APPBP.L OF PRISONER CF000006S306 No- .•^44S£-6^-— Name Pather s name „ ^\ ^'&i^ --------- Residence _cs^.^ __ • Age _-I^'-^j^ ^j--' Wp~-2^STW Sentenced s-^^.,^'-^^^^.. „_.__„On CV /3J ^t'Uiliifn^ilZZ lHis!i! WWii 01 UlRfi[[j5(!El 'NER : _^. , j . SILA @ £»U'^" 1 4 1:B E3; 'R'eg'"No^.Z~^.'^ .-.——.-^. -See^ipt ^fcfirA Cosr^ r^/^y" ^'s.t-..!.^.S-B. e?.3,-.__ "' by 'iHj.ta.^w^4. SSS-^^~?<TO?T^! under sectioH-^a^p^-SS^S-^.—.-. .--„.--..„^^^^^ .,.•5^^^^^-.. „-.--.---.-ysi^S. ^ta.-. .t.i»s^^^»^^-^^j it is explained to the prisoner- that if he states or wishes to be represented by legal practitioner fche Appeliste Court will not proceed with the base for seven days unless the.legal prac-titioner appears. If the legal practitioner does not appear with-il-i seven days he rnay not heard at all. If the prisoner states that he does not ^sh to be represented by I'.egal practiotioner the ccurt may'proceed at oacs t7ith the case and wlll not be obliged tb glve a hear'ing to anv 'legal practi-fcioner who should appear> Date of Application for copy of Judgement ......^.-^.^LT ..^'£-<2.^ Date of which copy received ___;_..^x-_3--^.-&6S..2> Date on which appeal sent Whether the prisoner wished to be represented or not-Yes/No ;-^F^TV\^\OT Ja.tl ^- .^^UMc^ Continued in "("S^ ao Forward to the ^|^^:3^^v?S'sfflii^^R^^^ -;o gather which a copy of order passed in the case f6r favour of transmission to the proper Appelliate Court. ~r~~~~^T'e- -^ \ •• „ ;r^ ^ ^——•f ^. . '^^ ^ n^^\— :•• •• '.':.•;. . '..... •' crt »<^S-^*^^ ^|lcllcs-i\^; 3 ^PM '-^ ^ ' Superinfcendent Date of reeeipt in C.J.M's Office Date of receipt racord to acconpany Memo of Appeal of the Appeliate Court ^?o. • Dated F'orwarded to ^the 199 . C.J. I'iagistrate Date of receipt in Appeiiate Court //3URGUJA TY.// , A ^ ^ . .XI-HC-78 an^Tcfirf^if^ tT'>n'3n^T'a?TW *n*T^I ?b*ll<*> 'SSf'WvW, ss'Tfly'ie, Rlclltiy ^.A..A.,,l.S>.?./.?^ ^n; 200 sn^r Tgg? (*ici!^'s<^T) ^.RITWHf^TSn^T L.C. HON'BLB MR. SUNIL KUnSAR 08.01.2007 ^•] Shri Abbay Tnvari, coui Shri Ravindra Agiawal, I.A. No.3800/2004 has[ to dispose of fhe appeal itse} State has no objectioii. Therefore, witli the con^t being disposed ofby fhis jud^ment B< L.C. BJ This appeal is dtected aud order of sentence dated Sessions Judge, Man.dcndi^ Sessions Ti-ial No. 243/2001, Jndge, after holdiag thc acc^ of ofence under Section 303 iniprisoninent for Ufe and to pajrment offine to farfher und The prosecution case, Jagaiiaath, fattier of the c iatimation (Ex.-P/2) in the +i*iTci41-f wRff ffh^ <Ri^±i< ^sri^R'sTi^r C.J. ts^l for the appeBaiit. Panel Lawyer for the State. been filed on beha'f of tlie appellaiit f, to which, leamed counsel for the icnt ofthe parties, tlie appeal itselfis agauist fhe jiidginent of coni-iction [31.1.2002 passed by the Additional ^gai-h, District - Koria (C.G.) in 'lyheisby, 'earaed Additional Sessions i^ed/appeBant guilty for conimissioii of IPC, sentenced hiin to undergo [pay a fine of Rs.500/, m default of ]ergo R.I. for3 months. m brief, is tliat on 6/5/2001, eceased - Meei-a Bai gave Merg folice Station .- KhadgaA-wa to the P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3n^rs(irf?qTq; gwsTT^ra^iN; <TWdl Sh*TT^ 3'5^-qraRra', »T(1y'iG,Rciiuy . ^. Pi -,| S?Jo^-. ..'...'...... .-;.-^. ^-200 3T1^7T tiach (yi{^5i<^<T) gRITWtlfgtI'311^1 ."2-- effect that his daiighter Meeit viBage - Bodemuda. In the ev\ that his daughter has expirecjt. alongwifh his -ivife reached vipa^ and saw that his daughtcr \¥a|s does not know. On rtceiviai Station - Khadganwa, Distj-ict occurrence, pneparcd iuqiie^t deceased. The bodv of M4 exainination to the Prunary Dr.O.L. Bunnau conducted fU report (E.X.-P/3), hiwhich, hi^ asphyxia due to fhrottlhig anif He prepared the site plaii o| Dehati nalisi (Ex, P-5) was Based on thc postmorteni rej Cr.P.C., tlie Investigatiag Oqice Meera Bai was iaui-dei«l Informatioa Report (Ex.-P/5^) the offence under Section 302 After completion of fhe agaJnst the accused in the Class, Maaendragarh, who Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Sessions Jlldge, Manendiagai] <»ii<if<-i<l1'< iiH<-iTffteI?l'<Rit<i< ^Tsri^R'an^T ^a Bai was inarried to Rain Gopal of ;uing of 5/5/2001, he came to know On receiving fhis information, he ',e -Bodeniuda at about 8:00 p.m.. already dead, but how she died, he ^ this Merg intiniation, SHO PoMce Koria left for fhe scene of ^t (Ex.-P/'l) on the body of the j-era Bai ivas sent for postmorteni Health Centre, Khadganwa, where [e postaiortein, prepared postmortem. opined that the ca'use ofdeath was (1 tiie death was horaicidal ia naturc;. the place of occun^nce (Ex.-P/4). l^idged b;/ the Investigatiug OIEcer, jiort and enquiry iinder Section 174 licer reached to the conclusioii that |by throttling, therefore, the First 'i) was registered for couiuiission of ofIPC. linvestigatioa, charge sheet was filed Court of Judicial Magistra.te First |n tui-n coianiitted the case to the fmin wheic, flie leamed Additional b received tlie case on tiaiisfer. P.T.O. ^2_2- XI-HC-78 qi*mTsb*1|cb 3^'^rraRra', eiTn+i'is, (Siciiyy ^_ ^./^-; s-s'/o^ ^^ ^; 200 3TI^?T <ra%' (y)I^q<^ff) sn^T^rR-fi'b (CT'3T]^T*t<i+ STdTW Bf^tTSll^T — -? «tii<<f<-i<)1-i iiHciTffte^l'<Rit<ii< ^i siRjrr a.n^r The prosecution in'oid^r accused examiaed 5 witnesseb recoried under Section 313 niaterial appeariug against h| stated that he is innocent and know. to estabUsh the charge agauist the ;. The statement of the acciised was |of Cr.P.C., in which, he deuied the i|m in the prosecution evideuce and how tlie deceased died, he does not L-eamed Additional Ses cotiusel and pei'tisal of fhe acctised as aforeinentioned. We have heatd leamed fhe record. Sesfeions Jiidge after hearing respective •ecord convicted and sen^tenced the counsel for the oarties and perused "El deati OOStDlOI Leanied couasel for'fh^ of homicidal death of Meeit BunnaD. (PW-4), who conduc| on 6/5/2001 at about 3:001 Khadganwa brought the years. He conducted the and fouad that there was bldi was between fhe teeth. On 4th, 5A aj.id 6& nngs of asphyxia; on account of fhrot| ofthis, it is estabKshed that nature. )f fhrotUing appeUaat has not disputed the fact Bai. Apai-t from that, Dr. O.L. ted the postiaortem, has stated fhat [p.m.., Constable of Police Station - body of Meera Bai, aged about 30 (laortem on the bod}r of fhe deceased jeding froni iiose aad inouth, toiigue |opening her ncck, it was foiind that were fractured, she died due to tg, flie rcport is (Ex.-P/3). In. viewr tleath of Meera Bai was hoinicidal ia P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3n^?r»BTR-fi+ tWSn^Tsbtljch ^IHC^I sh^n^ 'sss^fWvR, aTfly'Ks, Ridiyy .C\,A-.t9s]v33= ^[ 200 sn^TMayi (li?lidsl^.iir) ?^iTWHfsa'a;n^T As far as iuvolyeixient concenied, tliere is no diiect whole case reats oa ciTCunistartces relied upon accused with the crim.e iu qui tfc Tliat flie h id fu} in the house of That, the accusejl to how Meera house, clmibed Police Officer fheu only, he cai(ie of accused in criine in question is |or ocular evidence in this case. The circum.staatKLl evidence. The ^iy the prosecution to connect fhe •stipn are as foUows: l.al deafh of Meera Bai has occurred ;cused. has not ofFeied aay explanation as ^i died, On the contraiy, he left the lon the niango tree and when the and asfeed hiin to come down, down from. the niango tree. Bili cafiae Leamed counsel for there is no evidence in this c| question. Moreover, body of accused, where the paren) therefore, no inferen.ee caa author offhe criine. On the other haad, lesj flie judginent of the trial Couj In orier to apprcciate counsel for the respective pa^t »tii<<F<i41-i *iiHciTfffei^l'<Ri<^i< ^i STf^nT an^r fhe accused/appellant argiied that ^ae uivolviue the accused ia ciime ui IMeera Bai was foiuid hi the house of ts of acciised were also residuig, be drawn fhat fhe accused was fhe |med coiuise! for the State s'upported the arguments advanced by fci ies, we have penised the record P.T.O. ^ XI-HC-78 3:n^r^TR-<i'ti cW3n^T"sh*1 ^1<4WI sh*1ich 3^'qraTrPT, 8'Tllti'is, Ritfiuy ^^..c^..fl.:..lASJ.?.^- ?R;~200 3<1^1 >4ath (lclI^°tStT) ?TdTWHf^cT3nSRT ^l PW-1 - JagaiTaath, fati^er his daughter was mani6d to date of incident. On receivin daiighter, he alongwith his wi saw that Meera Bai was tf accused, fhen the father oftl' away, oa which be siispected he reported flie .matter in Thereafter, thfi SHO Police S: aiid prepared inquest. Durinj about 50-60 paces, fhe acq therefore, SHO asked him. tq SHO, he came down. On enc| that he has coinmitted IHIUT'| Sunflar is the evidence of PW-1 iu cross-examiiiation of thed been able to bring on reco accused, his parents were Neither th.ei" is an.y other evj aiiy other person was invol^ there is cross-examiiiatio" cominissioa of the crinie in house. On the ofier hand, ^ tree and came down from. i'ti coine dowa. In tiie stateinentl »t>i'qf<-t41-i Hi*i«Tffterit'<f«]wi< ^sri^trsn^T of flie deceased, has sfated that the accused 7-8 years prior to the g iiifonnatioii reganding death of his fe went to the house of accused and •iag dead. He enquired aboiit flie ie Sicciised infomied that he had run the deafh. of the daughter, therefore, fhe PoEce Station - Khadgaiiwa. iation aiid DcK'tor caine on the spot ; that period, it was infoniied that at ised was sitting on a inango tree, coine dbwn and on asking by the uiry by fhe SHO, accused informed 'r of his wife by pressiiig her ueck, 2 - Jaiiki Bai, wife ofJaganuath and tWQ witnesses, defence has not ~d an37+hing. That, apart from the also residing iii the sam.e hoLise. 3.ence that apart fi-oia the accused, °d in eoininission of the crune nor to the eflect t3iat at the time of Liestion, tiie accused was not at his iccused left the house, clunljed the only when tiie SHO asked. him. to recoried under Section 313 Cr.P.C., P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3T!^T^f^lFR gaTTsn^r'giqN; tTIH^I shKKh s^'BTPirera', isi-rfl+i'is, Rfciiyy ^.^:.ci.c-.:..t.?.s.l^ W1T 200 311^14ri* (yt^i'^) gRIRKBfN'-W^T c.- accused has uot explaiued t]i(| Bai was throttled. The- accl together, fherefoiB, it was w) accused. as to how Meera Bsl rscfher he has pleaded tota2ty fl The pi^secution has ah| fhe deceased were residins accouiit of throttling due circumstance, iiiitial burien As per provisions of Sectioa l' biirden shifted on fhe accused wfaich, Meeia Bai had. died: discharge tiic biirien reither hi accused in his statement 'ha- why he left ti'ic hoiise and climl We are fortified in our Court rendered ui tlie niatter im reuorted iu 2006 held that the respondent, accr deceased, the burden was Ui thereafter, since those facts -v Since, the respondent fajted to to discharge tiie burien cast Ewiden.ee Act. In the aforesaid 4>i^rd41-i vmsf if fsfS^wi. ^aTf^R-gn^r circuinstance, under which, Meeia sed and deceased were residing ;hm. the special knowtedge of the received the fractare of cartilage, nocence. •adv established that accused and together and Meera Bai died on to aspb^rxia, therefore, in the 'as discharged by the prosecution. )6 of the hidian Evidence Act, the to explain the circunistaace, iinder biit the accused 3ias faited to has pleaded total iruiocence. The not offered any explan.ation as to >ed the tree. ,dew by fhe iudgiaent of Suureine of ?, in which, it has been |sed haviug been seen last with the [on him to prove what happened (ere witliin his special laiowledge. i|lo so, it must be held that he faited |upon him by Section 106 of the ]case also, xvife of the accused had P.T.O. j^-^^-r2-'2. XI-HC-78 sn^rwf^iw tia(T3?R?T»11<;b ^I+I^I Sh'TT'ft 3^3' "i|i<<ici<M, ®T(lu'i6,fsiciiuy ^,^-> 8SJ^^.^ 200 STI^T ^rgg; (ly t^si^) ???rwHfB(T3n^r ~ '' died on account ofasph^ixia not offer aay explanation as t^ •wife nor did he offir any excu^: buidea under Section 106 <ofl abovesaid uicriminating circii eveu after the arrest, accused did :^> when he parted coinpany ivith ]iis u^patoiy explauatioa to discharge fhe the Evideace Act. Therefoiie, these ii^stances •fona a coinplete chain and are coiisistent with no other accused respondeiit. In another judgment i|n the matter of TrfffHifch Maroti 53rfean vs. af SSahw^shtra. reported in 2006 AJR SCW 5300, the Apex Court held th^ privacy of a house aad i^i assaflants have a!I the opport^ a.t fh.e tim.e and iii circumst extremely difficult for the pro' the guflt of the accused if t]|i evidence, as noticed above, Judge does not.pi^side over 4 ituiocent nian is punished. guflty rn.an does iiot escape. coniniitted ia. seci-ecy insid^ estabKsh the case woiild vai^ but thc nature and ainouat of the charge caiinot be of the ^ cases of cu-cuinstaFitial evid^nce coinparatwely Kghter chara-c-^ +i'iil'cf.ifl-f WRrr' ff tecfl' Ttearc ^T3ri^IT3IT^?r hypothesis except the guflt of the »/ ^. 4. >t ifan oflfence tatees place inside the sucli cn'cuinstanccs wheic the [inity to plan and coiamit fhe offence ^tances of their choice, it wfll be lecution to fead evidence to estabKsh [ie strict principle of circum.stantial |is iasisted upon by the Coiirts. A criininpJ trial raerely to see that no ^ Judge also presides to see that a Where an offence Kke inurder is a house, fhe iiiitial bnrden to Eoubtedly be upon the proseeution, evidence to be led by it to establish iaine degiec as is reqiiiicd in other The burden would be of a In vieiv of Sectiou 106 of the P.T.O. ^3^S^-2_1 XI-HC-78 3Ti^r?irf^iN? (raT3n^T«htfi«ti 3:5g'^iraRT;r^ siTflu'is, Riciitiy . fo./^ - 1 8-g JQ 2__ *il+iwish*iich •••••••••••••••••'••• ^j- 2QO \, W^\ 4d* ('i?^°'S.'ST) ?^ireiHfi(T3n^T Evidence Act fhei^ wfll be a o of fhe hoiise to give a cogent.! cominitted. The ininates oftt keepuig quiet and offering preuiise that the buidea to es prosecution and fhere is no d explaiiation. In case of no would because aa additional ^rresponding burden on the inmates ^xplaiiation as to how the criaie was !|ie house caiiaot get away by siiaply nq explanation on the siipposed jablish its case lies entircly upon tlie l.lty at aB on aa accused to offer asy |explanatiou or false explanation it Ifnk in cham. ofcircumstances. In the present case als<) house of the accused aud y whereas, as per tlie inedical death of Meeia. Bai was hoai has failed to discharge his buijtl.en Iii tlie facts and circui opinion that the judginent of| aiiy fllegalily or m.finnily. Leai-ned couasel for tta| judgnieut of tlie Apex Court| _reported in prosecution has not estabUs] with an. in.tentiou to caiise d^ crim.e was coiiunitted in a su^ deceased, therefore, the offe| ti-avel beyond Sectiou 304-'( o] tii<<Io41-) Hii<nT^'tei^t<R]t<i< ^>«f^>T311^T ), tiie lauixler was coinniitted ui the e has uot oflfered aiiy explanation, evidence, it. is established that the icidal iu natui'e, flierefore, acCTlsed astances, we are of tiie consideied the trial Court does not suffer from e appellant placing reliance 011 the in the laatter of CR1.!,.»J. 46SS argued fhat flie icd that aceused throtOed his wife •ath of the deceased. Moreover, the iden fight between the accused and ace against the acciised does not •the IPC. P.T.O. k- ^_2^^. XI-HC-78 ^ <; ff}Hvl 1 aiWd S'Eg'-qTO^FT, aTf1<-('l<§., Iqcll'My .4..^.'. Sf]0^ WT 200 3:n^r^rR-< OTT3Tl^r$ht| :1—n<l 3T[^?r (Rgr (qgfgq^sr) ??cTRKCTl?cT3n^7T l' We fail to iinderstand f] ia the present case because offered any explanation rathei| fhe acciised is not fhere thaf.'l sndden fight, theiefore, fhe| counsel for the appeUant does| In the resiilt, the appeal| disniissed and is accordingly 4ism.issed. »hl<lf<1<fl-flllflT ft tec3' rfSRZK ^sri^rsn^T lat how fhis judgmeut is appKcabfe in fhis case, the acciised has not there is total denial. The defence of te tbrottled his wife on accouut of a argLiineiits ad.vanced by leanied not merit any consideration. beias devoid ofinerits is liable to be Sd;- Acting Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge P.T.O. y' 1M-1—-) iiSiasF,s3it>-;^ai^