CFOOOQ064033 r^A ^CA-S\V^ i/'^sS1 o. 'after's Name. APPEAL PRtSONER ' O -\ t, mc c'ss~^iTTftr cBfre Re8ident_^^^3_ zjT^-fT' cs^sfiy^ ^-iF'frS' Sentenced to^nsjfe "'"• -zn '3~ \ •^TVTT^ ss'aT-xrr^FTTS: (Under Section •3o2^9,S?,; w.-?. (S- by-OBTH- qro.^s^j <--S7snBTOr ^T?T»a5:-.:g^ It is explained to the prisonei that if he states or wishes to be represented fc)y a legal practitioner the Appellate Court will not proceed with the base for feevendays unlessthelegalpractitioner-appears If the legal practitioner does not tippear within seven days he may be beard ataU if legal practitioner the court f^yy proceed at once with the case and will notbe obljged (ogive a bearing to J&y legal practitioner who should appeai. I.,, DateofapplicationforcopyofJudgemeilt:- ^. Date of which copy received:- i2.)3@ 13. Date on which appeal seat :- |2-/sy 4. Whethertheprisoner wished to be represented ornot :- Yes / No. frto. £.a,q/S0 _Name <sTS»ri:rf S^e¥ sw ^^^_1. Continued in_^3^3(_rAs%r-> Jaii snrs-f^-cfv ]e:'^{. _Dated 4 . 1 • 39 <0. •^ :?orwarded to the CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTItATE__ 'egether with a copy- of Judgement or order passed in the case for fay5lir of iransmissionto the proper Applleate Court. SBFrTsatendt^ ^'Sub-Jail. Date of receipt in C. J. M. Office. Date of receipt of record to accompany, Memo of Appeal of the Appellate Court. No. dated' Forwaided to the^ ** e.&.MAGtSTRATfi u Sf Teceipi in A^plieate e&urt. n I+IC-22 3ni?TW R'fi<b3n^?i fl'irotftsn '•<>,. vjwi '«i«in<i,wal<«<is,Iqnitiy ^^g^....CsA^..^..A ^o.<^sl/^5?6. 1-T- Wl 200 3n^?i8^arw^ifef 1>l«lCT<I1l*ll»1oT't"fe'<9•<lult^l'( ^siRfisn^sT Division Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice L.C. Bhadloo, J & Hpn'bte Shri Justice V.K. Shrlvastava, J. 14.09.2006 Shri B.D. Badgaya, cour Shri U.N.5. &eo, Addi Mishra, Panel lawyer for the ^espondent/State. Oral judgment dictatec Per L.C. Bhadoo. J. This appeal is directed sel for the appelkint. rional Public Prosecutor with Shri Akhil on Dais. against the judgment'of conviction and order of sentence dated ^1/12/1998 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Bostar, in S^ssions Trial No. 55/98 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge a') for commission of offence ui^ and sentenced him to underg^ t-er holding the accused/appellant guilty der 5ections 302 ond 323 of the IPC, imprisonment for life arid to poy a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of pay^ient of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months and ft.I for six ihonths for commission of offence under Section 323 of the IPC. The case of the prose4ition, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 14th and 15th Decemtjer, 1997, accused Banjami Boti, his wife ti along with the^r minor children were sleeping in their (4»^W>) XI+IC-22 3Ilt?I®[ feqtean^a s»*)i<p'n[fea U»s l^g ,^, ?^") <dw| ^i^llriAt, »-rfl<a<i<B,(qrti'n'j's qPIST (PTW -•••"^••'•'•-'-y--"-^200 house. Sister-in-law of the of the accused on the date o mid-night when sistsr-in-hw woke up and saw that the with hands & fists. When slapped her and thereafter^ pressing the neck' Theref^re house and went to the housel that his wife died. house of the accused where there in the house of the that the accused has villager's and Sarpanch were ir^ The matter was repo^ Station; Seedam, on which Section 302 of the IPC Gidam, reached the place of of the body of Banjami Mitki of occurrence (Ex.P/5). Thj postmorteni examination to P Rajendra Sharma (PW/6) <t>l<llri41'l •<llfdT*fIs'cl •(luil'^K ^s'^tTgn^?! accused also happens to be in the house the incident. At about 11.30 p.m in the >f the accused heard the commotion, she ac4used was beating his wife Bouijami Mitki s(ie tried to intervene, accused/appellont murdered his wife Banjami Mitki by |with hands. Thereafter, accused left his of his brother Lakmu and informed him :, in the ntornin9 Lakmu came to the jister-in-law of accused Banjami Boti was a4cused and on enquiry she informed him commjtted ^the nourder of his wife on which iriformed. 1-ted by PW/1 Banjami Mitki to Police first information reporf (Ex.P/1) under v^as registered. Station House Officer, c^ccurrence, prepared Panchnama (Ex.P/4) |and prepared the site map of the place i^ body of Banjami Mitki was sent for P^imary Health Centre, Sidam, where t5r. co|iducted postmortem and prepared the 11~( (''i^^A) '?"^, XI-HC-22 3Dt?I^I feTO'anin a'liq' tllStl ^fiw'^S^ ;i^i* gssssssgst ^^^;ir';;.!i^^ ywi '<ii«inq,yTfl'H^id, Rrii'oy'i sntsT'ra^ . / llldl **)!<<> •—•—'•-•••——••"•••••••••• ^200 3n^?is^ai8Rwtl(T --'>- arld Magistrjate postmortem report (Ex.P/10) was throttling due to shock After completition of the Court of Judicial eommitted the case to the learned Sessions Judge receiv The prosecution in o accused examined nine witne: the accused was recorded he denied the material evidence and stated that h' implicated in the crime. Learned Additional arguments of Additional accused, convicted and one of this judgment. We have heapd Shri dppellant and 5hri U.N.S. &e Akhil Mishrq, Pcnel Lawyer fo The fact of homicidal disputed by learned counsel •pi«In<Ilifitnl'tffat,1) 'iRl't^M ^aRlian^?! in which he opined that cause of death asphyxia. |nvestigation, charge-sheet was filed in ;, First Class, Dantewada, who in turn pessions Judge, Jagdalpur from where led the case on transfer for trial. •der to establish charge against the ^ses. On the other hand, statement of Section 313 of the Cr.P,.C., 'm which against him in the prosecution ^ is innocent and he has been falsely unUer app|eanng pessions Judge, after hearing the Piiblic Prosecutor and counsel for the sent^nced the accused as mentioned in para B.D. Badgoya, counsel for the accused/ i, Additionat Public Prosecutor with Shri the State. death of Bcmjanii Mitki has not been flor the oppellant. Apart from that,from ('te^K) XI-HC-22 3[A?IWI f^tiW3Ilt?I a'*< tt(6ci S<';i!its-.iss E^K ^EST T<4i«io<i,yrilwiffl, Rnmy *lHdl ria*11* sn^CT^a^^ ^&^SIJ^^ fcRi^ 3n^?i?^n8R^fer -\A the evidence of eye-witness evidence of PW/6 t)r. Rajend| the body of Banjai Mitki, i^ murdered by throttting. Thi of Banjami Mitki was homicid^ As far as involvement question is concemed, eye-w^ else than sister-in-law of on the fateful day she car^ dre wjtness thelaccused evening ouid in the evening sh^ < (^»i.< in-law). She wciretafor steepijig accused where the dccused children we.re sleeping insidej night, she heard the commoti^ the accused was beating his tried to intervene, accused 4 received injuries and thereaf( Banjami Mitki os a resultof uj is close relative of the accdsed implicate her brother-in-law of this witness, defence has *PI<lfo4lTf HF^T'^T fecQ ttyi^tx ^sif^Tsn^?! pW/1 - Banjami Mitki as also the medical \~a Sharma who conducted postmortem on isestablished that Banjami Mitki was ifore, it is established that the death in nature. ]pf the accused/appellant in the crime in Bonjami Mitki (PW/1) vuho is none- has stated in her evidence that je to the morket, remained there upto went to the house of accused (brother- in the verondah of the house of the alo^ig with his wife Banjami Mitki and the house. At about 11.30 p.m. in the >n on which she woke up and she saw that Iwife with hands an^fists. When she |apped her dlso as a result of which she ^er accused pressed the neckof his wife ^hich she died on the spot. This witness and there is no reason for her to ih a false case. In the cross-examination ^iot been able to elicit any circumstance (<f»^Wr) XI-HC-22 snin^T R'fi<b3iiisT aimw til6ti 'l^ ^w| "ill^lri^, u>Tl1wiQ, fslniti^ SfKWfSR *ll*1dl fBW<S ..C^.R....S^3].l^QBp. j^ ..^.y...*.<......^.^.^.^.T.^ 2 ^200 3Ilt?I?TOT8R^Tfea -? which makes the evidence of Moreover, the evidence of thi| medical evidence'of &r. RaJ postmortem on the body of has stated in his evidence which were sustained by pre shock & asphyxia due to the medical evidence Moreover, the minor son of (PW/9) has cate9orically (PW/1) hod come to their was slapped in the hduse by PW/1 is estabnlished by the e ocular evidence and medical accused was the author of the Learned counsel for th the evidence, it is not establ intention to commit the As far as motive is motive of the accused what crime. Moreover,* motive inis throtj'ling. corrottorates q>i<ilnti|'i iiinT^" fa<<9 •<luit^it ^5siKl*i3nS?T Ipiis witness unreliableor untrustworthy. i| witness has been corroborated by the j^ndra Sharma (PW/6) who conducted ^mjami Mitki on the very next day. l-1e tfiat there were abrasions on the neck s^sing of neck cmd cause of deorth was tj'ling. His report is Ex.P/10. Therefore, the evidence of eye-witness. accused & the deceased, namly ©opi that eye-witness Banjami Mitki and when she tried to intervene, she th^ accused. Therefore, presence of ^vidence of PW/9 6opi. In view of the evidence, it is established that the |crime in question. ti^ accused/appellant argued thoit from (ished that accused had any motive or the sthted houte murdelr. con(»rned, it is very difficult to know the (j»as working in his mind to commit the bec^mes irrelevant when there is a direct ('fte^ir) XI-HC-22 <jCT) -<iioin«,t9-ri1<«<i<»,Isinm^ ^^..SKJss!^ an^?IWI IqilqiSII^SI s>*ii<p tilSn •"-^^^s^^g-^ --^ .%^?'^SS-3<i^^^. ^^^^ •''^:^<^~' Raju v ^^ "^ an^CTS'RiTSR^ifei "^, evidence regarding commiss^on of the crime. As far as intention is concerned, it is also very di-flficult to know as to what was happening in the mind of the <iccused. I^ttention can be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the, icase, the mcinner in which the accused committed the crime, the ^eapon of the offence used, the part of body of deceased where th4 present case, as per the e^cience of PW/1 Banjami Mitki, accused pressed the neck of the dec^ased, thereby the deceased was not able .to breath cuid on account of that she died instantapeously. Pressing of the neck in such a manner shows the intention of the deceased to that extent In the circumstances accused under Section 302 In the result, the dismissed. _ Sd/- L.G. Bhadoo Judge 4>wiri41*i iiioT;ff tsx? •([uit<;ii ^aif^tTSII^?! accused ossaulted •the deceased. In the that the deceosed was not able to breath (iccused that he pressed the neck of the Iwhich resulted into the death of the deceased. Therefore, inte|ition of the accused was writ \arge to committhe murder of Banja^i Mitki. we do not find any iltegality or infirmity in the judgment of the tr|kil Court convicting and sentencing the j)f the IPC. appeat is devoid of merit ond same is Sd//- V.K.Shrivastava Judge (<S»^M)