1.1 i" 'fSKSiSiSiiiSSiSUiiSSissiSiiis^ii^^^ ..:%''•-• f ••"• "."•/.•iL~"\- •©^ ;'i CF0000064663 j • ' . j^Ss£SS^:.'¥.Ki79-94_ • '•1... , AtPEA L. OF' yRI SDNER Becept<a<r) Hi<h Court, Jabftlv^J 'No. „ .^,^</te.-..<f?^/?'?::.;. NSme',-. ^•cher^s name, -^.i^y^^ ^^ ;i»sidsnc& -— --yy^—^^-^-^- -.- -- Age -'.^^^ — ||- » * ^s^-cnehd-ko—••^77~Gi?/^?'-7~^,?yy<^^~^'" ~ °" ~ ^ !•({ ft-o"3° •" • ** 'Jnc.r 3£eti6n-— --^ -- «-—-----by,^^^^.^^^ ••~————»•< '3 V3 ODK ii explsined to the prisaner that if he states he wishes -^ r.-:.resented by a legal prac'titioner the appellate Gourt "flllU -L p:.3ceed with the case for seven d ays unless fhe legal sct::: tioner . appears earliea. If the legal praeti'tioner doea ^t T'B;'~;,^'''ithins-even days he may iiot heard at all if the Prl^ :i'it'i?.> that he does not wish ts be representedb y legalp»a^B^%>^- •i:he court may proceeel at ••ce wlth the caseand will ay't l»e ;' bli'ied to give a hearing ts my legal practitioner who sh»u4d | +n •^9 of Application fer cepy of Jud^ement^y^^-^.y^/^^^ 2,, Dita' on.which copy received- - -^^•/•j-/-2^s&ea-- - —- si •»»>y 3, '-fete on which Appe.al sent- •« - - 3/^•/zL<e <8-° - -- -- w<|#» ^; VLether the Drisonsr wishes to be:-re'presented or not'1—^^~it» ffnrr Mo.- .- Confinac in - Wo< - - -,—- • For'.varcied to the ^T^^^^ - ^e ^^ ^,^^^ ^^ »/'w., t"-<r*»o^tiir*» •• » q^ ».<X; -Js' -.. Dated T^C •(^f^'^-' •• ' ,^ted - -^- ^^^W-^-.- ,. "•S3y'a7?ic?S <%/^ i'/Y3:,fy'i!/e~^P/Pf^/ 'V7efey^9 *~ trs 'jether with a copy of judgement or order passed in thfe casfi^^Sr f?" \ir cf transmissi'on to -the propsr Appellate Court. Oate of Keceipt in—————— office. Date of reeeipt of record to aceompany the Memo »f Appeal to the Appellate Coui-t- ;T ? /iS XI-HC-78 sn^Tqirf^iR? tTWSITOTsf^l'* *11*<WI SS^TT^i 3ST '^SW\^, SSliS\W , RlOI'My ,.(?7..^;.22..2;.<0. ?Ti 2000 W^\ 45|* ('i?!^6"?.'^) ??HTW (rfN'sn^r DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRri..C.BHADO<l>_& HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRAl 23.02.2007 Mr. R.K. Jain, learned Mr. Akhil Mishra, learneld c|ounsel for the appellant. Panel Lawyer for the State. Arguments heard. Orai judgment dictated i Per L.C. Bhadoo. J This appeal is directed order of sentence dated 21 Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in S «bl'i|fd'ifl-l^|t|<'11'fffec^<Rl<-i;K ^;3rf^TR'3TI^T MiSHRA^JJ. m dais. against the judgment of conviction and .1.2000 passed by Fourth Additional ^ssions Trial No. 174/1999 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Jitdge after holding the accused/appellant guilty for commission of the o|Tence under Section 302 of Ihe Indian Penal Code, sentenced him to|undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Case of the prosecutiort, in brief, is that on 13.4.1999 at about 8.00 a.m. deceased Pyarelal he convened Panchayat of th< the accused, PW-3 Ratiram, present, in that Panchaya^ Panchayat to settle thetr dispu why he damaged the house complained to PW-4 Balbir Singh that accused Gudda @ Samar Sin^h has damaged his house. Thereafter, villagers in which the deceased as atso PW-5 Vishal and ottier villagers were deceased Pyarelal requested the te. When the accused was asked as to of Pyarelal, he replied in anger that \\. ;'i f\ >• XI-HC-78 a.n^rqirf^iRi OTT3IR?Tsb11ch (F) *II^MI g^ncb 3^ET '^ll'yid-M, SlTn<H'16, (S|f1l<rfy a^fi:..^z.?:^. ^ 200o W^\ y^* ('i?^^) ^RTWHfSdW^T Pyarelal has sold his Semar| money, on which Pyrelal said ^ it is his house, why the house| persuaded them not to quarr^ When Gudda started leaving his hand and as soon as h4 Pyrelal with axe on his neck, injury on the neck, large vess< The matter was reported by P^ Gourela on which First Merg intimation (Ex.P/10) wasj M.P. Dubey (RA/-8) teft for ft^ notice to the Panchas, he prej body of Pyarelai. The examination to Primary Hea| Saxena (PW-2) conduced p<| report (Ex.P/3) and opined tha| shock as a result of neck injuryl Informlation desld 3. After completion of inves the accused/appellant in the Qourt Pendra Road, who in turn comhiitted Bilaspur, from where learned ^ case on transfer for trial. +i'iifci'ifl-f tii4^i'ffrsi<s <R]«|< ^srf^irsn^T |and bufblo and did not give him the (hat partition has already been effected, |was damaged. Thereupon, Panchayat i.t'f't-- I, they w>uld ^Bsw them their share. (he Panchayat, he was carrying axe in reached near Pyarelal, he attacked |as a result of which he sustained fatal was cut and he died spontaneously. ^V-3 Balbir Singh in the Police Station - Report (Ex.P/11) was registered. 1 registered. Station House OfRcer Shri scene of occurrence and after giving i()ared the inquest (Ex.P/5) of the dead body was sent for postmortem i|th Center, Gourela where Dr. Atok |)stmortem, prepared the postmortem a|t cause of death was hemorrhage and .tigaUon, charge sheet was filed against of Judicial M^istrate First Class, the case to the Sessions Judge, |idditional Sessions Judge receh/ed the XI-HC-78 3:n^TWR-fi»b OTTSTI^TOTW ^ss ^.tw\vt^, w^w\6, ^viwy. ^1*4(^1 Sh^[f> '~" wr 2000 3)1^14a<n ('i?!^^) g;E<IRITHf?cT3:n^T 4. Prosecution in order accused/appellant examined accused was recorded under denied the material appearing and stated that he is innocent crlme. :o establish the charge against the eight witnesses. Statement of the Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he igainst him in the prosecution evidence and has been falsety implicated in the 5. Learned Additional Seslsions the respective parties, convi^ted aforementioned. 6. We have heard Mr. R.( behalf of accused/appellant ^ Lawyer on behalf of the State/r| 7. Mr. Jain has not dispi| Moreover, PW-3 Ratiram h4s attacked deceased Pyarelal wi( he sustained neck injury ai)d evidence is further corroborateld Saxena (PW-2) who conductec Pyarelal and stated that there ^ c.m. on the right side of the opined that cause of death injuries were antemortem in na| is established that death of Pyajr chi<il<-i41-f ^itidTffte^t<Ri+ii< ^srf^irsn^T Judge after hearing counsel for and sentenced the accused as |(. Jain, leamed counsel appearing on ^nd Mr. Akhil Mishra, learned Panel ispondent. ^ted the homicidal death of Pyaretal. js categorically stated that accused th axe on his neck, as a result of whieh died spontaneously. The above by the medical evidence of Dr. Alok postmortem on the body of deceased ijras a cut injury in Ifte size of 3 inch x 1 heck and vessels were aiso cut. He ^was hemorrhage and shock and the i|ure. tn view of the above evidence, it frelal was homicidal in nature. :. XI-HC-78 (•ITflT^TTEh^lcb 3^ "i(l<lld^, BTfl^'ltS, (eK-lltiy .e^^ff:..2,.^,^?.. TPT 2000 '^ 3T^?T^TR:IRi rWsn^rawiR; m 311^1 4^qi (^dt^cf^ST) gRTTWfffeTSTr^T 8. As far as invoh/em|ent of the accused/appellant in crime in came to him and requestec) °hi'!<F<i41-i tiiH^iTiftei^)' ^iSlf^TTSIRST question is concerned, PW^3 Ratiram, who is an independent witness, has categorically stated tl|iat on the fateful day deceased Pyarelal him to settle the dispute between him and his nephew, on which Pan(<hayat was convened and in that Panchayat the accused all of a sudde|n attacked deceased Pyarelal with axe on his neck, as a result of wh]ich vessels were cut and Pyarelal died on the spot. In the cross-exantination of this wttness the defence has not been able to elicit any circ|umstance which discredits the evidence of this witness. The evid^nce of PW-3 Ratiram further stands corroborated by the medic^il evidence given by Dr. Alok Saxena (PW- 2) who has stated that h^ conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Pyaretal and notjced a cut injury on the right side of neck of Pyarela and found that the has stated that the wea[j examination and on examiil injury present on the neck| axe in question. large vessel was cut. Moreover, the doctor on of offence axe was sent to him for lation he reached to the conclusion that the of the deceased could be caused by the 9. In view of above, w^ are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has not committed |any illegality or infirmity in convicting the accused/appellant for comitiission of murder of Pyarelai under Section 302 ofthe IPC and sentencjing him to undergo imprisonment for life. •VRM XI-HC-78 31TOT SRT f^-TW tW31T^Tsbt|l»t) ^' ^IR^TT Sb*)|ch 3^T "^I<IKV1<(, OTfl<H'IS, fe|Cfl*f^< c^r •^ . ^-^2_% TT^ 2000 3li^l Mach (yit.jci^gT) gTaTW'cifsa'sii^r 'bl'yfd'ifl-l ^l^dl'ffte^'.RlWK ^;3Tf^>T3I1^T 10. Mr. Jain, learned that looking tq the natuj committed '*Bin'the dec^ased there was no intention on uncle i.e. deceased Pyar^lal, not travel beyond Section c]ounsel for the accused/appellant submitted te of crime, the manner in which it was was uncle of the accused/appellant, (he part ofthe accused to cause death of his I, therefore, the offence against him does 1304-11 ofthelPC. 11. On the other hai|id, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the State/respondent support^d the impugned judgment ofthe trial Court. 12. Having heard learn^d counsel for the parties, we have perused the material available on t|ecord and we are of the considered opinion that the argument acfvanced by leamed counsel for the accused/appellant is with^ut substance for the reason that looking to the manner in which the a(»usedattacked ttie deceased with a deadly weapon i.e. axe on his ne Pyarelat died on the spot, of Pyarelal is writ large. ^k as a result of which large vessel was cut, there was profuse bleedir^g and on account of shock and hemorrhage the intention of the accused to cause death 13. In the result, the ajapeal being devoid of substance is liable to be dismissed and is herebjy dismissed. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge \