^- 6 IMUUBS" ) ^ ^ ^I^P^ n, T^ ^ • L^------—-—- ^'^ " —\ , ^ ''-. r -\ ,.,.x<-'i88/(Jai]) ' Division Bench (rrtmW^ C.J.rv?.—5,000-9-81 ^-^ .. ' ^"i :-• . APPEAL OF PRISONER No..—-^-U——-—Name -^^^^^- Fathcr's name --^5^-————.—— Re,ide^-^^^^W^^^e ~-^^7-~^^ SteBteBcedto--^^-^^^-^-oB--a-.A-4.1-U^---——-—-— Uader section^^-^^-^—-^y—^^-^y-^.^^^-^^^^ it is explained to the prisoner il:at if he states or wishes to be represented b\ a legal ^raetitioner the Appeiate Court wiJI not proceed with the base for seven d.^ys i nlesh the legai practitioner appears. If the legal practilioner does not appear with in seyen d^js he may not be Jieard at all Ifthe prisoner states that he does not wish to be represeN.^l% legal practitioner the court may proceed at once with the ca^e and will fiot N^oNi^d to give a hearing to any legal practitioner who should appear. 1 Date of Appiication for copy of Judgement —^^A—LA=I-«L^L-——-—_-«:—-„—— 2 Date of which copy received—-——^4-&J-^-L-3^—--—---------—— ,^ l 3 Date on which Appeal sent———^x<qL2^±-4<^-^-—-.-—————__—^ ; ^r- 4 Whether the prisoner wishes to be represented or nqt- Yes/Na. i ^ < No.—- 4-3-)-———— Name—-; ^&.^^ C«fitmuedin———--— N.,—-^&.-^T -Jail -^]WV1^~^T€~~^^~~'~ UW^^TX^——— -dated—^B^^-^^-——198—— Forwardcd to the CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE —^.9^4^=&-^—Z. to gather with a copy ofjudgement or order passed in the cas^? fo^/favour cf trammission to the proper Appilliate Court. Superintendent-C^] ..^--^ /l)is'i?t./Sub-Jai! ^^Y;::.:.:;' Date efreceipt in C. J. M.'S Office- —.—-^^ ^W^SSCCT^- Date ef receipt ofrecord to accompany——- MeflaQ o^ Afppesii ofthe^ppeliate Court. ————<?T-^———-^—-•—— ^ ~^^S^^^^^^.^^^d. ^r^^ ^^^^-^^^-^^0^^^ 0 ^^^-P>^4^B. l^istrate Date ef recdpt in Appliate Court—• '^^f^ y^ 1 •^^'^:^ i ...€^i XI-HC-22 ^n^i^ ^^ s^\ ^Rt^"^ri^T '^^r ^rrai^R, ^rft^T?, '^rey ^T^MI^HI^<::s-..1..^..^.-..6..?^ &IVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. L.C.BHA&OO HON'BIE MR. &HIRENDRA MtSHR^. JJ 14.2.200& Mr,.Ashok Dixit, Advocat4 Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Additit Msshra, Pcmel Lawyer for 1+ife St^ OraJ judgment dictated or| Per L.C. Bhadoo.J Accused/oppeliflunt Bclchatid the legaSity & correctness of ju<| dated 31.1.1996 passed by | Jashpurlna9Qr in S&ssbns Trial Sessions Judge crftsr hoScii^ committing murder of ftampras|sci the I.P.C and sentenced to und^rgo of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payjnent one year, The. prosecution cose, in a*m. deccG^sed ftamprasad went house and at that time his wife ^Firei^hw^i -^ -fe^t U^?R '^^^R^T?^r -^ for the oppellont >na! Public Prosecutor with Mr. Akhil ite. • , • . '. . Dais. has preferred this GppeaJ que^tionin9 Igment of conviction & order of sentence l^arned Additiona} ^ssions Judge, No.282/95 whereby Seamed Additional ig -tfie Gccused/appe}fc8it gyilty for convicted him under Section 302 of iinpnsonment for iife and pay a fine of fine to further undergo 5J< for fcjrief, is that on 25.10.1995 at about 7.00 |towards 1+ie kitchen garden behind his |Ketki Bai was sweeping -rfie courtyard of [7ft^'^p^^ XI-HC-22 "5^ ^IRM^, '^€t^T?%,^TRTy ^^1 'q^^ 3Tr^[^T. f^?t^3Ti^T ^CTNT^rft^T WH^Tl ^H8®h •-M 2(N) sn^i i^cii^R ^rit^ •tA thehouse, On hearin9 the nois^ the kitchen garden, which was onj hsr husbcyid was !ying unconscio{ attacking ^iw wlt^ 1^^ <3^<e on brandjshing 1+ie oxe in The air. day9hter of hb bro-H'ier-in-law tiiat accu^ed Balchand WGS assad forehead, dboye itse eye, on th^ out of it andl h^r husbond becam^ & ^Gjsdhar also came snd the^ Duldula. They took Ramprasad inj raport in 1+i& poiicfi station succumbed to the injuries. On House Offscer, Poiice Sfatson ieft for the scene of occurren< pos^ssion the blood stained occurrenc^ and after giving Pctnchnama (Ex.P-2) of itie d©ad| wjth bbod on bein9 produc^d by Ex.P-3, weapon of offenee S.e. ax^ 4 cn being produced by accu^d pos: ^sion under Ex.P-5. Ciol^e^ ^nfe^-HR^ff-H fe^ 1^'R: ^^[^R^Ti^r of Ramprasad, Ketki B<xi went towards the backside of Ihe house cuid saw •riiat ss on the ground, accused Ba!chand was •iii& head ond face and occus&d was ^er son Bhubneshwar (PW-6) csnd AAaiti, r^ached the place of occurrence and ^aw ijting her husband on 1tie rtght side of nrondibie regson, biood start-ed oozing unconscious.In l+i^ meantime/Lakhan were asked to bnng the jeep from 1+ie Jeep for treatment wid bd9ed tiie re^sftfir. However, on iiifi woy ftamprasad l^cesysng tiiis information, the Station u^u^i r^istered the report (EX.P-7) and s. The Investigating Officer took into ^oil and plasn soii from the pj<sce of \o^ice. to <iih& Panchas prapar&d liie body of ftampnisad. One Sari stdned <pituram wa5 taken into posses^ion under <^ was taken into pos^ssion under EX.P- Balchand. One chadar was taken into of deceased were taken into pos^es^ion [Tfr^^fe^ l+i&relaftsr. Kui{ikuri XI-HC-22 ^-^ '^Tpn^pr, "^NTTS, t^imy 3^1'^T 'fei^'sn^T •^HNT^Ii^ ^re^iT^w^ 'M 2W ^T^Ii^7^R^^ -3 postn^ortem preparjed under Ex,P-6, Mer9 intimatjo^ Statjon Hou^ Officer, Potie^ Ramprosad was ^nt for Primary Meal^ti C^ntre, |6jrskur| •tfie postmortem G>nd ftecovered axe wa^s sent for doctor gave 'ms report (Ex.P-1 found on the body of deceassd qu^stion. ftecovered axe and cl^ to the Forensic Scsence Laborat 14 wa^s r^eeiyed, Aftsr compietion of inve^ 1+ie accused/appeliont in 1fi^ Ma9sstrate/ Jashpurna9ar, whoj Sessions Judge, Raigarh frorn Jashpurnagar recsived the case Ths proastcution in orcie^ Gccused/qspeiSant examined s| barned Additional Session^ Qeeused/oppei'lont under Seetiof» the pro^cution eysdence and in l+iecnme by Ketki Bai A Anitat ^pqf^t^ •qiq^f^ "f^^ ^^R iT^T^m sn^i (Ex:P~10) was 9?ven by the A,SX to Station iCynkurj, Body of deeea^d sxamination under Ex.P-11 to "rtie |, wh&re &r. S.Toppo (PW-li) conductad Ihe postmortem report Ex.P-12. e|xam<nation by the doctor (PW-11). Jh^ in which he opined that 1+ie injuries l^amprqsad cou?4 be caused by the axe in ^thes wer@ s@nt for chemical ^xamination j-ory, Raspur from where the report Ex.P- inve^tigation, chfeyge sh&et was fited against Court of Addittonal Chief Judicial in turn committed the case to iearned ^\€V€learned AdditionaS Sessions Judge, bn tronsfer for triai* wd^ to &stab!i5h 1+ie off&n<^ against Itie i^even witnesses. On -riie oTher hond, Jud^e recorded the ^tatement of 313 of the Cf.P.C. in which he denied sl^sted 1+iat he has been fal^iy Jmpiicated •leai. [Tfr^ ^^ XI-HC-22 -^^ '•^[FIT^T, 'S'^FT^, I^ITHy ^Tl^T I^W^Ti^T ^RWHf^T ^ 3ir^r 'q^? WW>ll%-Hl^ •••^ 200 ^^sr' OT^Ti^TW^fe^ ^ Learned AdditionaJ Sess of Addltional Pubiie Proseeutor ^ntsnced 1+!€ accused in the juclgm^nt. We have heard Mr. Dt^it, Advocate for accu^d/appeticBit, Mr. &eo, Additional Pyblic Pro^cutjor wi1+i Mr* Mbhra, Ponel Lawyer for 1+ie State/ respondent ond perused Homicrda! death of deceaSped Ramprasod is not in dispute. As far as •ri'ie involv^me^t of accufiecl/cypclbrit in <xssau{tin9 l^e decsascd Ramprasad with th Lakhwiram ha^ ^stated that on a cot and biood was oozing out Informed by Lakhanrarn (PW-i] Rampra^xd was jying in injurec| reached the accused/q?pe!!€mt ^i^Ffl^w^t ^ 'fe^t ^P^rf ^3Traq3?1^r ons Judge after hearin9 the a^uments and counsel for the accused convicted & manner as mentsor^d in Para 1 of this l4ie impugned judgment and record. i^ axe in question Is con<%m8d, PW-1 1 the fateful day on hearing the noi^ he went towarcis iiie hou^e of ftat|fipra5ad, saw fhat Ramprosad was lying on |)f 1+ie injunes. Thereafter, he was asked to brsng the j@@p, therefore, h^ went to bring ti^e ieep <md brou9ht the ^ime. PV^-2 Vikkuram has s-fated that on 1+ie fatefuS day he was that Balchoysd has murdered ftamprasad, th^rsfors, h& v^nt to 1+ie hjou^e of ftamprasad where he ^aw 1+iat condition caid he was not abie to speak. PW-3 &opa( Sai has sta+ed tha^ on hearing the noise he came out of his house ond saw that accused/ap^elSant wos hoiding oxe and by the time he QSS2u!ted Rampra^d wJ1+s the axe as a re^uit of which ftamprasad feli down. Bamprasad received injurtefi on -tlhe [Tfr^'^fe^ XI-HC-22 ^^ ^S^I<?FrI, '^ft<RTi^, 'f^TRTy 'SIT^l^T 1^;:IW3?lt¥T '^?iT^"^1i^[ ^^. W-H^IT ^^i^ "M ^it^'^rr^R ^I^T ^~-^ heod wid when he tried to inte to intervene, thereafter, assaui ^ftfer^r ^FMT ~? fe^" ^IT^R '^^^r3^T ^vene, -rfie accu^ted ^aid 'Hiot who are you ^ed 4-5 tjmes to deoeased RQmprosQd. In the meoitime, Ketki &u a}so re+ched. Ketki Bai 03W-4) has corroborated l+ie abov^ eyid^nce of PW-3 6o|>a! Sai, PW-5 Mangahai+i has $tat@dl that aft^r hearing the cries he rusiied to 1tie house of RamprGSad where he ^aw that Rampra^xd Is iyjn9 in| son of deceaged has stated -rtl father. Similar \s the evidence o| Th@ above eyjd©n<w of injured condition. Bhubrie^hwar (PW-6), iat on hearing cries he come out of the house and ^sw that accused^appeltoyit was brwidishs'ng the axe and Injuries were pres@nt on th<s h^ad, cheek, mGndibte and forehead of his ^PW-ZMdti. iBhubne^war (PW-6) A Malti Bai (PW-7) Iriat i+i&y saw that Rampraad ^as (ying in injured condition wid accuj^d was breaidishing 1f?e axe, corro^orates the evidence of ^opa! Sai <S Ketki Bai. Moreover, th@ weapon of loffence i.e. axe was recovered from the qus^tion, Tne abov^ evidenfft accused/appeilant cmd 1+ie do4tor has opined that the injuries which wers found on the body of R^imprasad could be caused by the axe in abo ^tands corroborated by 1+ie meciicai evldence in which Dr. S. Toppo KPW-£I)has stated that on 25.10.1995 he conducted the postmor-tem ex^mination on the body of ftamprasad and found that 'rtiere was a 'mcised wound 'm front of the hedd in 'rtie size of 4cm x 0.5cm x l-5cm/ pariejtai bone bebw the wound was found fractured, ther^ was a incig@tl wound on 1+ie riqht eye and ono^ier [1(ft^. ^p^^ XI-HC-22 SiT^T^T 'fe^aTT^T ^^w^nN ftoghen 'iT^^ s ^ "S^ ^!^i<rPT, ^ft'^PT^, l^fl^y f • . . • "q^^. "W^^T'aPTN?""*""^*1*'*'"*'*""*""""**^ w^i '^H^TT ^rftn 6-H ^T^RH 'HI^Tf ^ 1^^t ll^^R ^3TPOT3Tl^l incised wound was on the ri9ht ^ide of fac®'and one incised wound was on 1ti@ Rieaidibie region in the siz^ of 1.5cm x 0.5em x 1.5 c.m. ond the mandibte hone was found froctu^sd. In ysew of Iti^ above. m^dicai avid&nce, •ri'ie &videnc^ of Sopai Sai (PW-3) &. Ketki Bai (PW- 4) sti|nds corroborated wd the involvementof ^e accused/appellant in -rfie cr|me in question is established. Moreover, the defence ha^ not been abi4 to elicit any circumstosnce (n the cross- exQmination of these witnesse^, whsch makes The evidence of the^ two witnesses unreliabte and untrusjhworthy. Thcrefore, iooklng *o th|B manner in which the deadly weapon hke axe' was u^d m oausing 1+ie .jnj^ries on<il -i+tat too on 1+ie yital part of 1+ie organ, it is sstablished thcjt l4ie occused/app&Sjant as.Miiiteci the d®ceasedwith the intenTion -t\; csuse h(S death cyid as such we do not find amy Utegality or infirinity ^i tiie ju^ment of trial court ond 1+iere is no ground to interfere with th^judgment of the trial court- Zn the resuit, 1+?e app^al bsing devosd of merit is liabte to be clismis^d an^ accor'di^iy, it is|dismis5&d. — Sd/.. L.C, Bhadoo Judge Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge [Tft^ ^Ri^ ^