HKE‘JH CQURT QF QHHATWSGARR; AT BXLA$PL35E Qi‘imma! Apgbeed Mg, 1? 9f 2G§G Pfgn § Vmg us $aa§ $1? W‘iadhya €3rarj&$h JLéBGWEEN? FQR GGN§§QERA?IQN Sd/- 13mm msrmA; Judge '3QE‘3’BLE SHPI duST!”E LC. EHADDQ Sdl— L.C.BHO Judge WfL/osxmoa F3G$T FGF’; JUQGMENT §N é’JtQ- 2mm Sd/- DI-DRENDRA WSI-RA Judge ” ADO HQHQEURT £1F QHHATT5$GARH AT EELA$PUR RB, Hon.$hri LG. Ehadco and Han.$hri Eihiremira Niis’nraJJ Q‘A Na ’3?l25&6 NT Premlai ‘QPQELL.3;: VER§£§$ s RE$EQNDE§£T Shri R‘K, Jain and Smt. Kiran Jain counsei far the appeilant. Shri Akhil Mishra ieameei panei lawyer for the re3p0ndent‘ SW3 of Madhya Pradesh. JUDQMENT {Delivered on ?} «Q-2OQS) Peg? Bhimndw Mimraad \ The agpenani has preferred this appeal under Eectlon 374 (2) of the Cede 0f Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment datecl 29.10.1983 passed by Addlllonal Sessions Judge, Rajnendgam in Elessiens Trial No. $1998 convlctlng hlm under semilons 376, 394 and 302 of the lndlan Penal Code and sentencmg to undergc R! fer 10 years aml pay :‘lne 0f Rs. 1000f- u/s 316, to endergo F3! fcf 5 years am! pay fine cf Rs. 5QOI- uis 3% and t0 endergo lmprlsenment for life and pay flee of Rs. 100m- Lmder section 3G2 of the IPC. la default'of payment of fine he hae fwiher beer: Sentenced t0 undergo R1 for 6 months, 3 monlhe and 6 months Teepec‘ilveiy. All the seetencee are directed. te run cencum’eeily. 2. The caee ef the preeecuiieh in brief is thet on 21 2.1%5 at ei‘eut 2.3a pee cleceeeed Pumiye alias Pumima had game i0 e field Where the appeiiani afiei eommitiing eexuel lmei‘eouree beiweee e end e pm. lasted her nese ring and other orriamerite vs l‘Jx arid thereafier mardemé her. On the basis of information of the irwestigaiim Offises’ PISS. Tiwayi, Merg intimation -—Ex. 1343 was renamed "n 22.2.1995 at about 1.30 am. amd ihereafier Dehai§ NgHshQ a? EV P44 was abo recorded. After canducting mque$i of Ex. P4, fhe dead body vvaS‘gent fer autopsy i0 Distrist Hosgitat Rajnandgaon where the post mortem was conducied by a team of Virhree drawers amj the past martem report is Ex. F346. Memémm'um cf irm appeilam wa8 recorded on 115.1%? in cam-nastier! with Crime No. 128M. §9§ vide Ex. P~5 and an the ba3is LE ‘ or 3.. infermatiom . ‘z gmm . by the appenwt a Silver . anklet , arid goidsmrch . ,s regia‘fcet' werg taken into po$$e53ioh fmm one Tara Chancira Jam PW-e. Mother memorondum staioment of rho appeHant under op’frorr 2? of the indran Evidence Aci was recorded on 2§.5.199? am: on the haw of information given by him a geid ring, noee ring, eiiver ring em one handkerohief were taken into poseeesion vide Ex P40. The above anicies were put to test identification by GR. Mehipal, Neib Teheiidar F’Wu5 on 237.1997 and ine same were ideniiiied icy husband of ihe deeeaeed namely Devenand PW-iZ. After eempieting investigatien charge eheet was fiied in the "3ouit of Judiciai Magistrate First Class, . ainendgaon writ) in turn eemmitted the ceee to the Conn of Session, Rainancigaon tram where learned ,Aetctitioite! Seeeiens Judge, Reinandgaon received the caae on transfer for trial. 4. Charge under sectione 376, 394 and 302 of the lP€$ wee ireme against the appellant whe abjured hie guilt. p». ;ew gn The preeecution in order to establish the charge against the appeilant examined a5 many as 18 witneesee in all. Thereafter, statement of the accused was also recorded uneer Section 313 of the Code of Criminet erooedure in which he denied. the eiroumetanees eooeerin t V aoeinst v him in the oroeeoution l ease and pleeded hi5 innoeenoe and talee implication in the oaee. However, k‘m 431g Gem”: bemw after hearimg ccunsel for the parties has ccrwicted ENG sentfanced the accused a3 menticned above“ 8. Homickja£ death of Pumia alias Pumima i$ moi in dispuie. Even ‘etherwiee, tram the pest mortem report which hes been duty proved by 3r. P. Akhia? who was; ene 9f the members of the team which eendueied me peet moi‘tem i": was foumi that at the iime of poei med‘em exai‘nii'iaiion the neck 0f fhe deceased wee tied by her Sari, heee wees swoiien and deepiy cangeeteoi, iehgue was; pmtruded and bittei. bv teeth, biced and saiiva wae ceming Gui: frem meufh and nest‘iiis, abrasiéns were preeent cm cheeig fm‘ehead, both eibewe and knees, right rihe beiew the stamach, poeterior poriion 0f breast extendihg fmm righr scapuiar regien w himber region, right calf arid right beiiish of the eromach. Gr: exemihaiion of the heck iigature mark arounci the neck was epehed, firsr iigeture wark wee sparked at the ihyroid bone encirciing the heck ih rhe eiz‘e Jr” 5 em. wide immession of kiwi we; seetied en the right Side and beck side e? th mck The seecnd ligature mark wee above the firet iigature mark whieh elee encircied the neek and i‘te Widfh wee 1 em Qn internal examihe'iion bleed was feund in the irachea, bath the lungs were feuncl cangestedl derk eelour teleec! was pteseht in tie right chamber, the te't ventt‘icle wee empty and brain cells were cahgestee. Thyroid cartilage m” the heck ae also the hide bone were fractured. Orr examination of the private parts of the deceased done by e ledy deeteh muttta‘ted weund was found ever the left side of tabia minora arid dry blood eteihs were present. Vagina admitted two fingers eaeily, hymee wee ruptured, there was no ihiury on the uterus and it was hen gravid After pest mortem examination the decters epined that the neuse ef death wae asphyxia as a result of strangulation and the death v es homicidal in nature Thus ori the basis at abeve report hemicidal eath E$ eStabiished. .LAJ. .7. Learned eoeneel fer the appetleht submits that there is he eyewitness te the iecident and the appellant has been convicted setely v h the basie 0t recovery of ornaments worn by the deceased on the d memwandam m? tm a¢cu$edXappe¥emt He gubmik mat the inciderif eiuwg‘red in February 1%5 Wheseas 'é‘he fim memofandum czf tfm ;;9§Jeiéam \ms recm’éed an 175.1%? iri canaectian with Cs'éme Na, 1:8l’9’V5 Véaka EV R5. However, if! this r’ @mmartdum aiso §€ ES mzamimaj “shat tfm appeHam méde a dimkmure regardmg the mSe n“; silver .wkEa amd ethe? wriameni?) wom by the deceaised bué '{hve wz‘z'e of cniy mehed amide: from the goid$mith PW-S was effectaci or; 22.51%? aking wi€h the go!dsmith'$ :'eg§$ter w’n‘ere an eniw ahawmg t§1rr2i§m 11.3.1995 a pair of $ilver amidets weighmg 200 gms: was puwhased ’wm me $111311 Ram cm 113.19%. Thereafter am the mm 01‘ aifeged memci‘andum dated 29.5.1997 rewvety of gem no$e ring, $iivey ring anti handkerchief was made. He fmiher submitg that the wiimessas "ta"; the memoramdum and seizure mama have a23o n91 wpporied the case of the prosecuihn and 'thsay have tumw hostiie Md Em fii'3t memm‘am‘igm recerded on. 115.1%?(1055 na‘é‘ bear the signatura <11 tha appelian't. £1: is argued mat there i$ m) evidéznce savaiiawe on 4'ecord 1:0 connest {he appaliamt xiv-11:31. the Mme in quemies‘n amaat aHeged recavew of the ornaments of the deceaaed. He farther aubmim timer: 1mm peru3a§ of memwandagm af Ex. P~5 it wand be evésient ihai in'?arma€§en about ihe 3eized articie$ wass auegedh/ given w. 115.1%? amd cm the basis af 11113 infarmation amiy meited Siiver gaia'ie weighmg 1S9 gma wa3 mawerec§ tha" 10c; T’mm the gotdemitta. Memez‘ezadtm 1‘ EXP~5 wee recerdect by NB. Singh A$t (PW-16}. Hewever, he hae mt stated tn me depeettion before the Court that the apgtettant gave am: infermetim about the other ornamente Whieh were eubeequently eeiged and put te te t idehtiticatich ahd were idehtified by the hueband ef-the deceased hamety Dex/amend. Thus the atteged memerendhme dated 17.5.1997 and 29.5.1997 and the seizure 0h the beeie eftheee memereh Lime an the face of it appear to be the sacked up dceumente ahd the eppetiant ceuid net be cenvicted 0h the baeie of such reeevery. Atticées eeized are the eemmeh articiee and ate eaeiiy aveiiahte in the rriai'het end therefore, ehty 0h the baeie 0t iéehtiticatien Qt” theee emamehte and hehdkerchief by PWJZ Qwhand that 1cm two yeets attet the incicieht, te deuhttui. 3 0n ihe oihes' hard léamed Caunse! fer the i‘espandeni/§tate w§>g3wt$ the En pugnev judf1meri of we ma! w Q ‘xe'Kr’e have heax'd coumg! fox: the pama amd primaéd +i~e rm‘ 0i mt: g heulwmentoHWJia! ou‘g 1" u in. Ewmwcijm cf wihca a¢3p9%lan€ is b’seaed cm recovaP-I of the wwmema c» 1h“ ”e sed an tvm mammméum (if ihe armbvd ana Ihe :ewcrt bf WC wer: cgA ana§y$1 wherem m the shdes af the vagma! dischargex mesence 9? hm w wpem haw :‘e ‘1 confii'me'd. Ther$ was no pa35ibiiéw that gbim of ”1:3 *ecmsac’ Dmmawd had cmmmx‘teu :3 xuai iraee‘calvgi‘ge Wi! ’L ecwa A ib"fore we? dew‘h aQ he was (m ;as’r ‘h ay. 3t: far 3‘) 'éhc } “mien; m meiteni wide mam PW-8 Tarachandra Jain ai: the m5; aura aHhe aéape’kmi is cemamed “we per Cm reccrdéng memorandum $t nent PW 46 M E Q rah AQa ha pmved W3 document. Howwer, mts rreameramdum we?) net imar the signa‘iuie 9f ‘1he amused and the $e§2ufe o2“: aha bgsi$ (3f ihi$ memofandum i$ r3f a me§te€i mate cf giEvér. WE€¥§$S3 03* memog'andrim Seat Kumar PWus has wmmvd hw 3%gnatwé aver we a Lmem am ms tateau' ti‘éaé it i$ a joint msmwawjum which v2: rewmeii ”: res “lsuame of Ptamla! Hawever, he has; not 3ta€ec§ g abaut we Enfm'mziiicn g§vem by tm appenant which lad ts €Eae §'&cc>very cf the guver plate fmm Tarachwdra Jam. $§nce iha memmandum does my? beaf the signature (sf éhe appenani and i‘ewvery is Mb; 0f sEiver mate, it wa$ mt 3afs: fer the Cam beicw to comwer the regavery m the Me‘s of sech memar ‘dum ee incrimmaéjno evidence agemm the appei!eni‘ hie? revordmg mewnreadum ef rx P 5 eximhe: “mm amun wee recorded on 2mi1097 ‘E2 days afier the first Q memoga. ium and i‘n pureuame 0f ihis Siatemem: of the appeilam; r u L“ recevew ef the gold hoe-e mg, eilver ankieta md ene hawker mef hae ‘ beee made. it ie net m dispme that vide memeramdum of Ex. P—5 recorded \ 0n 115.1%“? eHag cl daecloewe wee elieedy wage bu the appeHam v e Mme we aheve amclw hough Lhe pohce meld net remvey ihe eame. Even emefwise, PWn’m NB. 55mg: has mt eta‘éed in his depesiiieri be‘fcre éhe Cam ‘thet the epeeiiae'i gave dieciosufe regarding ihe ebeve m CA cm man”? affm 12 dm s of the flrst rr‘emerandum 0‘, -3 5 1997 the 5‘ ged sgcond memoraadum has been recm‘ded, S§nce the existence of M sevw wt s, cm tba bcyasa of t‘m m marandum was aiready kncwn, n9 credeme can be given io the recovery a? ornamenta on ’che basis 0f subse‘quen’s: memararxdum am therefor , he a’Vg‘zd *demfica iow 0f tha seizez‘j oma‘mént3 be§ore PW6 GR, Mahipa! by €h€ husband (3f thg aha-Lam d is of no coraequence. Even otherw$a it is highiy impa’obabié tha 'zhe wwants wacgaled m €he hausa we wwvered maia ti an two yeam after “me cm’eu. mild be idenfEfied bythe h’ugbam c§ the deceaSéd m meg abgence f am} w? k 0‘? Idgmmc‘a ion and it would noi be 3afe to hold the apmiia‘i’i gu W wiey or] iha b¢31¢ a? :i n memsrandum and ‘zemnvei‘ e recovea'y 0f ornaments of the decaa$ed at the instame 0f (ix faxuaed an there is his other evidence available en recoid to connect the appeiiah’c wii‘h the crime ih quesiich ami ihei’efere, the Cami: beiow i133 hci iee’ n ”chv cum» the eppeiiant on t e baeie of above evidence am“ * ought 3 iave heeh given the benefit of ofcm bi: 1i. in the ieeui i. eai is ‘aiiowed. imoughed iudgmeht of ihe‘iriai Cohi‘i ia so eerie ohd the appeiiant eiahoe aocgoitted of eii the charges ieveieti e met him He be eet at ih r‘v forthwith it hot required in any o‘h I haw /\ : errffy’édi- Sd/- DmENDRA Mlsmm Judge tea .a‘ “ '