^CR6gOOQ5Z964?' , |' , ; , f , » ; ^[(Ijl^ji^.^A.tHT^'-T-g^^ ^-.LMl.hL—^t, -^t,.. r5*'?ft^T't^"i r;'r'\ '?,'esttKwxc'.. SSSK;,- . : ___°<, Nte:-iSBy ^^'"^ l^, 'vfs-^^ ItesideaCc S^ntenced to Ci _ci<E "S5ti..);y(Gt^ <iE>t^^' -lnaer^Sectiog.,:,^gpCT^^^^.r: ^^^^»^ by ^ . ^.r\. - ___,.__:_:,__.,_..,,, v"^sa^ i^li^>'<3!ei-&Kt,fs3jpra\^ :-;'">r::'1 x 1 j 1 pIt;is|exgka^totlW{>risoaeTthatifhestat{! ^itetitija^ffleaspetlateGouFttttll ftotprJisid^th tte cdw far^w^ Aatys-uale?i.;8i3» il^a^l&ieitijEigDerappears ealUer.ITttetegalpra^ittOaerd^nQtappeww^teitt^ ? li<'W'8S!IBas0r;trotheafd iat affl> ifthe .pHsoaeiTiSitB^tittat^dcSs n^ t ;si|a[ted^rfegal;practifianer the courtmay proceefl at onee wlth thecaseandwillflot ^oMig^^gtv^itlssai^tosnylegatpEaxrtitia^who^^^ * Date <SFApplicatu>n forico^ytoffedgement '~'a^B; • • '. • '• ,DajteiE>aJwhich coyy Teceiwd, , . Ij)^e-OB ^wliich AppealscBt__^_,^ '7' -^ 7r "^ WicAer the prisdiicr wisbeslobe tcpresett|efl oraot., •,-a' Nb,_<S6is^ Cenfined in '•llamc;_ '..^. L_ ^~~~yws^c -'7S^',', sm --^y^i^, <Bv^ S-H^M y tt9 F'orwanfcd to the ^oy^ e®iT(/BS7 <a0&fo^z^^s> (8 t®gc^h •mth st copy~ of jud^meat or ^irder twsed itt tfae case for ^avour ®r ti^BsmissiOfl totlic praperAppeIlate couct. PnT^- "^Bf^-^<F^%N~ — l^i,fr •"•<«^;!., IDate «freceipt in, OffiGC lOate of receipt of rec&rd to aceomganytfae Mtmo of Appealto thc Appellatc'coUrt ^;; I . § v s m !l-Bi ? ^a'^^^ft'^^t^ ^.q «99vf ; /• -' y"^.. A ^~^ i. '1/-^: .;..; T. f^M^: ^^Utt-e^. j^^^.^S^^i^lj^B- f€.S^afpat^ ;i;!«t;ri>(fc'iliSB%S;iBBKBBMMSsi , •.siyfisvcr'sssiUiS^ . E>a|e^6frtee!ipfe^i|kg^ g|ie;'c<Mar( ilj: !: -i.'.:c-..''l-i,t^j^^..:-. .y... Xl-HC-22 •Svf -^WM^, "s^m®*ftidi'My TiT(|?iT^«IT<5K ^s:::^J..^ii.../M SII^TSFI R;-li°b SlS^I ^Hiqi -9^0 <*i'i<Itrt'i1-l ifl^dT ^ fest <(fl«l< ^3rf:tTlT3TI^[ If DIVISION BENCH: MON'BLE &HON;BLi ?HRI L.C.BHADOO ;SHRIDHIRENDRA MISHRA, JJ CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.1614 of 1994 Appellant Indrd Vs. Respondent Stat^ of Madhya Pradesh courlse Smt. Savita Tiwari.learned ShriAkhil Mishra, learned Panel forthe appellant. Lawyer for the respondent/State. L.C. BHadoo. J ORAL JUOGMENT (01.02.^006) By this appea! accused/appellai|it tndro has questioned the legality ofjudgment of convictionand o|-der "of sentence dated 22.10.1994 passed by learned Sessions Jujdge, Raigarh in Sessioris Trial No. 121/94 whereby the learned ^essions Judge after holding the accused/appellant guilty forth^ commissipn of myrder of Raj'esh convicted him under Section 3P2 of the Indian Penat Code and sentenced him to undergo impri^onment for life. 2. Case of the prosecution, in bri^f, is that P.W.4 Mawalsai Kanwar lodged the report Ex.P-4-on [)7:04.1994 in the Poliee Station- Paththalgaon to the effe'ct that ^n that date at about 5.00 p.m. his )hew Rajesh Kanwar wen -<»-- towards the thrashing field of [1?t^ ^Ftsi^ ^'"'l' R» ^^^•X.i X3-HC-22 ^5[ -i<14]Cl';f, STll'H'IS, T'slCff+iy ifiww g^tiiqi .&^:^::U1 SIi^iqiT n<-ii<* 3ii^i %T|Wdft?I an^i ^arw ^rfstt —2-- +Wlct<i1-< »WW^ ft'Zt tRfltdK ^r sipaii sn^r Kanwatsai where accused Indr^) assaulted Rajesh with an axe and the same was witnessed Khageshwar asked Indro as to by Khageshwar Kanwar. When ^vhy he was attacking Rajesh, Indro fled away from the scene of o^currence carrying the bloodstained axe in his hand. Receiving this Station-Paththalgaon registerecj report Station House Officer, Police the crime under Section 302 of the IPC, left for the scene of occurrence and prepared the Panchanamaof the body of ;ajesh (P-1). Accused tndro gave memorandum (P-3) regarding t|ie weapon of offence i.e. axe and in pursuance of that he got reco^ered the axe which was taken into possession by the investigatirlg officer (P-2). The investigating officer also took into possessi^n the bloodstainedsoil, ptain soil, one cycte, slippers and one bl^odstained napkin under P-5. Body. of Rajesh was sent for postmo^tem examinatioo to Primary Health Centre, Paththalgaon where Dr| and prepared the postmortem placeofoccurrence (P-9 & P- articles were sent for chemical Laboratory, Raipyr from where] completion of the investigation| Court bf Judictal Magistrate Fir^ committed thecase to the Sessl The prosecution in. order to accused examined as many as accused was recorded under S ~*^-.. [ B.D.Dubey conducted postmortem (eport (P-20). The site plans of the 10) were prepared. Bloodstained 1 examination to Forensic Science report (P-16) was received. After the charge sheet was filed in the ?t Class, Dharamjaigarh who in turn |ons Judge, Raigarh fortrial. estabiish the charge against the seven witnesses. Statementofthe iection 313oftheCr.P.C. in which . [Trt^ ^fe^ 3'tl:.« :'.:I.HC-22 -^a •snqRpi, 's^ftwTS, Fqyiyy ..^:..^.:.lifll.^l'[ Sil^T^I •'r^wsn^i s^i-n^ •ai^fl sn^i'g^iWHfs? cbil<4id4l'1 H tt ^ 'f^st <r^-(^I< i73)fen3Ti^[ 4. 5. he denied the prosecution ey stated that he is innocent and crimeinquestion. dence appearing against him and has been falsely implicated in the The learned Sessions Judge Public Prosecutor and the sentenced the accused as judgment. ]after hearing the argument of the couhsel for the accused convicted and ifientioned in paragraph-1 of this We have heard Smt, Savita Til behalf of the accused/appetlant] Mishra, learned courisel for the wari, learned coynselappearing on and Shri U.N.S.Deo with-Shri Akhil Btate. 6. Homicidal death ofRajesh isno]t in dispute. As far as involvement of accus< murder of Rajesh is concernec) who witnessed the crime in of that fateful day while he Kanwalsai he saw that Rajes accused was attacking him withj the ground at a distanca of 10^ and asked him as to why h| accused Indro ran away fronr] Thereafter, he informed incident. In thecross-< not been ^ble to elicit any qu^stion w^s Jagd^m •examina1]ton id/appellant Indro in committing the , P.W.1 Khageshwar is the person and stated that in the evening working at the thrashing field of 'h was lying on the ground and axe. He wttnessed Rajesh lying on 12 feet on which he rebuked Indro 3 is attacking Rajesh whereupon there canying axe iri his hancl. and Premsai about the said pf this witness the defence has which makes the evidence cireuh'istance 4^ [^ y<a<\ XI-HC-22 ^^f ^irai?ra, 's^tepis, torey an^r'^T f^iRi'sn^r ^^T ^T^^ &s::.&M.l. 3)1^1 TCiIW?to -(i - *l''ltfl41-1 •RffRTI tf •fe'et•(f^RZR ^sriigqsii^i offhis witness untrustworthy o( unreliable. The evidence efthis witness further stands con'ob^rated by the evidence of P.W.2 Jagdam and P.W. 3 Premsai\)/ho have stated that on the fateful day they saw the accused go|ing -towards the thrashirig field af Kanwalsai carrying axe in his h| to know from P.W.1 Khagesh^ witnesses, they have corrob Khageshwar and there is no r< and and'after some time they came 'ar that accused Indro. hasattacked Rajesh with axe and murdereijl him. They are the independent arated the evidence of P.W. 1 ason to disbelieve the evjdence of these persons. Moreover, t^ie weapon of offence- axe was recovered at the instance of t>ccused, therefore, in view of the evidence of P.W. 1 Khagesh^ar, P.W. 2 Jagdam and P.W. 3 Premsai the involvement of acc|used Indro in gttacking Rajesh and thereby committing his murder i^ established. 8. In view of. the foregoing, we do riot find any illegality or infirmity in the juctginent of the. trial Couft. Accordingly, ttie appeal being. devoid of any substance de^ dismissed. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge J-;erves to be dismissed and it is Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^[4f .^^' ''as . '"^ ['cn^ <tr<a<t