!; .1- ".^•A. ' -' \,' on^ &.%;' :.«—.-_:?*" " XfrPEftL CS'-'T'RISONER . x>36 .^;s- ^M^ CFOOOOOSS5S6 ^777 N0. ,^'ather's name ^v'^'^^^r&^^-^^r^''' 37"^., Sentenced •• ' . ' /^ ''• ,,_' ' On ''^^/^'y^^^^/'^y^/ - ^-^.-^. under secfcxon: ^^^^^^^^By ^^^^^^^^ it is e:3<p.lain®a to the^ prisoner that if Ke'states OE wishes-ti be rep.rese'hted by legal, praGtitio.her .fcheAppeIiate 'Court wUl fiot pf&cee<3 vith the base for seven days uaiess e leg.al practitionec appears. If the leg.al pjcp'ctitioner does not\ / • ' • . ' . • -1' • • ".~'' . • .• . ' \ ' appea-r wtth-i'n^veii days he raay^ tl'ot heard1 •at all. If fche • . ^v' •/''.'.. ': . . '- ... ., -;'. •• ' '..\ ' • • . / .' . • ." ,' •' •bhat he does not'wish t:p Ue represented by ral^pfi^ctiQtictner the eourt may;prQ<seed at oace with. the ^Lt"v)"-1 ' I ^.. ,': .' ~ *' ' 1;. " ^' ' '• -~ fase an<3 wil:l nc^t be obliged to glye- a'hearing feo any legal |t:ja?l r whol shpyld appeart ^..•ft1^""" ,1 " '. "' "~ ' ! " -<®' ^4.1'«'--""^_^toietk .1 /. _ ; . _. _ _ , 1. Dd<<i6°l'§fiAagiji'iiGa'6iQii for eopy of Judgemen'fc ^^-•^^'!?S. •{y^'Gowl^gS^-3"""""'" ~~ ""''''' , -'- -—3-—-—- —-^c-sy-.-.^^ We m ^ ^ -^—9^^^ 'ate of which copy received 3. Date on'wl'iich appeal sent 4. Whether the pr.i.sorier wish'ed' to be repre'sented ;or not-Y.es/No No'- —^i^/..^^. Cor.%inued in _/^ Name ^. -zl -^^^^/K~^:e> Jail - 'ir\ No. /r^y^<^r7r~_ _. ^ ^—^—' Dated.—_^2.-t^. ,1:SE'orward to the CHIEF -JUBICIAL WGISTRA'T] i'o gsther whiGha cdpy of order passed in the case'for fayoi 'w^' Superinfcendent . |Date of receipt in C.J.M's Offics__^l^i.-l"%; [pafce of receipt record to accompaBy_l:j£^ifiJ9--S-_^...-Jfiltil?"' ||Memo of Appeal of the yppeliate Goyrt • d-^-** oyTOnmy- yr.y.vi^i c^ (• , io- \ _: .^.-'<@\ ,.._ .,: ,^ /Datea fA..^16. *S.g;, 199 ^_^^_,_^ ^orwardgi3'"to the^^^^J*-'^'^^^^'^^^lc & ^_ :: ;-""•••,. •-:^'y e.J..; gistrsV^':I'. v^ Rn^fq^R$r i>at:e of. receipt in Appeliate Court _.^.^^_S|g^SHS-&SR!l- g/SURGUJA 'FI.//' ' - * * ^ ; ^ .1;.- ":1 XI-HC-78 aTt^r^rR-fi.* gw sn^r giHRi c.: *TT*«TTa)*IIW 3^T '<ll<ll<t«;©Tflo'l®,fqctl^y c"T.?vHo.^aoi/5'% ••""W^200 3ll^<l ^sitft (^al^aic^iir) 6«11W;Hf?tT3n^T usiitvJN^Bi.K. sj-yy L.C._UMAUOO AIND HON'BLE Sl t-nmi AppeUant 'v Kesponaent Mt. Abnay Itwari, Advocaiei Ms:. AKnil Agi'awal, Fanel.La ORA ( Peri^.C.,gIsadoaJ i ibis appeal is diiectecl aga ssntence datea ll-y-iyys passed leamed Adclitionai Kessions Juage, guiity tor eommission ot ottence i unaergo unpi'isonment tor tflte. :-s 2. The case of the pi'osecution that deceased Budliani Bai was man ^""d7""""''' <Bi<<t<-i<fli ii*«iTffteE3'<.Ri«i< ^TSri^Tsn^r -SB1 DHIRENDR_A MI8HRA. JJ lai Appeal No. 2SO 1/1998 "f 7 Devdliari srsus Ktate ol Chliattissarft tor me appeilant. wyet tor tfte Ktate. L JUUGMENT 14-1 l-2006t mst me juagment ot comiction ana orcler ol in Kessions inal INO. IKS/iyy/ wherebv the sarguja, ^'Unbilapui', aner aoldmg tlie appellant inder Kection, S'JZ ot LF.C., sentenced lum to m bner necessaiy tor ciisposal ot this appeal is bea to accusecl appellant Uevcllia'i. llie aecused [oom. Tit the fateful intervenins niah of 31s1 P.T.O. !.=t( '•rVwf XI-HC-78 •W^TW-RqR? (IW31R?Tsb1 ias: 3^i^ii<riin«,lwBw'ie^fildltii4<.^ . C^.A- (4o. agot/39 qra?fF9»WW'• **""•"•"••^^^•q'2®0 3<l^l Maf) (l^lt^d^li.T) g'EtiTwgferan^r 2- Deeember. 1996 and 1 January. 19P7, Lalaram- brother ofthe accused was sleepina in'his house, at about 11 p.m.''in Ui^ night he heard the screams ofBudliani Bai that Devdhari has attacked hei'. On whpch Laiaram aiong with his fatfier, mother and neigtiOourers came to Uie room ot trom Budaam Uai as to wlio Bas accused Uevahan tws assaulted.jlie jhe acdised with a biuiung lanteiii and enquired lassaultea her, oa wtucft she . disclosect that tfis with a lenife. On tlus, uiey enquh'ed from the lassaultecl uucltiam Uai witti a KniK. AKer some acoused ancl ne'rqiliea ttiat Jfte ttas trines, jBuclliam Bai succumbed to t^e injunes. ihe aecusecl also intoimea tflem tfiat Bucinam Bai was navma ilhcrt re assaultecl lier. Un tms i-alaram- tne m folice titation Ctiaigali. ifle mve| for the place of occun'ence and mquest report tix. P-4 ot tbe Dotty accused gave memorandum Ex. P-(| m pursuance ot tnat, Ue got recover^d Budiiani Bai was sent for post moftem Wadratnagarft wtiere Ur. .ts.alpaaa^)] ffucUiam yai aad prepared post moil| of death was shock dueto <»>i<irti'sfl'<KiiirtT^'tet^'<Ri<^i< 7'^3ri^(T3nSsT ' ; iations wita Naiitiu Loliar, Uiat is wby fte has 'tu'otner ot tfie accused loagecl Uie report £x.r-l itigatmg umeer atter registermg Uie ottence lett atter giv-uig notice to Uie ranenas, preparecl tbe pt tsudtmi Uai. waue m tne folice custociy, tlie regarcimg tfle Kaite- Uie weapon ot ortence ana tfte kmte uncter K.'a. r-/ n-om Jiay. ine boch' ot exammation to commuiyty Mealfli Centt'e, )[onde condueted the post moftem on the body of ;m repon Ex. P-12 and she opined that fhe cause Kecoverecl artKles were sent tor cbemical liaemoiitiage exammation to Fca^nsie Science Lajioratory, Sagar, •from where report Ex. P-19 was^ ^..' / . P.T.O. .''^i^ii il H^-r 'ilC XI-HC-78 *TTH?1t a>*1|cb <i-°<'^l'i<lcl'iltWl'y'is, RKII'M^ .Gr.A.^o.^aoi/g? •""^2l 0 311^1 4sl* ('[^3g^ar) sn^T^rteN; gsTTSn^Tshliqi *• WtiTWdfN'an^r received. Atter completion ot mvestig Judtcial Magistrate ^u'st Clas8;-K.amat Messions Judge, tiarguja wneretrom tl^' tlie case ontranster. j. llie prosecaition m order tc( exanunecl ll witnesses. yiatement ol cr.F.c. m wtucii iie detiiect me .m^tenal appeanng agamst ftun. j-lovvever, fte adnuttea mat m. the tatetul mglit, fte m Uie same room. Itiev wei'e residmsj me voice ot flis wite, tie wqKe up, wer t-ie became unconscious. Ue liacl not talsely uilpiicated. lae leamecl Aclditional yessio: respective parties, convicted an<l senteticed tne accusea as atorementionea. •<y .-. l. we aave hearct Ntr. A ay n' A'U. AUIII A/uslira, fanel Lan'yer on ti +i'i|f<'i'!fl-f iiHcfT ff tefl' <Ri<<i<; •;" ^arf^Tsn^T .: ;ation, cliarge sheet was tiled m Uie Court ot injganj, wtio m tmii committea ttie case to tae e leamed Additional Sessions Judge, received estabiisa the cha'ge agamst Uie accuse(4 accused was recoraeci uacler yection SiS ot ilong wim lus wtte uuaaani Bai wei-e sleepmg togetber. At about 11-12 m Uie mgtit, fteai-mi |t near the door and saw that lus wife was lying oozmg out ot aer stomaca. At ttiat tnne, m mjui'ecl conamon and bloocl was] someboay attacKecl fiun also witli a tjnite, blooa staled oozmg out ot lus stoinacft. ommitted murder ol lus wfle and ne has tieen ^s Juclge, altei' hearmg leamea counsel tor ttie van, Advocate on bebalt ot the appeUant ancl .latt ot Uie State. w 1^?, ;I 'l II ;1 XI-HC-78 BII^TWfNff (IW3?1^?Ta»f *TIWH 9i*IT^i 3^'fliii<i'si,<9Tfl'y'ic^&8ii«3< ^^^^:.^!-^ w^zoo 3i^w xa c*> (l,cilg<s<^) ?RITW:flfer3I1^?T (>. Mr. llwari tias not aisputea l] tbat, trom me evidence ot y.w. /| mortem on me tooay ot yuclham us^ iiomiciaalana vvas on aecount ot j mortem m natiu'e and ttei' rqiort ii| Budliani Bai was homicidal in natur^ 7. As tar as mvolvement ot tne tftere is no cttfect ancl ocularevidenc^ hostile. ifte wtiote case rests on.circU rest coni.iction on tlie circumstantial Court m tfte matter ot Uhaniat_L"hj 1994 (2) SCC 220, the prosecution i8| "In a case based on circumstg wftien ttie conclusion ot gui| ruUy estabushed but also tha s&ouia t>e ot a conciusive aypotliesis ot Uie guilj ot ttie '•s'- not be eapable ol bemg expl; the guUt ol ttie accusea and complete as not to leave ai consisteyf with the innocence < / <ni<lfci<fl-f lil(lT^'"fe^l'<R]tci< ^;3T^»T31^ST ;- "~r ie nomiciflal cleata ot Buaaam yai. Apart trom Ur. K-alpana 1'oncle wfto concluctecl tlie post has stated that the death of Budhani Bai was ''/' aocts clue to Jtiaemon'tiage, mjunes wei'e ante .f,x. y-U, it is estaWished tliat tbe deatli ot accusect m me cnme m question is concemed, m tlus case as aimost every wrtness nas tumed mstantial eviaence ancl as pei- the settled law, to ewaence as has been fteld Dy me i-ton'ue apex rtteriee Vs. State of West Bengai reported ia requirea to establisft tftat- ntiai evidence the circumstances fi'om t is to be drami have not only to be t aii the cil'cumstances so established lature and consistent only witft ttie accusect. ihose circumstances sttould imed by any otlier liypotttesis except tbe efiam ot tne ewaence must be so ly reasonabie gi'ound for fhe belief of ttte accused. It needs no remindeT P.T.O. ^i,&y/it;ij.ai!as^^iffi;:-^^i§^t^;i^^^;^^^9^£??i:^"^E i[l i XI-HC-78 sn^TgirR-fi.* WT 311^51 snilfi 3?g't<<i'iiici<i;aTnwiG^ftd[+iy. ^.^r4o. <':6o|/3<g *ri*iCTt so+iith Sii^i Ma<*i (>i5;it;iq'<.'!^) TOtIRIT^tTSn^T [nstances ancl not merely mclignation ot lot conviction and Uie more senous tlie Itie care taKen to sci'utmize tlie evictence iot prpot. •:y '. . sstaMish tlie charge against tbe accusecl based Ot. tbat legaUy estabUshed cu-cul Uie Couit can tonn tlig basisl ci'nne, tlie gi'eater shoulcl be lest suspicion takes the p.lace| S. llie prosecution fias tned tO tollowmg cn'cumstances: : (i) tliat tbe accusea macle exti'ajl.iaicial contession betore f\V-5 Uaynath; (ii) that the.weapon ofofitenee, t[ie knife stained with blood, was recovered at the mstance ot ttie accusecl; (m) mat m tfte tatetul mgftt Uie same room. itie accused maae a tal ot tlie L'ocle ol Cnmmal Pi-ocedure belore uie couit, tlieretore, ttie rti / °ni<il'il4l-i tiHdT if fecA <Rlt<iit ; • ^Sif^iran^T -;'.-\ |accused and me deceased were sieepmg m me |e explanation mtus statement;uncler section 31.S |that m the niglit between 11-12 p.m. someboay assaulted nis wite with Kmte ancl wlien ne woke up on aearmg Uie cnes ot his wfle, tliat person assaulted lum witti Ktllte on stomaca and blood startecl oozmg. He became unconscious. . 9. So far as fn-st poiiit is l!once|iiied, PW-5 Baijnath is Uie father ofBudhnibai. J-le ftas been declarecl bostile as a^ fias not supported ttie case ot tlie prosecution pnc rrosecutor was pei-minect^to cross examme tam and ip yfaragraph 9 of his cro^s examination by the PubBc pi'osecutor he has P.T.O. BI@a@E2@5 ^j^^.;,^^^—^-^^^:-; ZBlB^iiWttf«ifiT ^ XI-HC-78 sn^TTrRFTN; gsiTBn^Tsriii' m :riii1il:-l{:^t:li,^'.'^t;^I^.'l?^3.;??i^'lyffytwiS{^''SSS'i:'^''^:f\w^&^::'^' ^MSsaii"^3^nB";-^3K^.^^"y^S^ EEl;ii^;LHi;ld^:'^»^^^^SS^-"5^^^'K<3^^-'-:A:II'~—~-i^^ ...--..—..—.—-..—.- t11*1WtShH|tt> 3?g"'*ll'i|lcl''<,SiTn«'16,'RlCIIUy . ^A-rAo. ^%01/_^^ (tw—'"'"•"""*" •^200 341^1 44* (>^ll-iq<,«r) ®RtraTBf^(T3n^T statecl Uat on lus mquiry trom tus si|>: committed murcler ot fiis wute att( suggestion ot counsel tor accusea |( mcon-ect to say ttiat UieacGUsecl ttaa| Jn tact, tie disclosecl later on fliafl Therefore, ftom the above evidenee exti'a juclicial contession betore tij n'osecutor as well as by counseltor ftas categoncally statecl ttiat tlie acc4 As per Uie settled law the wfiple ei away. Xelevant evidence regarclm^ tiostile wibiess can be taKen mto con basis tor conviction. ±Setore placn] coiToborative piece ot evidence musl tlie e\'i(lenee ot tlie witness. W. Ho tar as ttte seconcl pomt i.e •N witness ot aeizure memo PW-10 iiit statement was made Dy me aceused. stated diat the ^aife was recovered ir <hi<ifci4)-f iiticil' ff teIA' <Rit<i< ^3Tf^T3TI^r : n-m-law UeocUian ne mtormed nnn that ne nas ;lung Aer witn a laute. Ue had demecl ttie paragraph 11 of cross examination tliat it is not 'mtormed mat ne bacl attacked Buflliam Bai. he had conmuttea muraer ot Bu'-nam yai. }t this witness it is olear ttiat the accusecl maae m. fii the cross examinafion by fiie Public lle accused m paragi'apas 9 and li, ttus witness ied made extrajudicial confession before him. lidenee ot a liostUe witoess canaot be ttu'own |mvolvement ot tlie accusea it statect t>y tlie iiaeration. Ut course, tftat cannot be maae sole ^g reliance on sucti eviclence some soil ot be. there which pi-obabalise tlie truthfiilness of ['ecoveiy ot Knfle is conceiiieci, e\'en thougti the (mani has tumed hostile, he has stated that no t|towever, m paragi'apft 2 ot Uie eviclence lie lias (m tlie house ofaccused undei- Ex. P-7. PW-11 P.T.O. S^h_^i^.^^-fcA-=^ '2-T. XI-HC-78 3?5;'<iiiici<<, sixn.y'is, RK'ii't-iy . Gf-(\.^0. 2-':bol *11*IWI ShHlth roo OT^RT M^qi ('iclt3°«<«T) sn^T^risTO; tPIT 3fI^?T sbHI^ CTcnWHfsa'sn^T r.K.K. ymgli tfte mvestlgatmg otticer| m police. custody the accused ^ve ijiemorandum Ex. P-6 that he has cohcealed a Knfle, tlie weapon ot oltence m tiay slack ana on Demg procluced by ttie accusecl Uie ^ . ^ ,--.-. -„- |o posffission under £x.r-l. As per J?i>L report blood. ihere is no reason betore ttus L'ourt to Knnestamea wrtli blood wastali-en ml|i Kx. y-iy ifle fcnite was stamea wrtii disbelieve th& evidence of the Investi uiat tlie investigatmg uaicer m oraer| tbe recoveiy. 11. yo tar as ttie thira pomt is cot statement under section 313 ofthe Ct aeceased Bucuiam Bai were sleepmg a|i flie cries of his wife, on wluch he wi| blood was oozing fi-om hei- stomach[ stomach and biood staited: oozmg ouf tbere is nottung on recora to establisq he sustamea any mjury.^tn the tu'st mf 'N .. FW-ll tias not t>een cross exammet sustamecl any m.pay nor any prosecul aspect. Uacl t&e^aecused sustamecl an: ~. / . q>i<<Fci<(1i Hii<aT^tecA<R]<-ci< ^i3l1^IT3TI^T •• tias categoncaUy stated taat on 4.1.iyy/ wtiile gatmg Utticer as nottnng lias come on recora to implicate accused m a talse ease concocted icemed, even die accused has admitted in liis '.P.C. that in the fateful nigit he and his wife the same room. At about 11-12 p.m. he heard >Ke up and saw ais wite m mjurecl conaition, At that time some person attacKed hmi on ot tus stomaati. Me became unconscious t>ut that tlie accused was attaeKed witti lailte ancl stance tfte investigatmg uaicer, r.K.K. timgn I on tbis aspect as to wtietber tlie accusecl tion witness nas been cross exammea on uus [• mjury mtlictecl by ttie tntrcl person, Uien tie P.T.O. ia§Ei mi i:"SHiLi."!' "^. XI-HC-78 tTP^TFShHKft 3:sg''*ll4l<'l'i|,;W1t<'is,l««ira'y. ^^^o;al'ot4^2(W 3<l^!*t 4dtb ('yil^'sti^)') 3n^!fr«RrR-fi* gs(T 31KW »Hi»n ®<ITWnfN'3II^T ouglit to liave requestect tor medical| before the Magistrate when he was pr((i cofflmitted by some Boay else and waejt was present on lus stomaca. llie acci]|s Buclliatu Bat gustamecl mjury as tie vvj Bai was sleepmg and m tact the aecu;] undei' section ;SJ.J ot me U.F.C, but tiel same is touncl to be talse as ne hasl mdicating that he sustained any inj iheretore, ttus talse explanation given| lioia him guilty tor the comnussion ot 12. laei'etore^. me cumuiative ene| judicial eonfession befpre Baijnath Pv Knite, the weapon ot onence at tte m; sxplanation as to liow tfle cleceasei ca'cumstances m'esistible conclusion ot tfte cnme m question ana tbere is nol else than tiie accusecl was author ot the / / < / qiraf^ftT IITR?ff ff fec^rf^It ^K sri^ir sfv^f exanunation or ae ougtrt to nave expiamect luced to establish that m fact tiie offence was iie woKe up Ae also assaultecl lum ana mjury ."j1" .- . . . .. • ^, iccl vyas Uie best pei'son to explam as to liow sleepuig m Uie same room wnere Budnam scl ttas macle an explanation m ftis statement tias not been abte to establisli ttie same as tbe not been aoie. to tinng any tact on record uy on stomaca' tntlicted by tfiu-d pefson. by ttie accusecl is also aamissi&le m order to le ottence. ;t ot me cu'cumstances ttiat;ne rnade extra '-S, same'stancl coiTOboratecl l?y recover^' ot ttance ot the accusea and mat he gave talse sustamed mjuiy, trom tlie above tbree tin oe drawn tbat ttie accused was me auttior [img on recorcl wlucfi mclicates ttiat any boay tlime m question. RZO. ; i'k fiiii;' Milili •i'tty^^"Tf"iH"(1 isl4i.:1^^.iU^. l!il!! Vf XI-HC-78 sn^T^rteH' dW 3D^?T stiHi<ti Wa *ll«<plla»*ll<ft 3^ ^na'RBT, yS\w ,Kwvy. . c<- A-MO. a%oi / ^<2200 3li^lKatn ('^atg'sK^ff) s«iiwgfer 3?i^?r 13; Counsel tor Uie accused'api^Uant argued that as Uie accused was doubting Uie naelity or e deceased yudftani| BaL.theretore, m a neat ot passion lie attackea the deceased and fiiei'efore, fhe offejnce against fiie accused does not travel beyond section sm-i ot Uie u'C. In 8uppoi1| the decision ofMadhya Pradesh Hig|i M.P. reported in 2000 (1) C.Cr.J 147U MJ-". in oi'cler to appreGiate tfte arguments aav'anced hy tlie counsel, we nave ^eiiised Uie e'\iclence ancl ttie recora ot me tnal Couit. Itiere is notlung on recoitl tttl'ougli wluch it ean be held that tfte accusecl was cloubtmg tidelity ot ais wrte Buctnanji some attercation tooliplaee.between attacked the deceased. The judgmej accused/appeUant is ot no tielp to tbe| 14. Ts'ow commg.to tlie question was attacKed wim Knite ancl as. a resitt e\'en lier mtestme came out ot Uie st<t mjmy was on vital organ witli a liiuti the accused to eause deatli ofliud: evidence. IV °bi<ifi'i41-< ii*iMTffteIA<R]«i< ^sif^Tsn^r '• -, -"? .», —. .-',-. ot ais?argument jvir. liwan placea reliance on 1 Court m tlie matter ot ijaiigaram Vs. State ot' Bai ancl on account ot tftat m the tatetul mght, the two ttiat oveipowei'ed tus sotiei' sense and he/ nt reUed upon t>y tlie lea'ned counsel tor me accused as me same is distmguistiable on tacts. ot mtention, tfie manner m wtucA the deceasea ot wtiica Budftam Bai sustamea a tatal mjury, >macb out ot tae mjiuy-sustainecl by tier ancl the i.e. tleadly weapon, tliei'etore, ttie mtention ol ;iam Bai ttas Deen establisned as pei' meclical P.T.O. -aBL^^^^^^S^^.i^^i^s^^.-^^.^^^Sii^^S^ ^[^^6 •r''l—It'-T"' 1 ].M :•" ;UI"y XI-HC-78 MiHMf aiflrai 3^:'<iwi<fl<< gsyiy'Ko, Riciwy. ^. :.^;<a(;-;^6AAS^ •^^................ ...^..^P^^Q 10 3TI^?T (Rg; (ijcfl^'sf^ET) 3ii^i%r1^i® (P'113n%?T Sbliih TOfIWflf^Tan^T 15. ' fii the resuit, we do not find same-is UaDle to be dismissect. it is ac ,|iny suDstance m Uus appeal and flierefbre, the tordmgly (iismissed. ~§a7~ L.C.Bhadoo Judge 1 Y / °ni<i(<i<fl'i WRff ff fei& <Rf.bil< ¥3ri^iT3nS^r •SiIA •,:.:;;• DhirendraMishra •Judgie'^..'1-':- P.T.O. VS93 y^ ;-'J'^( 4il