.‘ XII-1'89 gain C J.P.R~J9‘94 i3 l lHHHlHlHllHil ' CFOOOOO58369 t: 3N0 iv! (W; / [5‘2 V‘Name 9 87W, E“1mm " Bench (Crinma‘) é Father’s name k ‘ ..‘.. ‘ "‘1; H 9r) ‘ Residence jgw 3*TQQTF, W @Wge ..‘%‘§ VW ‘ Sentenced tg‘sgai:, WE? Cm j 011v ET I 72 l q T. caving QgHJDIMj f ’ ’ ‘ / O, APPEAL oFPRIsQNg‘s-‘é‘ Under Section / I. é 'r Q I g \ L aQWEZgm i%b by‘y"@§f”&% /‘ N é} £1 g3 ”algiq‘Ea7j It is explamed . to the pnwnerthat . , if he states he wishes to . be represented camiag~< by a legal V3191 practitioner the appellate Court will not proceed with the case for seven days unless the legal practitioner appears earlierr If the legal practitioner does not appear within seven days he may not heard at all if the Prisoner states that he does not wish to be repre- :nted by legal practitioner the court may proceed at once with the case and will not we obliged to give a hearing to my legal practitioner who should appear. l Date of Application for copy of Judgement ‘ N “ e Date of receipt of record to accompany the i l ia / Memo‘of Appeal to the Appellate court W l No W Forwarded (to the Date of receipt in m Office ‘5" a Date of receipt in Appellate court t l a , Date on which copy received 5?] Ia! 9 §* _ 3‘ Date on which Appeal sent [\IeaZ??“LI Ofi‘hégmx/ 9 5", @Qjt * Q f Qel l? 4 Whether the prisoner wishes to be or note F or u / e , e i No / I Q5“ /£§‘2, Name m“, ,7 . Confined in Jail g <<$\ l 3/ \qg'ia %Zli l§W 7 <7 /\ @C‘yf6gg“ i m No. 2 8‘} v Dated Q f I24; 199 g Forwarded to the§ A ' ‘ ;; to gether with a copy Nieem N of judgement eoere'eja A or order / passed azereatrza’wq ‘ in the case for favour attetega’ of transmi. ‘ H ea yet; K ‘xssion to the proper Appellate court. A i (his \\ 1‘ Superintendent Q/‘w’ WW l l“if: 4, Respdnd'ent 7 :7 a The E {ate of Madhya‘Pra‘desh‘ v learned counsel fer the appeuant ‘ ‘ DepJearned G A forms State/ruspondent \ 7 / ‘ . Shn D R Sharma iearned Sr Advocam With Shn B P Badgalya 8hr: G K Benwal iearned Dy Advocate General math Shn U N S ORALJUDGMENT“-\r ’iDeHvefed o‘h‘ 1?“ January'ZDOS) " L C Bhadoo J ‘ ,By this appeal through ‘uperint’endent, District Jail Biiaspur the accusettiappeliant has estianed the legality of judgment 0f i ’conwction and sentence ci' ted 05 12 1995 whereby the learned 4‘“ h Additional Sesstons J'dge Bilaseur after holding the, accusediappellant guilty f r commissmn of oftence under sectlan 4:66 and 302 of the ind n ‘Penal Code has sentenced him to undergo Rigorous lmprieo merit for 10 years and life impiisonment ’ respectively it was furthe directed that both the eentences should run concuirently, The acc sedlappellant is in detention empe 1992‘ q XI—HC-zz WWW mug W m W ; ~ Saw—em ‘.ww&m %:\' 2%Wanéw ' mVESION BENCH ‘ v a HON BLE SHR! L C BHADOO J 3: HON BLE SHRI DH!RENDRA MISHRR J ”a” I Crlmlnal Aplpeai No 1?93 of 'i995 vf :Appenanif ‘ : 1 Bhurfsu " - Vs. x > XI-HC-22 ’ 4 ' v " 2. The prosecution case in trlef necessary for dusposa! of this appea! is that PW~2 Shyam Singl" brother of the deceased iodged the First v - 'lnformation Report (P 3) at Pnhce Station Lormi an 5 5 1989 a’t about 13.30 hours to the effect that m the preceding mght he along 1 e 7 A ’ r . v with hi3 wifeNa‘nd children were sleepmg m his house and his elder brother Ra’m Singh was s pmg along With his family In his houee ln the wee hours he hear the screams of his sister—m law Gaurlbal x (P W 1Q) that murder has been committed On hearing the scteams of his stetemn law he alo' g With his Wife Sukhbartyabai went to the house of his brother‘and saw that his sister-inelavy G‘auribai was/ . weeping-he iit the keros ne lamp and inwthe light’of'that’ia‘r‘np her saw’that body’of his brot 'er‘Ram Singh was in the pool'of‘blood, some 'one had slit his rie k with sharp edged weapon, ,one’..han‘d ‘, and leg were also cut. R m Singh‘ Wasbreathing slowly and after, some time he died Sh‘y Singh and his wife tried to‘search the' .person in the nearby ar in the ltght of the lamp but nobody was 4 , x ‘ there After hearing the s und neighbourer Buhdu Baiga also came there Shyam Singh has stated that someone after entering the house of his brother had ommttted the murder The :nvestigating 1 offcer attei registering th above First information Report (P—3) left ‘ forthe scene of occunenc , after gving notice (P-1) to the Panchas vpreoared the Panchana a of the body (P—2) Under (P—5) the ich were handed over hy the doctor under P-7 the blouse and Sari of Gauribai under P 8 one torch of ‘ two celts (Olympic) and u der P-9 the blood stained soi‘i and plain . sort were taken into posse Sion from the place of occurrence Body ,of deceased Ram Singh iciothes of the deceased sent for post mortem examination to [heated l e a e s XI—HC-22 ’ amm’ mm C/y a 7993/9 ; ma ....... ............. f i anémw e» mmm N ~ 3 g W‘wuiwm‘; %Wm ’ the Primary HealthCenim Lormi where Dr. D. \Lanj t‘ondu‘ctedrthe ‘ post mortem and prepared‘the post mortem‘ report (P12) and ‘epined that the‘causeio‘f death was shock and hemerrhage andthe death wasVhomicidal in na ure After cempretmn of investigation the charge sheet was fied n theCourt of Judmla} Magistrate Frrst ‘ Class= Mungeh who m tu n committed the 'c‘a‘se‘ to the Session‘s ' Judge Bilaspur from where the 4m Additmnai Sessmns Judge VBiiaspur received the case on transfer for triai 4 3.‘ The prosecution‘in’ order to’estabiish the charge examined 17 \witnesses..Statement of the accused was aiso recorded under section 31‘3 ofthe Code of Iimlnai Procedure and the accused denied the erosecution evidence and stated that Gaurlbai was hi5 married some'cther person therefore i she has falsely Implicate him in the crime Learned Additional $essmns Judge after h armg the arguments of the Additionai a . Public Prosecutor and c unset for the accused convrcted and . e sentenced the accused as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this ‘ e wife after deserting him v! rg‘udgment; 4 We have heard Shri D Sharma Sr Advocate With and Shri ~ i "B P Badgaiya Advocate ppearing for the accusedfappeliant and A » V . 'Shri G K Eeriwal Dy Adv cate General and Shri U N S Dec Govt Advocate appearing on be alf of the State s ’ 5.‘ . Having heard learned cou sel'forthe‘parties,‘ wehave perused the iudgment of the trial Co The homicidai death of Ram Singh is [new v i and the evidence and other relevant papers available on reco . u r \,-XI .'H022 Wm O ' V A / 373/?§ 5, not in dispute. As‘faras involveme'nt’ of the accused‘Bhursu in / cammittmg th'e murder of Fam Singh is concerned, thejwhéIe-case ¥ rests on the evrdence o le eyewitness na‘me'iy Gouribai ‘(P W r 10) the Wife of the deceas ‘d and corroborattng ewdence of Shyam h Singh (P W 2} and his Wif Sukbariyabai (P W 3) who have stated ‘ that aiiei hearing the sore ms of Gouribai (PW 10) they went to ‘ the house of Ram Singh an there they sawthe injured Ram Srngh Gouribai (P W 10) has stat d that in the fateful night she aiong With ‘ her husband Ram Singh e sleeping in the house the accused came With an axe and afte remoVing the clothes from the body of I (i Ram Singh attacked With t e axe on his neck waist and leg She a ' was able to see the accu ed in the tteshing light of the torch of ‘ ' . three cetls which the accus d was carrying She has further stated that she iaised screams an on hearing the screams Shyam Singh ' came but before that the a cused tted away P W 2 Shyam Singh I . and P.W. 3 Sukbariyaba ye also stated in the Court ewdence ' that Gouribai, informed th hat accused Bhursu has attacked and" Singh The above eVidence of three ’ / “Witnesses stands beiied a d does not inspire confdence of the N Court for the reasons that hyam Singh (P W 2) todged the report lonext day ie 05 05 1989 caused the injuries to R e about 13 30 hours in Police Station— ,> Lormi in w’mch he has cearty menttoned that some unknown person has murdered his other Had Gouribai informed $hyam .Singh about the commissi n of murder of Ram Singh by accused Bhursu then there was o occasiomfor Shyam Singh not to mention the name of ac used Bhursu in the First tnformation' Report So this fact beii s the eVidence of Gouribai (PW 10) ‘ V 1 New f o r i a t a t r WWWW Mm mmiiféérm -3- ‘ t Shyam Singh (P.W.2}'an:l Sukbariyabai (PW3) Shyam Singh .- tP.W.2) and.Sukbariyabai (PW 3) have improved their ev'dence ' ‘ beforethefCourt, therefore, m materialpartioutars their eVidence - .cannot be beiieve‘d. ‘ Apart form that Gounbal has admitted In her evrdence that t‘xe incident teak place at abcut 12 00 In the mid night and the night ~ was pitch darkand there ‘ as no ViSItaihty She has stated that she ' was able to see the acc sect in the tight of the tarch To utter” surprise as per the state ent of Gourtibai (P W 10) the torch was of three cetts whereas t e torch so recuvered is of two cells Moreover there is no . Vidence to the effect that the torch ‘ recovered belongs to ac used Bhursu therefore the theory of ‘ seeing the accused in t e light of the torch is also not worth reliance There is no oirc mstanttal or other eindence to establish the involvement ofthe ac used in the crime in question The trial ‘ " ' Court has mentioned in t e Judgment that as Gouribai (PW 10) 'was married Wife of accu ed Bhursu and as she left Bhursu and ’ became the Wife ofthe de eased and three children of Bhursu were atso tett at the residenc of deceased Ram Singh therefore 'Bhursu was hailing ammo ity against Ram Singh and that is why ’ “there was a strong motive for commission of the crime by Bhursu i However theie is nothing n record which shows that Bhursu was f hainng any animoSIty on ccount of the fact that Gouribai married ’ '» Ram Singh. Moreover,- he anvestigating offcer has not been examined to estahiish th motive and no evidence has been adduced by the prosec hon to establash that on account of . ccused - [Vie éfah i. Wa } ' 7 atihrmmw V' ' , ” at anew m x a ., XI-HC-22 : Bhursu,‘ accused Bhursu ’Singh. As far as the q'uesti‘ori that ' was arrested In the yea! 1 'concerned the mvestiga ~ estabhsh this fact that the thele Is nothing on re abscondmg > in View of the feregoing oplmon that the Judgm accused/appellant has be \ cannot be sustamed a therefore the appeal of ti samels atlowect Theju against the accusedfappel ‘he is acquitted of the chai Was having any grudge agairistTRam . . accusedtBhusru mtas abscon‘ding and he §92 Le”. after 2. V2 years” of the incident is n /w\ Judge \ ‘ t g of'iicenhas not heen examinegt to ' caused remained abeconding, therefore 'ord to show that the accused was scussmns we are of the constdered nt of the trial Court whereby the n conwctect and sentenced a3 above the same is table to be set aside e accused/appeltant succeeds and the ent of convrctlon and sentence passed ant by the trial Court are set aSide and ges under sections 450 and 302 of the Sd/— t i DHRENDRA MISHRA Judge V rai. V l J-‘¥*_¥_ ,a‘ . [deaths V 'IPC The\accusedi’appellant be set at liberty forthWIth if not " requiredin an other cas ‘v l Sd/- , i iv. 1‘ _L.C. BHADOO t n d I 1 ~