who shculd •appea.r, ~ 1\ Date of cipplication fcr copy of Judg^nent : (UT©. 2. D^ts of 'which ccpy recelved :- ^ - / 2- -^^ » 3, EMte on ^hich Appelisent s^. 1^^ j'2. ^ f^ 4^ Mhether the prison^r wished tc be reprssented QJC' not .L-^^ Yes^Jfe?- Nc', ^<z-^ ___Name Continued in -^1(?-H ^iR^rrz.f. -fcr', ^eT^^- Jail -SllSSl^L K-' • 2-° 6 /acAiac»'fs/9s _Dat ed _l^/ti/^ Fcrwarded to the CHIEH' JUDICI.^L MA3 2ST R^C B, - <3<B&dladbH*^^ tcgether with a copY of judgement or ordei| pd^ed in the case fcr ravcur of transmission to the prcper ^ppliate Courfc, Superinfc.end^i^-'^^ftt ral/QL stt ,/ N^iar^^ar.^Y ?5^^"g1i; Date of receipt in C<»J.M<s office^ .^6<ii"^^^ Date of receipt of reccrd of acccmpciny. Memo <fi£ App.edl of the ^pellicLte ccurfc:^ •~)y( 2-J ____Dat ed __A.P1^_M & . \. Ti ^- '^ ^J I " .^'' ,^. Porwarded tc the l-f^^. ^^s/e^ Qa(-€^€ ^ic^^^t^ C.J. Magistra^e. z Dcxt e of receipt of ^ppelliate Ccurt.^ v':{.^ \. XI-HC-22 ^^ ^ll^id<4, ^^^<o, fa<rti^ll< 3T[^T ^^ dD HIN<ytl ^H|€»» ^.....&4-^^^y I^E^T 3^T^)T 1^?ri?F3n^T ^ii°b yf^a 377^1'^H^R^rf^ chi^I<vi<fli HiH<riT^fex3t <i^^i< i^3rf;OT3?I^i DJVSSION.BENCH; HON'BL^ ;' .••:'&HON'E SHRi LC.BHADOO. .;• SHRi DHIRENDRAiVaiSHRA,JJ BUE CRISVI!NAL APPQAL N0. 675 of 1998 AppelSiant Respondent Kad Vs.| Stai Smt. Irgdlra Tripathi, leamed-c^ Shri Ravindra lAgrawffll, resporident/State.;'' ^ sas . . • ;e ©f,l\fladhyaPradesh .; • '' unsel forthe appeij'ant.. sarned /•Pane! Law^er 'for. .th.e. QRA'L JlllDGMEN.T L,C.Bhado@,'J (21.0: L2006) The appellant has preferred th^ appea! under.Section,374(2) ofthe -Criminal Prpcedure Code questionin^ the legaiity and correctness ofthe judgment of conviction anti order of ^entence _dated 2 •December 1995' passed bylearned Additional Sessloi v^ereby the iearned AdditionaJ S ^ss Judge, Kanker in S.T.No. 16/94 tessions Judge. after holdln'g the accused/appelJant guilty for the comrfisssion of'.offence under Sectlon 302 ofthe IPC sentenced him to unidergo .Case -ofthe prosecution in brief,; is t. jntimation' -Ex.P-1 'in-.the 'poSice. st Iniprisonment for llfe. paf Sagram Markam lodged a merg ^tion .Narharpur,' District-Bastar. on 06.09.93 at about 9.00 a.m, to the efect that a day before thereto, in the evening at about '7,00 p.m . Mangiu, s^ft oiKansai came and .'informed him [^^f^ XI-HC-22 37T^T^[ ^i<=h ^RT^T 5b^i<»i ^Ra ^^- ^ ^^ ^l^ld^ ^nl^i<o, t^<rll^y ...^,^a...&i^6^ ^^....*.,.........,.«..............^ *1SW?ll ^bNfi<^ ^n^T ^fT^T ^rf^T -2-. ' i-is ^<^i that Bengali doctor cam^ina drunl| had died there. On receiving this m\ Rome Singh/ Bhagvaii, Ganguram that Bengali doctorArvind Vjshv^s house of Kansai. Receiving this m| ieft for the scene of occurrence panchas, prepared panchnama P-1 ^ in 'police custody tiiie accused/appj pursuance of that one wooden ciubj Biood stained and simple soil was bag containlng medicine was taken| of Arvind Vishwas was sent to K.I examination under Paa6A ^iere DrJ cbt^<n<fli 'Wl^ff "H fet:zt <Fai^i< ^ 3?f=OT W^?T ^(jUKf^£- • ten condition at about 12.00 noon and formation he aiong with viilage Kotwar' ind...Sukru went.to'ftis house and saw W^s.jying dead.in the. co'urtyard -of the |rg intimation the .Investigating Offic.er |and after. giving notlce. P-14 to' th:e .of the body of Arain d Vishwas. Whjle pllant gave memorandum P-2 and in |was takenjnto possesslon under P~3. |a-ken-into possession^ under,.P"4. One into possession under P-5. The body |D: Hospital, Kanker for post mortem M.A. Naseem P.W.-3 conducted the post morte'm on the body QfArvjind Vlshwas and preparedjlie-post mortem report.P-6. SJteplan.Pm9v^s prepared.by 1hePatv<^ri.^ on the merg intimatipn and otherrepo^ts; Dehati Nalishi P-12wasgiven by P.W.-S'Panna'Lai and -bas.ed cn t|iat'"First informatjon Rep.ort P-13. v^s registered. .After' compietson' of th^ investigation charge sheet. v^s .filed aQainst the accused/appellant in t|ie Court of •Judiciai Magistrate First CIass, Kanker v^io 'iri turn commlilted the; case to the Sessjo'ns Judge, Jagdaipur from wher®the )earne<| Additional Session.s Judge, Kanker received the case-on transferfortri^j.' 1 - After .completion of the trial iearne^ and sentenced the accused/appeil^nt this judgment. Additionai Sesslons Judge convicted ^ as .mentioned'in" paragraph one 'of [Tft^ ^1<SI^ XI-HC-22 .<- 3:n^i^i l^ri^^Tii^T 'SFRW^tf^T 4. 5.: 6. 7. 8. '3^? '^[pn^R, '^TOT^, i^<nt^y ant^r 'q^ra? ^........G<.4^.,£a^£ (g) NIH€rS8 SftHfic^ '^3ee- f^^r' We have heard Smt. indira Tj accused/appeiiant and Shri Ravindrl theState. ^^. Homicidal death of Ar^jnd Vishwas is| As far as the invoivement of the accU? Is concerned, iearned counsel'for.-til the deceased An/lnd Vlshwas -cam^ drunken condition and he <ASS sieep|rig to woke up he started quarreJSing wt|i accused 'siapped - h Im. tv^ce . th^ . 'accused/appeJiant under Sectioh 30( circumstance and t-here is-no'other wth the said crime. - On the other hand Shri Agrawal sup^ Having heard .the.c'ounsei. for the pa| •ofthe triai Goyrt as well as the reccj .Ram is none 'eise than the son-of 1 fateful day at about 12.00 noon Beil sleptthere.At that tlme his father \A^| father carne he' had aiready. ieft fo| returned aftertakin^ bath iie sawtt^ dled in the house ofthe accused Kal '^F?feFfrT 'W^ff'? ft^ <M^l< ^'3:rf^R^?^? "ipathi, . jeamed counsel for .fhe AgraviQt, iearned P.L. on Isehalfof not in dispute.. sed/appeliant in the crime In question ic ac.cused/'appeliant argued fhat a^ to the house of the accused jn a and-v^tien'the accused made him 1 the accused/appellant on .which the trefore, •. the. offence • agaiffst ' the ofthe IPG 1s notmade out in any svidence v^iich connect the aceused ortedthejudgm.ent ofthe.triaI-Court. tlies,. we have perused the-judg'iTient Irds ofthe.tria! Court. P.W.m6 Mangiu. |the acc.used has stated that on the Igati Do-ctjor came to:thejr house and t not atthe resjdence. Bythetime his taking bath in the pond.. When -he' |at Bengaii Doctor vras already dead. P.W..W7 Rorne Singh h'as stated that tji'e.Bengaii Doctor'was-his.tenant. He sai and on: information by the village [^^fe^ XI-HC-22 ST^T'^T r^\^ ^n^T »)^l<=h ^f^d 9. ^T^T ^I^M^, 'S'^FTS/f^^ 3?ii^r xra^ ^......&».4^""^5 Nl^<B1§WW^ ~^9ff ^^ar' 3n^?i ^RHW ^rfi^ -4— Kotwar he went aiorig wth the Kotv^ accused.and sawthat the Bengaii- qoctor ofi<ansai:and'onenquiryhe.jnform^d and how he died he does not kno'l Sagram and P.W.-2 Ramial, Kotwarj c^l^^ql^ ^|*|<?iT ^ FG^ ^fa^$l< ' ^? 3ti^W3?T^T ter and Sarpanch to the house of the was iying dead- Jn the. •co.urtyard' that he siappedthe deceased twice y. Simiiar is the evidence of P.W.-1 in view of the above evidence it i^ establjshed that the dead body of Arvjnd Vishwaswas found in the hoijise ofthe accused and on enquiry by these indepe-ndent wtnesses he macpe extra judicial cpnfessjon that as th@ ' -deceasedv^s sleeplng ih '.his 'hous^ tie slapped h.im. ^^ar. P.W.-3 Dr. M.A.- Naseem .'^10 conducted the| deceased .An/lnd'Vishwas, has statet post mortem . on th.e . b.ody .of .the y that there was contusion- and clotted biood was present on the neck of tte deceased on boththe sldes in''the. • •size of 2.X 1 crn. "and he'has.fu.rtheit stated.that on d'issectlQn ofthe-body he found that cricoid .andthyroid ericoKi'an'd part of hyold cartiiage vms .foundbroken. Larynges structure v^s.separated from'the wnd, pipe and on opening o.f the chest' it v^s fou| . fractured, the right lung was also r| stoppage of respiratory system an| 'Therefore as pertbe medica! evlden| jnjuries cn the chest and neck. Lears| argued' that It is evident from panchnama and evidence of the rf Arvind Vishv^s \wis in the habit of in the house ofaccusedjn drunken to woks hlm up to get him out of the| tid that the ribs on. the left slde were Ijptured and the cause of death v^s- |j;the Injup/ 'on the chest-and-.n^ck. , ^e, AiMyind Vish^^s died' on. aoc.ount.of |ed counsei for tSie accused/appeijant |the memorandum, Dehati Nalish'i, ^rosecution wtnesses that deceased |lrinking ,and v^hen he came and' stept lcondition, -the accys^d/appejlant -tried |house in that process, all ofa sudden [^^f^ XI-HC-22 '^'^t '^i^H^, .^Tn^^Ko, I^TRfy 3TI^?T^T 1^ri?R'3?^l sft*ii<^ ^rf^T 10. n, N8+<€pt8 ^HIch 3Ui^T TI^? te--A^-^ 200 '^^?' the acoused assauited the deceaseci deceased. land there was no intention to kili the arid !n order to appr-eciate the argumen| acGused/appellant we have peru^ memorandum and parichnama it has] in the iiabit of consuming Jiquor shows that the accused had any that in sudden qu-arrel,, In heat of accused assaulted the deceased received the vita! injury. Therefore/w^ accused Ts covered under exceptior| offence ofthe accused does not trav^ ^th jn'the-resuit, the appeai partly'succe^ sentenoe;pas<sed against the • aside as such he is.^cquitted of'the instead of-li^aby he is. conVicted sentenced ,to. undergo imprisboment ac.cused/appeiiant is in. custady sir already undergone more than twelve be set at Hberty forthwth, ifnot requin Sd/- L.C, Bhadoo Judge ^{^id4;T ^w^"? ft^ <M^.K '^^jfWT^ET^ ' }s advanced by the counse! 'for'the i^d the record and as per the come-on record that deceased was' there is nothing In reoord ^4iich anirji.osity v^th the deceased. It appears t)assio?l ^ vAhout pre meditatjon the club as a result of which he are of the opinion that th e act of th e 4 of Section 300 of the IPC and beyond 304-11 ofthe IPC. accusetJ/appei ^ds. The judgment of convictjon and lant by the tria! Court are set }harges under Section 302ofthe iPC ulnder Section 304-11 oftheiPCand for .ten years.. it is -stated that the. lce 07.09,93 and thereby he has lyears of imprisonment therefore, he |d in any other case. _ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge [Tft^ ^Ra^ .^ \0