I E? (‘97 « HIIIIIIIIIIIIHH)IIIH é ‘ “Mfgigzyg .Name wwwww Faiehex's name %j: 7%7WM“ m--. -w Sentenced Resuience : W»? WW/yfm W77??? / J'ge (2w 127*”? g/ J?“ 0/6- W..- ““‘ . be represented bv lectal practitioner the Appellate Court Will not prbceed With the base practltloner appears . Under section $~[‘[>/'~ \90/ by 14% W%%H ——————..§m-.3&Zv— m*é~ “*“Fwgw (We / :Lt ls explalned to the prisoner that 1f he states Wg for seven days unless the legal IL the ’legal practltloner does not appear‘with~in seven days he may not heard at all. If the Hrlsoner states that he does not wish to be represented by legal pr‘eetlotloner the coart may proceed at once Wlth the case and W111 not be obliged to give a hearing to anv legal practltloner who should appear. ‘.; £ . ‘. ‘1, A3.” ?£ / l...rv._--~..l._v l . .£g~t.41:§~£l. i Date of Application for Copy of Judgement Date of which oopy received r Date on which appeal sent [qLuJgQ hma‘w»~“ W‘y , Whether the prlsoner Wished to be represented or not~Yes/No No. r res/ego Name §ai3743xpgmzaf§$92“77 gentinued in}g~—=}(%/¢vu 9;“ Jail gy/¢/%§7 ‘wo. lg ($L ‘ Dated Millzyg”& M_ 190 eorward to the CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGIQTRATEQ1Jgbl 1 to gather whlcn a cooy of order passed 1n the case for fav r , if: tr§smlsSlo§ to the &oper Aboelllate ééourt Sqperlntendr nt Date of receipt in C.J.M'Vs Office _ 12 H Date of recei‘at record to accompany 42.4 g‘ ”w“ No. ‘_Mymy___%w“ Dataa Cy ‘ 199 “ii reg Forwarded-to the W Kux‘" \nJ. Date of rece1pt in Appellate Coo t //SU’RauqA TY.// Memo of Appeal of the Aopelimte Court m/Mmi RU W3? jyTIogC ‘ P G Y a H f { ‘ 3‘ s. q H mq w XI-HC—22 Mrs. Kiran Jain, ’Advoca‘h: for The appellant ' ;“t‘‘. Mr. Dinesh ‘Chand Pandey, Panel Lawyer for fhé 5fa+e/responden‘r. l l Oml judgmenf dicfuled on Darls'. l PER L.C. BHADOO, 3'. This appeal is direc’red againsf me'judgmenf of convicTion and l order of sen‘rence daTed N‘fl’ November, 1998 passed by lhe 15* bikapur in S.T. No.93/98 whereby fhe Addifional Sessions Judge af‘r r holding The accused/appellanf guil'fy for commiffing murder of his wif namely Rijhni Bai, convic‘led him under Sec‘i’ion 302 of ‘i'he I.P.C'. and senienced f0 undergo rigorous imprisonmeni for life. The Case of The prosecu ion, in brief, was 'iha‘i' PW—Z Mehanguram gave Merg Infimaiion (EXP— in ihe Police Si'a'rion Balrampur 'io The effecT ThaT in The nighT of 2 .1.1998 he was sleeping in his Threshing field, aT abouT 5.00 a.m. in The morning Tekra Nageshia came To him and p gr said ThaT wheThersyou are s eping, Then he replied ThaT he is noT Addi'rional Sessions Judge, '(‘flo W) A 1 mam mm mmmw WW ; DIVISION BENCH l HON‘BLE MR. LC. BHADOOdi ; HON’BLE MR. V.K. SHRIVASTAVA JJ. k l 27.10.2006 XI—HC—22 WWIWW . ao-WW sleeping, on which Tekm Nag hia said ‘rha‘r he has murdered his wife and a‘r fhaf fime Tekm Nag’e in was carrying hisidaughfer- in *he lap. Thereaffer, Tekm Nageshia Ie f‘r The place saying +ha'r he is gning. He informed Sukhmm & Gauraré abouT 1'he incidenfg‘ On receiving merg in‘fima‘rion, 1'he 'S'rafion Hou e Officer, Police i Sfafion Balrampur ‘, regisTered‘fhe FIR. (Ex.P~9) [eff far The scene of occurrence and i u affer giving 'noTice (EXP-1) To he Panchas prepared fhe inquesT repor‘i (EXP-2) of The body of Rijhni Bai. The InvesTigaTing Officer prepared The siTe pian (EXP-3) of The pi ce of occurrence. PaTwari 5hri Khemraj Singh (PW-7) also prepared he siTe plan (Ex.P-4) of The place of occurrence. One wooden plank ixed wiTh iron pick-axe, plain soil & blood sTained soil, one DhoTi sTaine wiTh blood, one sTeel Tumbler and one sTeel Thali were Taken .inTo pos ession from The house of accused under EXP-5. Body of Rijhni Bai was senT for posTmorTem examinaTion To The GovernmenT HospiTal, Balrampu under Ex.P-6 where Dr. N.K. DuTTa (PW— 4) conducTed posTmorTem and repared The posTmorTem reporT EXP-7 in which he opined ThaT The deaT of Rijhni Bai was due To shock and coma as a resulT of mulTiple injuries o viTal organ, lungs, brain and fracTure of skull (Si ribs leading To severe aemorrhage and deaTh was homicidal in naTure. Recovered arTicles w re senT for chemical examinaTion To j\ - ar . \ .(dioW) e XI—HC—ZZ man mm mm?! mmmw WW§WW {’3 ‘ After complefion of i the record convicted 6i sentenced the f Forensic Science Laborafory, Sugar under EXP-11, from where repor'r EXP—12 was received. s'riga'rion, charge shee‘l' was filed againsf The accused in fhe CourT of udicial Magis‘rmfe, I“ Class, Ramanujganj, a who, in furn, committed the c se to iecxrned Sessions Judge, Ambikopur from‘where learned 15* Addit onal Sessions Judgeireceived the case on transfer for trial. § The prosecution 'in or er to establish’the charge against the On the other hand, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he cienied the material appearin against him in the prosecution evidence and stated that he is innoce t and has been falsely implicated in the crime. Learned Additional Se sions Judge after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal accused in the manner as men ioned in Para 1 of this judgment. We have heard learned ounsel for the parties. Learned counsel for th accused/appellant has not disputed the fact of homicidal death of Rhni Bai. Apart from that, PW—4 Dr. N.K. Dutta has stated that he c ducted the postmortem on the body of (the W) e n i' 1. Accused made eX' Mehangumm .> Body of Rijhni Bai M of accuse'd and 'H deceaséd sustained As far as firs? circums‘ r in The lap afTer commi'H'ing crime. 'as found in’ injured condifion in fhe house e accused has no? explained how fhe njuries. Moreover, accused came fo —8 carrying his daugh're l’ance is concerned, PW-8 Mehanguram has siafed fhaf in The fa‘refui night he was sleeping in his ihreshing fieid and in fhe mid nigh? accused rm judicial confession before PW—8 \ A :ame W and asked him 1'0 wake up and sTa-red Thafihe has commi‘r‘recl murder of his wife. He was carrying his i \\ \' ‘ “1% W) PW 3mm Wm W 2004 W : RIJ'hni Bail fhere were 16 injuries aii over fhe body, 3rd, 41m d: 5% i were found fraciured, righ‘r Ling was also rup'rured in ‘l'he size of 2"x2". l’V‘ Similarly lefi’ lung was also ru afured. There was a :fraciure of skull bone and Rijhni Bai died on accouni of fraciure of ribs and excessive haemorrhage, which resul‘red n‘l’o shock. Therefore, in view of‘l'he $ medical evidence if is esfablished Thaf deajl’h of Rijhni Bai was homicidal in nafure. A . . As far as involvemem of The accused in crime in ques‘rion l concerned, in fhis case fhere: is no ocular evidence and fhe convicfion l resfs on 'rhe circumsfanfial evidence XI—HC—22 mm mm WW$WWR /Sh’ . §§§1§HW daugh'rer in ‘rhe hp. Nex1' day morning he wen? To fhe house of The accused, saw fhé dead body of RiJhni Bai and gavefmerg infima'rion Ex.P- 10. In The cross-examinafion ‘rhis wifness has s‘hrred Tha‘r H is incorrecf To say ‘rhaf in The faTeful nighT accused Tekm Nagwhiya was sleeping wiTh him in his Threshing field a; Learned counsel for The occused/oppeIIanT argued ThaT in The FIR The Time of incidenT has shown has 5.00 a.m., whereas, PW—8 Mehanguram‘ has sTaTed Th T in The mid nighT accused came and disclosed him ThaT he has c mmiTTed murder of his wife, Therefore, There is variance in The Time regarding commission of offence, as such The prosecuTion has noT bee able To esTablish The case againsT The accused wiTh clear and cogenT evidence. In order To appreciaT e argumenT advanced by learned counsel for The accused/appellant w hai/e examined The evidence available on record. IT is True ThaT Mehan uram has sTaTed ThaT in The mid nighT The accused came To him and disc sed ThaT he has commiTTed murder of his wife, whereas, merg inTimaTi n (Ex.P‘-10) given by Mehanguram To The Police STaTion Balrampur show ThaT accused came To him abouT 5‘00 a.m. and in The HR (EXP-9) The Time of occurrence has been shown prior To a b n e ma‘rer‘ial variance befween The merg infimm‘ion. The incidem evidence fha'r Mehangumm (P ‘Vh‘e menfioned The fime onl‘ Approxima‘re fime Has been g re‘ached 1'0 Mehangumm (PW- come Thaf how much fima Mehangumm (PW—8) affer co find any subsmnce in 1'he argL accused, as There is no subsTanTial variance beTween The evidence and The documenTs regarding The Time of commission of crime so as To make The prosecuTion case doubTf i. Mehanguram (PW-8) is an independenT wiTness and in his cross-exa inaTion The defence has noT been able To eIiciT any circumsTance which shows ThaT This wiTness has any animosiTy againsT The accused or has an reason‘To impIicaTe The accused in a false case Moreover, he has sTaT d ThaT when The accused came To him, he was carrying his daughTer in h lap and ThereafTer This wiTness informed PW—Z Goraram abouT The incid nT, who has corroboraTed The evidence of \\r I i x i \\ evidence of PW-8 Mehangur'am and FIR & ' fook'place in ‘rhe nigh? and 'H'Ier'e is no' W-8) was wearing wa‘rch af fhaT Time and I affer seeing The fime in his wa‘l'ch. iven and as per merg infimafion, accused 8) a1' abou‘i' 5.00 a.m. and i1' has no where was Taken by The accused 1’0 reach “mission of crime. Therefore, we do no‘r imen‘r advanced by Iearned counsel for The 01% W) \ ’. V XI-HC-22 Hawaii, m,W Wm mm.. FIE 200 W mar WW WWW mm? rrrntvi‘f ETsQ‘TW mm ,gr- aamam From perusal of The above evidence and documenTs EXP-9 & Ex.P- 1O i.e. merg inTimaTion and FIR, iT cannoT be said ThaT There is any K XI—HC-22 ‘ WW mm WW i i mmm wwwffwm .30.- » ’ %§T%Hm\ $ Mehanguram (PWF8) and s'ra ed Thu? Mehangumm came and informed him fha‘r Tekra has commi‘H‘e murder- of his wife Rijhni Bai, on which he i wen'f To 'rhe house of Tekm a saw fha‘r wife of Tekm namely Rijhni Bai was Iying dead and accused Wa presenf in ‘I'he house. PW-5 Sukhram has also sfafed Thaf in The nighi' Mehangu came ‘ro his house and informed Thaf .Tekra has commif‘red ur-der' of his wife, on which he asked Mehangu +0 inform'fhe villagers also. Nex‘l' day morning along wimh villagers he ‘wen‘i 1'0 ’rhe house of accused and saw fha‘l' Rijhni Bai, wife of accused, was lying dead, There were injuries on The head of Rijhni Bai and accused was presenf in fhe house. Therefore, The evidence of Mehangu sTands corroboraTed by The evidence of PW—Z Goarar-am & PW- 5 Sukhram and There is noTh on record To show ThaT exTra judicial ng confession made by The accused was noT volunTary. As such, ‘ The conclusion of The Trial courT ThaT The accused made True and volunTary exTra judicial confession oefore Mehanguram (PW-8) regarding commission of crime in quesTim does noT suffer from any illegaliTy and infirmiTy. As far as second circu nsTance is concerned, as per evidence of PW-Z Goraram, on receiving informaTion from Mehangu regarding commission of murder of Rijhni Bai by The accused, he wenT To The house , L i l (dosh?) f XI—HC—22 j of The accused and saw ThaT Rijhni Bai was lying dead and accused Tekara was presenT in The house. PW—5 Sukh ram has sTaTed ThaT coming To know abouT The murder of Fiijhni Bai by The accused, nexT day morning along wiTh villagers he wenT o The house of The accused and saw ThaT i The wife of accused was Iy dead, fhere was injury on The head of Righni ‘Bai ‘and The accused was roaming in The house carrying his daughTer in The lap. In The ross—examinaTion of These Two wiTnesses noThing has €ome on record o disbelieve Their evidence and moreover, The accused in his sTaTemen under SecTion 313 of The Cr.P.C. has noT explained ThaT how Ri‘jhni‘Bai susTained injuries which resuiTed inTo The deaTh of Rijhni Bai. The acc sed in his sTaTemenT under SecTion 313 of Cr.P.C. simpiy denied The pro cuTion evidence and sTaTed ThaT he has been faisely ii'nplicaTed in The crime, buT for impIicaTion in a faise case no reason has been assigned by- he accused or iT has noT been sTaTed ThaT The prosecuTion wiTnesses na ely PW-S Mehanguram, PW—Z Goraram & PW-5 Sukhram had any gru ge or animosiTy so as To impIicaTe The accused in a faise case. Acc sed haS‘noT even sTaTed ThaT when in The commiTTed he was noT aT his residence. Therefore, all These circum Tances and conducT of The accused are nighT The crime in quesTion (dis W) i g s m mmmm _ ?’/ mwswm smm XI-HC—22