R;^ CF0000061279 •G^^ is^l^ 3-1^ No,.c~~~ Father's Name. APPEAfc PRIS^NStl s T Nc,&-?i Name_,__~^T__^^a^_<7^7 Age JSLSL3SL Sentenced to^gt-SE Under SectioB ^3p2, ~?^ipr^> ^SC.MT^ - <S!%-^<--a cS^ ^S-^^y ^•sr; fi'3fRrrfrs>%r ys>rsn^r?i,*y "^£<^>^- r-pp?^ It is explained to :the prisoner - tbat if Ae states.or wishes to'be represeated j by alegal practitiQDeT thfiAppetlate Court willnoteroceed^jt?i^i6/basefor j; seven days unlessthe legal praetitioner appears IF the-.legal practitioDer <}oes not j appear within seyen days he may be jbeard'at all if< iegal j>ra»tifionerthe coyrt 1 may proceed at once ivith the casejand willnotbe obljgefl^p;gise abearingto 'faay legatpractitionerwhbshould^)pear. F >ate of appticatidn foicopy of Judgement:- f\^6 ^ |; 2. Date ofwhich copy reeeived :- '•^fe-A^"^'^ ffii : ' . " •• . . • ' ^\. ••' ^ _./ II 3. Date on which appeal sent:- .^' t'^^-S'^ itl? ' . ' . . ! • ' 4. Whether the prisoner wished to be jjl represented or not':- .Name ~~^c?r^r^<r ry; '/ No. ^12. Yes/^'. o°5ii)Fr <?nsq" Continued in ] •"f^.rc^l^ Jail ^l^j^ .,^'S^ s^^<y^ )^£TteTR?<^[&T / 'Ddted ^t "•T-'a'? , . . ied to the CHIBF ^UDICIAL MAGISTRATE TR-Cg? l^t P 01r2^•^- ilfc.:. 1 .•' ' ' ' ^^.-;-.' •^:': ' '"•"'".' : '. .' '^ ' "" '• ••.". -..."- • . ' \ • „ ' ' ' \ fWS^gether with a copy of Judgement or order passed in the (RSC for fayour of lj fi^sffiission to the prop^ Applleate Court. ^-' b-Jail. ;-;t^^T??^-^ '' Dste of rcceipt ic C. J. M. Office. 13 •&• °i5 1 Date ofreceiptofreeordtoaccompany. i~ ] Memo of Appeal of the Appellate Court. ~ No.. -,.:." ['^ _ dated _/l/i75?._ l..sv^ Forwaided to the__H''6^_;^~t_^'&-i"_&^A__^Ut1^ &; <-I-oA •• / & ft. MAGISTR^TB 6 'TC. ^ "'JTTUTi' (liiUI <?,;'- 6aie 8f receipi in A^iieate CdurV J! B M- XI-HC-22 an^i'qiT Tc(-<i+ 3D^F ^W^ ^Iia M F '3^ ':?[RRFI, e>fll<rio, f°«ll'M1<, •^. . - ^. sn^r ira^ 11*<MI Shliqh '" '"" "W^ 2flo— 'fe^T' 311^1'S^IIWSf?d ^IVrSIONBENCH: WON'i &HON' BUE SHRII..C.BHADOO ftLESHRIDHIRENDRA-MISHRA.JJ Appellant Respondeht CRIMJNAL APftEAL N0. 1970 of 1997 Pj>oranii?awat vt Sll, Ms. Sofiya Khan, learned coi|nsel Shri U.N.S.Deo, learned G.A1 ORAI, {05 PerL.C.Bhadoo, J 8y this appeal under Sectji Rrocedure the accused/appellant| correctnessofthejudgmentofconvj May 1997 passed by learned Sess) whereby the learned Sessions Judj guiity fqr commission of offence un|der him to undergo imprisonment for lif4 iit the 2. Case ofthe prosecution, between deceased Cheruram and On 02.05.1996the deceasedwent <c for his share (rf lan8, 6n which qitvrel (feceased was b^At upoh to assaul( assaulted the deceased with club.l qi|^[^1<fll •HfHClf'^fe1^ <r<<+^K ^ sipan an^r ate ofMadhya Pradesh fortheappeNant. forthe State/respondent. UDSMENT 04.2006} |on 374(2) of the ,Gode of Criminal has questioned the legality and iction and order of sentence dated 26 !ons Judge, Bastar in S.T. No. 271/96 )e after hotding the accused/appellant Section 302 of the 1PC sentericed brief, is that there was a-dispute accused regarding partition ofland. othehouse.oftheaccusedandasked started between tfte two. The yire accused whereupon the accused Repqrt (Ex.P-8) pf-the mattec was ['T:ft^,^f<a^:: ^ \ A XI-HC-22 a.li^sr^i C'W'h 311^1 sblit) ^g tAiiMBf- ^ 'S^t -41'41<-)<1; S>T|W'IS, f^'tK-iy ir«T<fT<(nira) •3T(^?T T^R? S^.:..Q.:..!.Q^>:l.SS.. 'Wi, -fW f^^T' sn^r^siiw.^rfsg —'L^ bQ|dy iodged by PW-1 Aayturam—thevillE after registering the crime took up tt of occurrence. After giving noticf Panchanama (Ex.P-1) of the Investigating Qfficertook intopossei lungi and one Rjko watch uhder Ex| was taken ihto.possession under Exfl into possession under Ex.P-4 and ci< possession under Ex.P-5. The se| examination to Forensic Science (Ex.P-11) was receiyed. The de^ postmortem examination to Govt. -. K.S. Paikra (PW-5) conauctec( postmortem report (Ex.P-10). After sheet was file4 in the Court of Judit \<vho in turn eommitted the case to tht 3. Prosecution in order to accused/appellant examjned six of-the accused was recorded under denied-the prosecytion evidence is innocent and has been falseN -'' Sessions ,)udge after hearing leamt convicted and sentenced the.El paragraph - 1,/ofthis judgment. * '•/,'.. : q')i<4f<n*i1ri TTIH^ff^ 1^^ ^f^R&rt . ^sifSwafl^r |ge Kotwar. The Investigating Offlcer |e investigation and left for the scene tq the Panchas he prepared the 'f" • ' ' ! :'' of deceased Cheruram. The (sion bloodstained soil, plain soil, one .P-2. Club - the weapon oToffence 1P-3. Lungi of tKe accused was taken (tthes ofthe deceased were taken into ized articles were sent for chemical L^bQratory, Raipur from where report |d 'body of Chsruram was sent for H((sp.ital, Bhanpuri under Ex. P-10 where the postmortem and prepared the t:ompletion oftheinvestigationcharge i|;iaf IVIagistrate First Glass, Jagdalpur i^ Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur fortnal. istablish the charge against the Vrfitrtesses. On theother hand, statement iection 313 ofthe Cr.P.C. in which he aptteanng against him and statedthat he implicated in the crime. learne^ id cdunsel for the respective parties jccused/appellant as mentioned in [Tti^f^ l-n.s.'l XI-HC-22 ~s^l -ill*lli?l<l, axi1<H*ii»,f»«Yii'y3< sn^c^r R;-<i?b 31)^1 *1{ <1[s^l 8 i 11H?IT9r>TW STT^T XR^? _.!3^,.a^-2..3..<?423 "fe^T"""""""""""""" 288— sn^i ^Rdwdftg -3 4. We have tieard Ms;Sofiy behalf of the accused/appsllant State. ! - • . Khan, learned couhsel appearlng on an^ Shri U.N.S. Deo, learned G.A.-for the 5. Homicidal-death ofdecease<|CAeruramis not in dispute. 6. Asfaras?invoh/ement ofth ofcrime in questionis concerned, the deceased has beeh examin examination she has stated that present at the place of occurren< been rejected by fhe frial Court. rests bri circumstahtial evidence i.i accused before PW-1 Aayturam w conviction on extra judicial coTifes| as to .whether the eytra judictol house after performing election d kitchen garden df Kurso: Thereupt all ofthem vi/ent there arid sawtt there and therevras injury'on the he has furtherstated that there uji the deceased regarding the tand. / :. . . ... . ,* that the acclised at the time of ma( ".•^'•. / '•' . -': . ».:':. "••• - • •• that he Kas kitled the .deceasedl q')|*il^1<l1'f HlHClT'^ fe^ iHl^R ^ arfidtl 3D^f ^ accused/appellant in the commission eveh though PW-4 Subli Bai.- wife bf ^d as eyewitness but in her cross- |at the time of incident she was not <e, therefore, tier evidence has rightty fhus the whole case of the prosecution |. extra judicial eonfession made bythe id PW- 3 Sukman. inorder to rest the iion, the Court is required to ascertain tonfession made by the accused was A-4AAtE-^" voluntary an(lp6S«t|at? PW-1 Aayt|.jram hasstated that in the fateful night at about 10.00 p.m. when he alor|g witli Sukman were retuming to their ty, accused Pooran met them On the way near his house arid disclo|sed tp them that he has murdered CHeruram byattacking with club 4"d body of Cheruram was lying inthe >n, he disclosed this fact to others and lat dead body of Cheruram was lying lead. In paragraph - 2 of his evidence is a dispute between theaccused and In the cross-examination he has stated ahg extra judicial confession had stated as there was a dispute between the " ^rt I • 1 1 XI-HC-22 311^1 ^iT Ri-li* sil^l stiHi^ ^[?a ,? T»?-MWIcl'4, 8ifll<H'IS, facll'My 3TI^?T 'IR^; ^.C^.A...2g.^^. IIWCTI (hllch ^t^St' deceased and himself regarding share ofland fr'dm the deceased whteh quarreltook place andtheya corroborated the above evidence stated that the accused disolosed abusing him, he attacked with clul above evidence it is establjshed thi with club on his head as a result o1 have been proved by Dr. K.S.Paikri These two witnesses (PW-1 & there was no reason befdre them tc too, in a heinous offenee like murc tvw witnesses inspire confidence confession before them regarding thereby causing his death. ] 7. Leamed counsel for the medical evidence to show that th( deceased were sufficient in the o| death. She furtherarguedthat as| there was a dispute between the share iof land and in that dispute i passion, without premeditation th| therefore, offence against the 304-11 ofthe tPC. 8. On tKe other hand, Shri U| suppOrted the impugned judgment ( -cbl*fT<n41l TTTR?Tf"^^^ <^Re]< ^sifSgiTan^i ttie land and he was demanding his w|iich was denled by-the deceased, on abused each flther. PW-3 Sukman has fcnd in the cross-examination he has "(';''." " .. : ' . -' ' •' . tp them that as the deceased was ) and murdered him. Thus ft'om the lit the accused attacked the deceased [ whieh he recewed four injuries which (PW-5) and syccumfaed.to the same. P^V-3) are independent witnesses and falsely implicate the accused and that ter. Therefore, the evidence ofthese |hat the accused made extra judiciat [attacking the deceased wjth club and acc|use/appellant argued that there is no injuries inllictedon the head of the yinary course ofnature to oayse •his per the eyidence available on record laccused ahd the deceased regarding <|>n the spur of moment, in the heat of i|e aceused assaulted the dsceased, acc|used does not travel beyond Se^tlon N.S. Deo, learned G.A. forthe State ifthetrialCourt. [''^^ro^: XI-HC-22 SII^I^CT 1%;IH;3Di?t' **iich yfia 'S^ •^HM^, •is'Aww, hwvy. . 3Tli^T Tl^? ^<S^..^.^Z3^Z^5) *11<1CTI (hlich 200 [°l'b<tCT' aD^t^gigt'g^tt '5 — 9. Perusal of the evidence adddced that there was a dispute betwe| regardingshaFe of land and aceor<jl the accused disclosed to him thatl assaulted him wfth club and murdered stated that accused disclosedto h| was demanding his share of land by the deceased, 6n whrch quarrfsl abused each other; Therefore, fro< . \ vifhen the aceused was discussing land, - the deceased abused h'im ^ quarrel jn the spur of moment, ail| without premeditation the accuSed| his head, as a result of which de|( injury and died due tp coma on material was suppressed. Though fr comS in evidence that the injuri^ sufficient in the prdinary course of | fact mentioned above it can safel^ deceased with club, the accused h; the head with club.he may likep Therefore, the offence against th4 304-11 ofthelPC andas such the accused under Section 302 ofthe II ehi^Td^'f ^f^^f ^^^ i^n^K ^ arfigir sii^r by the prosecution goes to show^ bn the accused ahd the deceased |ing to the evidence of PW-3 Sukman I'1 '"<":. ' .- ; . . ^ ;'• ! .- ^.^ . : |as the deceased started abysing, he him. PW-1 Aa'yturam has ailso |m that he has killed Cheruram as he rom the deceased which was refusecT started between the two and they h the .above evidence it is evident that Iwith the deceased about his share of lin which quarrel ensued and in that of a suddeh, in the heat of passjon, assaulted the deeeased with club on ;eased received frontal bone fracture laccouht of head injury asthe brain from the statement of doctbr it has not is sustained by the deceased were lature to eause his death but from the be inferred that while assaulting the. id knowledge tHat by causing injury dn ty to cause death of the deceased. -accused is made out under Section finding ofthe trial Courf convicting the 'C cannot be sustained. [1T^ ^fo^ ^a^,^h] ^^ ^~rt 3§pnf oopsqg -3-^ -/PS a3pnf i^ Bjqsi$\[ejpuaiiii|a ! -vs . : j ! •esea jgqio Aue ui pajinbsj W tt^^ea^ ^o uoneidLuoo) uo peseaie, .eq ,ue||9ddw3§hooB aqi ^o^eqj. -^g o^ ^ ^noo P^^' A, pa)nds,p' )0u s, W^ SeSfSO-CD e^uis ^poisno ui^ ^ws^ weiiadde/pesnooe e^ ^^^u<V)U3iuuoi!.,duio&,mn(o,pe3u^pueodi94»lo||-t ^}WSJSPOTP9'o!Awffs!84^1PGS u'8P!SB^^-y"°om ^AqiUBiiaddp/pesnooe^luodno^a^^^^ss.opunp^odu,; souews pus UOIPIAUOQ •speBoofis|qyBd ,Bed<te o^ .i,ns^ 84, u, .01 i^iisbBsye^. ^laP. ^iat fe jEttlh: k|bi->l>>i^ fiajfi.IKlBlAl^UE .ft&a^., --WZ ,fc4>.<.................. ^lhys lUhib ' f^7oS1iT:fv":':^S>'^"~K"mIi ^ti ^ite >1iftlt;>bJ '»)|,ft[lie 'feWlblh- tap ,. ^, ^.4^,^ 'SSi^'SSKSS'K iaj&AUii6 ii^lte.ifelfc^j. ufei^ite ZZ-3H-K