^^iis^tKww^^w^^S^^iiW^w^wy^w^ CF0000061552 r Xir-i88/(Jaii) C.J.P.R'.-5,000-9-S1 ^ y]ai r°?;'r"^ ^ ^- i'r' I'-'KSo6 Divisidn Benc'n (Crimina^ t k^. ;so L. r^' -<: '^ No.' Namc - o7^w~~^^r~~~ --^- Fatfacr's name -/-^^^'-^^--———- ^•Kte"ce-^^5^W^^N7:-~--''^?y' Sentcncea to^^^.-^^.aon -^^^^^^.^^^ Under s6?cti©n—'4a?^^-c^'-''i;o^cOT--s~sr7r?^-«--bv —-——— r-^i-'f^ j, , i, , ^•- :liQ" -^SQ-^T^V^S- bv --—:?-':^^o3^<^ 'y.^-^ ^ it is explaincd to the prisoncr that Jf hc statcs or wishcs h) be reprcscnicd b^'n j^^;i practitioner the Ap^ef^te Court wifl not procccd with t!<e.^sa<-te"t:scven"^!"3B(>"^r..c^. •the Icg^l practilioncr appcars, lf ihc lega! practiu<^ncr does ^ot •ary'^^^k in scven days iic rnay not bc lieardat a!! Ifthe prisoner ^iatcs thal i-ie doc^jifM::^i:.H''o bc represented by icgal practitioncr thc court may procec'd ai once \ynli. Use y^et?<ina will not be obliged to ^ive a hearing to any lcgal practiiiuijer wiio;,hou!d appshr. I Date ofAppIication for copy of Jud^ement ——..--.--..— 2 ^ Date ofwlucii copy reccived —^^^^l^^^^.y...^^. 3 Date on which Appeal ?ent ———^^..^-^—— - 4 Whether thc prisoner wislies to bc rcprcsented'or not- Ycs/No. ^ No.— —"— NaiiK1-—-- :-^,-;::QT~-~N:I"c--^?7--^^%w«?) c,.<,.^d,^^-A7-—-----•""—-''^-^-^^^ N@....,^,^4.^-g.,.o.... ,..^.-,...^..».^..^.......„.........,,;„;cii -. -.-...^- Fonvarded to ihe C.HIEF JUDICJAL MAGISTRATE A?[?D..fe^^ to gather;with ,a copy, of judgement or orderpasseci.in llw case f'or^piu-...:' trammissipn to the proper Appiliiatc Court. ^^? W^V^ 3 ^^,^, u-( B%<^',,'!;d)-j^i ; . ^xf^^.C^^.,.,, ;;V......:...ii...l.......................-^..i......^^ -..-.-.^.—.„.,...._. J/,.. ;Dateof^c<jipt::JnlC.|j| ^l.'S Office———4-^-^-^55Z—^ Date ©fr^ceiptof rcij'onij jto accdmpany-- -—-^-*.^-^^^-^-----."-"-----•—••"-,;..-Y .|.. . - Memo pf ^ppeal oi the iAppdiate Court. ^.^^^-^^^4^--^AP^^^- ^ No.—|^-^.^-—------D^d---^--^--ls!8^ Porwarded to the \ I^)!^-<^SJ^Lfc_c^__!^^^_..L^^ 1 ii: Date ofreceipt in Ap|)Iia^& Court m^ CJ'Mt!gi^ —•«fr^f3^-fe%^i|^(%»s(® I 1 ! ^. .. .. (P.T.Q.) ^<. PKL. :7 ^ /\^ XI-HC-78 HWWl Sh*<|cb 3^T^TPTT?PT, ^Tfl^Ko, f®lcni^^< ;c^:A:.HO:..r?:6?/(2 200 ^i ^^<h (yii^q^r) 3TT^T^T^i<=b cTSfT W^T ^TTT^ ^TTW^cTW^T <=hl<Mfcl41T1 HI^QlT^ftel:^'<Rl^l< ^3Tf^TT3TT^T Hon'bie Mr. L.C. HQp.'hteMr. Dh|r|e"€Ji-sLMMlra^LL D.B. : 28-2-2007 Ku. Sangeeta Mishra, At Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Pan^i Arguments heard. Orai judgment dictated 4 ow Psr Dhirendra I'flishra. J.: This appeai is directed 4 of sentence dated 21.4.1997 Ambikapur, District Sarguja i|r Additionai Sessions Judge aftt offence under Sectlon 302 of tl Ratu Ran, sentenced him to ur|' 2. Briefiy stated the pros^ (since deceased) had gone to some money to the accused. money. There some dispute| money transaction, as a res^ assauited Raturam by Lathi, o^ received by Mangru (P.'vv. 6) after receiving information, he Anand Ram (P.Vv'. 7) left for| notice to the panchas, inquestl P-2 in presence of the vvitness|es the investigating OffScer. The ep Bbadooand jvocate for the appeiiant. ^i Lawyer for the respondent/State. >n Date. ^L JUDG^ENT igainst the judgment of conviction and order passed by 1st Additiona! Sessions iJudge, i S.T. No. 337/96, whereby the fearned er hoiding the accused/appeiiant giliilty for he indian Penai Code for causing djeath of dergo imprisonment for life. cution case is that on 6-7-1996, Raturam lis in-laws house at viilage Jaigali. f-|®Qave hie went to the accused for demancfing his arose between them in connecti(i>n with lit of which, accused-appeiiant Naitikaram account ofwhich he died. informati(3n was brother ofthe deceased on 9-7-19$6, and iodged report Ex. P-12. Investlgatin^ ofricer the scene of occutTence and afteil glvjng over the dead body was performed ^tide Ex. L Spot may was prepared vide Ex.|P-3 by iead body was sent for auiopsy vlds| Ex. P- XI-HC-78 w^T^rf^rw cPTT3TR?T5b^l<^ <4M^I Stl+lictl 3^T ^INKrl^, ^^^(0, ^^tl^^< ^_ Gf^^o. l^^/_57^ ^ loo 3<1^1 ^5ich (l:|^f5^^) ?^TTW;Hf?cT3TT^T -2-1 10 to Primary Heaith Centre, Kti post mortem over the dead Ex. P-11. On the memorandurh biood stained Lathi was taken biood stained terricot shirt was soll and biood stained soil wasl occurrence under Ex. P-7. was fiied in the Court of Judicial turn commiaed the case to thel tearned Additionai Sessions J( transfer for triai. Charge under the appeilant. Kiismi, where P.'w. 5 Dr. T. Sai conaucted bo^iy and prepared post mortem repo| Ex. P-4 of the accused-appejiar| linto possession under Ex. P-5 9n| t^ken into possession under Ex. P-6| taken into possession from the pi^ Aft^r compieting jnvestlgatjon, charge] Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur ISessions Judge, Ambikapur, from (jdge, Ambikapur received the cai Bection 302 of I.P.C. was framed ^ 3. Prosecution in order to appeliant examlned 7 witnes^es, appeiiant was recorded under gection the circumstances appearing pieaded innocence andfaise im^iication 4. Learned Addmonai Sessjons for the respective parties, cdnvi^ted as mentionea aDove. 5. Homlcidai death of the otherwise on the statement of| mortem and submitted his repor^ L Lacerated injury on fr^ntai in shape brown black <=bi^F<n41-< ^i^^T^teI^'<Ri<-<-i< ^3Tf^'q'3TT^T ^stabiish the charge against the acq thereaner statement of acc gection 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he ^gainst him in the prosecutlon cas' Judge after hearing ieamed o and sentenced the accused-api c|eceased Raturam Is not disputed. IP.W. 5 Dr. T. Sai who conductec Ex. P-11 and found the foiiowing inj r^ntai region of scaip size 4/2 cm irr i|n coiour. vide one one Plain ice of sheet /ho in ^vhere >e on gainst tused- tused" lenied and unsel ellant Even post jnes- ?.guiar XI-HC-78 ^TT^T^Tf^TW cT8Tr3=TT^T^)HW (S) ^I^IMI Sft+licb 3^T ^NId^, ^Tf1^JI(o, facrll^< C7:.A.N0:^?/^ W1[ 200 34i^i M^ cn (<iG(^q^) ^<TTW^rf?cT^n^T •s- ii. Brujse on ieft iaterai shape brown biack in iii. Bruise on 2 cm back shape, brown biack jn and further opined that the caus^ head and syncope and ruptur^ deceased is estabiished. side of thorax size 5x2 cm irreguiar in ^oiour [o the 2nd injury, size 3x2 cm, irregiblar in ^oiour. of death was coma due to injury ov'er the of spleen, the homicidai death of the 6. There is no eye-witness tf on circumstantial evidence. 7. Learned counsel for tN< appeliant has been convicted so| the body of the deceased was fo} that the weapon of ofrence Lathj the appeiiant contained biood st^ accused aiso contained biood as submits that there is no evidenc^ ihe appellant was present in his in the house in question. She has come up with a story of moti deceased demanded the monel accused-appeiiant, however, this| and P.W. 6 Mangru- brother of tr the same. She further submits recovery in pursuance or tne mi ongin of the blood has not been cbi^fd41-i ^i^<-iT^:te^'<f^^i< ^3Tf^T3n^r the incident and the convictlon is e accused-appejiant submits tha eiy on ihe basis ofthe circumstance^ that nd on the verandah of the appeiian which was recovered at the instarlce of ins and further tnat shirt seized fro )ased the , and itn the per F.S.L. report (Ex. P-14). She nliilher to the effect that on the date of incldent [house or that the appeilant alone resides iso submits that though the prosecution |/e that the inddent occurred because the \/ back which he had advanced to the |fact has not been estabiished during triai |e deceased has not stated a vrord about (hat the witnesses of memorandum and ^morandum have turned hostile and the lascertained and, therefore, the appel|ant T5 "N. XI-HC-78 3TT^T^)Tf^TT^ cT§TT3TT^Ts^^|ch +11+1C11 »>+i|ch 3^r ^i^icn^, ^Tn^^Ko, Rcni^^< ^^..^.•.^/^^ ^l ^5|Ch (l^3^^) ^cTr^K^TW^T ^- couid not be connected wlth recovery at the instance of the t|ie crime in question oniy on the fc^asis of 4ccusedMappeJJant. 8. On the other hand, iea impugned judgment. infornlied 9. We have heard the iearn impugnea judgmen? as aiso Mangru-brother of the deceas^ witness has stated in his depo; Raturatn had gone to his in-is viiiage Jaijaii came and inforn weni to jaijaii and saw that his accused-appeiiant. There was i| of Raturam had totd him that a{ the report of Ex. P"12. in cros^ brother-in-iaw of Raturam inf^ some disease. However, afte| rnurder. On further cross-exal brother-jn-law of Raturam hadl and this fact was told to him by| 10. So far as first circumstarl convicting the appeiiant that tt1 house of the appeiiant, is conc| dead body v^as found cn an oi that on the date of incld his house or that the accus^ cbi^f^i^Ti ^i^ciT^te1[:<Ft'<r3i^cii< ^3Tf^TT3n^T |med counsei for the State suppojrts the |ed counsei for the parties and peru^ed the tie materiai availabie cn record. p.vv\ 6 ^d has iodged the F.i.R. of Ex. P-1p. This ^ition that Raturam is his younger ^rother. ^ws piace at viilage Jaljaii. A pers^n from that Raturam is dead, whereu^on he Ibrother was iying dead in ihe hous^ of the ihjury over his head and ribs. Brothet-in-iaw ^-cused as kilied whereupon he had |iodged 4-examination, this witness has that rmed that Raturam had died bec^use of reaching there, he iearnt that it[was a hiin^tion, this witness has that the informed that Nanka had kiiied R|aturam |some person of viiiage Jaijaji. ce reiied upon by the Jearned trial C| e body of the deceased was founcl srned, from the spot map, it is evid^nt >en verandah. None of the witness^s lent, the accused-appeiiant was ^d-appeilant aione resides in his ourt for in the that have in house. pf€|sent XI-HC-78 w^T^rf^Tt^ cTSlT3TT^T5h^Ioh <g) ^WW[ sh^lcb 3^T ^l^lcn^, ^Tn<M^l(o, icldiy^ , CT-A.N^- f^o7/^ 200 3ll^l Msich (lic<^s<<i£T) ?^TW^f^T3TT^T -5~ ^A^> Therefore, this circumstance prove the gulit ofthe accused- 11. So far as the second stained ciub and seizure of blo| accused-appeilant is concerr^ seizure nameiy P.VV. 1 Shiv| supported the prosecution ca^ except the report of F.S.L. tha there is no evidence that the s| same group of that of the de^ was not justlnecj In convictir clrcumstances t.e. recovery of| stalned shlrt from the custoayl not been to estabiish therefore, we are of the consic|< falled to establish the charge of clrcumstantlai evidence as the accused-appeliant with th^ 12. In the cjrcumstancesj dese^es to be and is allowedl appeiiant are set aside and '^ 30-20fi.P.c. 13. it is stated that the api|) set at liberty forthwith if not re4j circumstance i.e. recovery of the blood blobd stained shirt on the memoranduni of the r^ed, the wltnesses of memorandum and /brasad and P.VV. 2 Shivbaiak hive not |e and they have turned hostiie, n the ciub and shirt contained bioo< terne were human blood and more Sd/.- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^H^T^ W^ff ^f te^" ^RZK ^3:rf^q'3TT^T fcannot be taken to De a circumsiance to ppeiiant and to connect him wlth th^ crime. eased, therefore, the learned Couift beiow |g the accused-appeiiant soiely o me biood stained ciub and seizure of the appeiiant. The prosecutlon Ihe motive for commlssion of th^ |ered opinion that the prosecution he lagainst the accused-appeilant cn ti he circumstances are not proved to cnme in question. the appeai preferred by the Convjction and sentence imposed e Is acquitted of the charge under eilant is in detention since 11-7-9S uired in any other case. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge (ore so, stains, t3 of the rfi these N biood 'jas aiso crime, J3 utteriy |.e basis fc-onnect ppeiiant ,ipon the Section Hebe