\ _\ 5 ; ‘1 ~ :»\> l: . , L k? of receip‘iiie Apee'nhte-eourt A I ‘UaiD C I. P‘ R./l-9l C) L 3% < wjjl/ ¢f~ «we t 1"1 V VCFLIo?ot?576l45 ul~W ‘ v ’ ‘w . AREAEAL$9E3RR§$ av v : R @J w‘ I 7 r ‘ .. ,, Kg: ‘ma awatrz $1 ‘- :‘wNamea: ".‘ rx v5 .. >V‘V"'le‘“m"m ‘ V *L \: kyfr. ‘i ‘ g , w??? h? “ EK t is explained tQ the prisoner-that if he states he wishes to be represented by a legai ‘ [éwgaét’ytioner the appagllate Court will not prowzd with the cam for sé 1:1 daysunlew tha' ’ “legal practitiQner ap‘pears earlier. If me legal practitioner does not appear Within seven Kiwis he may not heard at all. ifthe prisener states that he does not wish to be repre- sci’nted by legal practiitioner the court may proceed at once with the ease and will not be obligd to give a hearing to gny legal practitioner who should appear. pate oi: Avplichtjon for c‘opy ofJudgement . 2§f 1739(2) N t \ +7 Damion which loopy receiVeéw J“ 3&2}; - v l‘ ' 31 ,Eate on whichiApQeal seat, ., V [I .4 Whether the pi-isoia’er wishes to be represented or hot. , he ' a - A -, I Z/L/ L , W_WW ea v v:- ~-« r ~ WW to ,gcther with a copy of judgement or order parsed in. the case for favour e? A I emis§ion to the groper Apieellate court. Date of receipt in _ - bfficerg y Date 01f receipt:of"re:$cord to the to accompany y. . 7: \‘ Memo ef Appeal to the Apoellate court H \' V . ‘ _ r XI-HC-22 mam—avam,W Wmgzlgwxl/Iéila/1E 3’3 366$ Wmmm Wrw‘3FgérW awmm DIEI§KBN QENCH: HON'BLE MR. LC. 3HRDOO <3: HON'gLE MRDHIREN§RA MISHRA JL: 23in. .30§é When The mm‘fer‘ i$ caiied am‘ mom presen? bf; behalf cf fhe appeHam. NO represenmfion is made. Siam counsel %0r"?he accused} aweHam‘ Shri Abhay Tiwari‘ Aévocafe is na‘f prawn? m ‘i’ha Couri fherefarae, {rim argumznw cf 3hri‘UN5. Dam, Addiféena! §3ubliciPrGsecufQr wifh 3% ri MP6. gha‘fia, Pgnel Lawyer for The 51fafe were hédr'd. w.. ‘3 \ Omi judgmem‘ dEc‘rcd'ad' an Daf: mm §, {t %hm§na .1? Accused/appelian? 5hanimm has prefarrad i‘hEs appeal quesfioning ‘rhg ’ kgalify of juidgmcam‘ {3f convicfion 1nd ordar a1: 3ememe dmwd 281E993 pal3/3w by learned 2nd Addi‘i-ional $<xssians J‘wge, Quigarh in Sesskms Triaé No.118/Q2 whéreby leamed Addifiuml Seggwns Juége mgmr hskz‘ing fh accuged/appziianf guiify for commisgion of murder sf his wife Sumifm Eai ccnvici'ed him under- Saci‘ion 302 m“ iha EMian Pena! Came. and mmemed him m undier‘ge r-igamus imprisorimenf iar Hf“. mom‘ihs. The amuiied/appeilam‘ i5 in cu: ‘i'cdy fm‘ iasi more fhan abou? 13 years 10 Th5 grasaw‘i'ian case, in briaf is ihm‘ tm 5.4.19§2 a? abau‘i 13.30 pm. ir. The. nigh? Amar Kumar Edged t: repor‘ (ExPé) in The Pajice Simian Chcgkradhdr NQgar, Disrrim‘ Qaigarh m fhe affec'i fhm" he has w hi$ swarm quarriaé in Viilage Kohakmdd, where Shanimm Urmn was workirg as wafchman (Chswkicitxr? [Wi% W u ,“t’ o [W WW e XI—HC-22 ané he was resiéing wh‘h’his wife 3‘ dark Pumikz! Chcukan {€3W— I came murdered his Wifa. Gr: receiving ’rhis V'rhe gcene of eccurr‘ence and a‘fé‘er' givMg no?ice (EXPMZ) 1‘0 we Pane‘nag premred ‘?he Panchrgama {EXP-3) Q‘F 14m dead body of Sumiifm Bai. 'T'rae 'Fram E‘he giéce of cccurr‘ema as weH i breaking $fangs) under ExPé. He bedy of Sumi’é‘h Bai and prepared fhe co&‘u§ucfeci ‘rhe p05?mGrT2m cm f'he ’ acmun? of head injury as a resuh‘ of severe weedimg and muh‘ipie fracfure 0f , . skuH. re %eamed §essians Judge, RaEgar‘n from where learned 2"." Addjfional 3essi0ns Judga, Rdgcxr'h racéivéa‘ ‘rhe case on “frangfer' for“ *riai The presecufien m order +9 prove fhe charge egcdnef The aecueed/eppelknf examined eleven w messes. 5fafemen+ of acdused/appeélen’r Sesgkme Judge under Seci'ion 313 Offh-a was recorciad by ieamed Addificna} CruRC. ‘m which he denied The 'pmeecunon evidence and smied ind? he is imam? am} hQS bzen §al$é¥y impiicai‘ad m *rhe crime Jmi‘rm 3&5 alangwi‘m children Today [his +0 hém mid informed Thar? Ehmimm has repam‘, fhe invesfégn'rirag Officer iei‘i‘ far 35 fwo g'ufashi {irén irtS?rumeaf mam? fer aiso wok/info passessioa ane‘i‘her mm V‘ Mew we mtgq ‘ ;Ixxvesfiga?ing Gfficer’ ‘m’ak inm passessmn- fhe piam sail and New s’ained spi! e . . ~ §ufaehi under EXP-6. Bcdyef deceasmd Eumm‘a Pzdi was sen? for p0$?mor‘+em ‘ ‘exeménadm do ‘(fe Hospiml, Raigarh where Dr. 8.5‘ Markam (PW-10) posi‘marmm repaid EXP—7 5h which he apined 'fhai‘ The damaged d§ed om Affer complefian of §nves?igg‘r onhmr‘ge ghee? was fiied in ‘rhe Cour? m" ¥ecmed Judicid Magiefmte Firs? Claw, Raigar’h deho in mm commii‘fed ’rhe case . XI—HC—22 mmmam ‘mm WW $WW a Leame‘éi AddH‘ianal Sessians J ?r'osec‘mcr {St courrsel i014 fhe accuwc '?he'mame.r a5 man?iened in Pam—1 of ' A3 f'ne wunse! for amused/q; perumd We avideme and impugned J'u On we wher‘ hahd,’§em~ned AI suEGgaorTeci %he judgmgm of Mai cow? In ‘rhis‘ case were is no cér'cL;m5fanfial 5vidence cmc§ in orde cErcUms’ranfia! gvidence,-?he Hon'bie $ha‘wwjae Vg. §mm of W3. .r‘epcir “In a case hmsad {m c§rcumsfum which fhe condusion of guih is vesi‘ablishad bu? atsa #‘hm‘ all The be m" a danciusive nafure and c fhe guilt of fhe accused. Those e‘f“ being expiained by arty oihe accused and fhe’ chain 0f the ev ieavé any reasonabla gmund ‘ innocence ofrfhz accused. I es‘l‘ablished circumg‘iances and n grebfar shagici be Tine 'car'e‘ i: I suspicion fakes fhe place of pr'cc The frial Cour? has convici‘ed evidence cf 3ogir‘am (PW-5i ?unnirai aiieged weapon‘of Gffen'ce Gufasiérc uciga affer hearing ‘i'ne Acidiiiomi Pubiic canvici‘ed and seni‘encéci ‘i‘he accused in “his judgment peiian‘f is mi prgseni', fherzfm'e we hava igmen‘r. ‘wdi‘rismi Pubiic Prosecufor for “ii-1a Siam 'eyewiiness, whole case ras‘i‘s an i‘he r' *ro csnvici‘ an accused based (an ihe Apex Cour? in ’rha mafia" OT’ Dhammjay i‘iea' in (1994) 2 SQ: 220 held "rhm‘; ‘ia! évidenca. fhe circums‘ianaes fmm ‘ to be nr‘awn have not oniy f0 be fuliy . si‘rcnmsi‘ances so esmblishad shonid )nsisi‘en? cniy wi‘i’h The hypc‘i'hesis m‘ circumsfan’ges should nm‘ be capabie a hypm‘hesis excep? fhe guii‘i 0f The idence musf be so comple‘fe as naf Ta For fhe beiief consisfem' with *fhe t needs no reminder fhaf Viegaily 3‘? merely indignm‘ion of ihe courf can form fhe basis of convic‘iian and the more serious ”(he crime, ’rhe ken To scrufinize ihe eviéence Iesf f." 0 fhe accused/appellom‘ on The basis of n (PW—7) & Rusirézm (PW-8), recovery of m fhe pioée of o'ccer‘r’ence, dead body: of .4, [113%W XI-HC‘22 decewed Sumi‘rm Eai was xgaund in fha pz4emi3gs cf ‘fhe housa of éccuseui/appeiiamL, i'he housfe ‘was iacked- fram The omside an'd fhe ' accused/app'eliam was found missing. As far as evidencz of PW-{J’ognmm is concerned, his eviaeme is 1'0 iha r of his evidence in fhe averiing ai‘uboui' u {.00 p.m.'5umifm B‘ai &’5hvanimm war Quarreiling'and fhereafi'er, he ief‘i for 'f'nz market When he rammed fmm f e marka’f'a? abau? 7.06 p.m., he d‘icl no? hear any sgund €rem We house of ace ed/appeilgm‘ and even i‘he ‘lighf wee no? bamihg. On %his he asked Rusimm fo nfem} Amar Khmer-‘5 clerk Punniiai abom‘ i'ha quarrai be‘i'ween Shanimm 6:. Sumi r‘a Bai. Thereafi'er‘, he alongwifh Puriniia! and oiher‘ 4-5 vjiiager‘s wenf f0 1‘he * ouse a‘f $hani§cm, gate cf The hcuse ef Shanimm wee locked hm“ m fhe ceur ard of fhe houee dead bcdy of Sumiim . Bai was lying and same was covered nii h clc'ih. When ‘ihey were going i‘o lodge *x‘he/ repor'f f0 fhe poiice sfa‘rion, ‘x‘he way Amar' Kumar and fhe ?o!ice ihspecfcr me?'1‘hem. in ihe crass-e aminaiian he has sicn‘ed i'hm‘ he had n0? wen? mar ‘Shanimm and hie wife f0 sk ihem as to why They are quarreliing. Theredffer he Sim-ed fhaf he had of seen The scuffie (ii hi3) and how 5umi1‘m Bai diee, he does no? knew. PW—7 Punimm Cheuhah has sfm in his evidence fhcn' 3-4 men'fhs before ‘i’he day cf his‘ evidence on a Sunday an” abau? 2.39 pm. accueed Shanimm & deceased 5umiir'a,Bai we;e quarreili He ief‘i for‘vRaigarh where he informed The owner Amer Kumur and when he hemmed f0 viilege-Kahuakunda a? abeuf 8.00 pm. Dhaniram & husi informed h m fha’r Shaniram has'vniurder’ed his wife. p affeci‘ ‘HM? ?—$ mon‘ih‘s before fine d [The éfa'e LHIQ §K§q , m ” n . WW . .....................................‘gi 200 ..............................................m ..........................:..................... WWf-ifwW mmaxm ‘ 2 $Wm v rx ’~ En fhe crass-examinafion, he has: sfmed *fhaf if is correc‘i" fa say ‘rha‘? quarra} » §§e$we2n Shaniram (Sz 3umi‘i‘m Bai was c common qmrrel as happens in ai famiiy. PW-8 Rusimm has sfa’md in his avidencg fhm‘ 3—4 manfhs befcr‘e i‘he day c‘f his evidence on a Sunday hi$ fgfher’ mformed him fha‘r accused Shmimm (3: éieczaseci Sumi’rm Bai were quarrelling and lighf of ‘fheir' house is no? burning, ihgmfore, inform fh‘a same’im dark cf Amar Kumar and same was informed by me it) ?uniiai, dank 0f Amar‘ Kumah In The crass-examinafion, This wi‘inass has smi‘ed i‘hcn“ he‘dogs nm‘ know any‘rhing abou’r we quarrel between accused and &aceased. Therefora, ihe evidance of Rusimm is ‘ro ihe effec? fhai‘ his ”Fa‘i'her‘ wked him fa im‘orm Puniiai and he has m1". wifness‘ec} any quarrel befween Shaniram and Eumi‘ira 3d. As fan as fhe evidenae {if PW—7 Puniram Chouhan ig aoncer‘ned, he has si‘aied fha‘i 5hanr'iram and his wife wera‘quarrelling‘ and quarrei was a coinmon quarreli The evidence‘of Jogir‘am (PW—5) i3 fa fhe effecf fhcz‘r 5hanir'am and Sumi‘i‘r‘a Bai were quarr Hing As such, from ‘i'he evidence of 've ihr‘ee wiihesses noihing has game en record fhaf accused/appeiian‘r was aking his wife wifh The alieged weapon bf a‘i‘fence Le. .l's‘vufashi, ‘i‘hese wifness s have siai‘ed ‘ro she exiem‘ fhm common ‘quar'r‘e’l was fhere. There is no evide’ ce To The effec‘r fha? i‘hey wii‘nessed “the accusea a‘i‘i‘acking Sumifra Bai Wifh iie Gufashi, weapoéi of offence As far as recovery m‘ Gui-ashis from fhe pla i‘ n ‘ -‘« / V cf accurrence is cancerned, There is no de‘finiie evidence iha’r ihe &ufashis were recovered “from inside fhe house There is oiso no evidence To fhe eff c‘i ihoi' “rho? ihe key of‘lock of fhe house was wii'h fhe accused/appeliani‘ he ein. Moreoven, ‘rhere is no evidence of , [Hie W’ XI—HC-22 a o m o a w€amRa%a /é/_ ¥ . ..................................... umwnanm$ Yvt am bbed gmup of deceasad Sumifm § Mi. circum$fanfial avidence fo' cannec?‘ ff Ms wife Sumifm Bah ‘fhe accused/ murder 0% his wife. ’ ‘ V. .‘ inview of fhe above, ’rhe ii accus‘ed/apprdlam‘“ Shanimm few cam: ca%mof be su$¥ained, as. fhe same is mr’r’ based on any Iégal clinching evidence. in ihe resuii‘, iihe appeai of‘mxused Shaniram succeeds and ihe sama is ‘ allowed The canvici‘ioh ahd semence awarded i0 :accused Shaniram under Seciion 302 01‘ The IRC. are sef aside and he is acquii‘ied of ihe charge under Seciion 302 of The IRC. If accu5ed Shaniram is no? required in any ofher [ I J ‘3 Dhirendra Mishra‘ Judge ; ; l case, he be se? a? Hber'fy fcrfhwHh; Cerfi‘fied capy as per r‘ules‘ L.C.BHADOO \ Judge Roghon/— Sdl- { Sd/- E« [111%W WW wW aqwma 5erologis+ ‘fhaf ‘é‘he‘ {Eufashié were sfcxined 'wi+h human bload fha‘l‘ Tao 0f fhe Therefore, mereiy on “the basis 0f absence of §he accused/appgllanf from fhe house wifhwf any o?her he accused/appellanf wh‘h fhe murder m‘ appellan‘i‘ cannof be conngcfed wi‘i'h The inding of The thia cour? canvici-ing' fhe nissich of murder of his wife Sumii'ra Bai i