''s.f . •-:;~-? v^.^.sK^{'iv-~~ wis&isj. ^"-fr%N'%!:^, 3ai-189/(Jaa) C.J.P.R. 11/94/2,000 CF0000061861 c^' \y APPEAi- OF PR1S01MER >n^lBe{Kh(& .- No....€'^^/S^.. Father's name .. Residence ;*n Resid^e^s^,r^yw^«^w';m^^^'w^^ Sentenced to .. Under seetion Seatenced to ---n^-,-Pr—T---;^,;-_i-_—:"^.-.ClTi— w^ii^sr"cw^??"""""•"" •"'?" J^. ^//'- (?*• ;m6Tr'.:rw?e^ It is explained to the prisoner that jf he states or wifihes to be represented by legal ;titioner the/Appellate Court will not proceed with the base for.seven 4ays imless B legal praGtitioner appears . If the legal praetitioner dpes not appear within seven days he may not heard at all . If the prisoaer states that.he does not wish to be repre- sented by legal practitioner tbe court may proceed at once with tfie case and will not be obliged to give a heanng to any legal practitioner who should 1 2 3. 4 Date of Applieation for copy ofjudgement Date on \vhie]icopyreceived............... ...... ... ...... Date onwhiGhAppeal seat........... .. ....SSsf'S/.S'J...^. R» Whether the prisoner wishes to be represented qr not - yes "^^:"^^T Dated ........... ^?.^g?'199<7........... 'i.SS^.. No..^^^^^............... ...... Name..^^.^.,^ Confined in .....:^--jA--^t-.-"«:".—-—"Jail .....M-i-wF^T'--f^-^-^-i— ^wardedtotheCBIEF-^HeiefAfrWAQlSTfe^TOSC^ !l ?•„.,--...^-i. ^ —:.-<-;..^-1-_.-^--.^?^%@?:5B;F%*?^^2!;'^^^ t&gather whieh a copy or judgeriient or order passefi 7in the case^ fcw &v6ur of 'tfSTii- mission to the proper Appellate Court. [i- -^\^}^f yW^-// . ^w^^fW^'^ftfr^ Datepfreeeip'tia........—, ....y.............. officg Date of receiptrecordtosai^ompanythe ......... .Memo o£Appeal,to ihe Appelfate court.; ..^..^. ... i—ip »••*¥¥ t-."^, ^'y- ^•t#s-:^ No. "....,. ... -.... FoTwarded to the -. ;...:...,.. Dated .....^...l9fS^ k~4:-'.- '?- 'p", ^WV^^'7r^:^=~ffK:Ic^is^f^^^ —'"—•.', Date^T receipta.n'A£ppeltafe®6urt;.;.... •- ''»-?••••^;»:M.' ^•K^QI.^ .•-J.;-M' y^f- XI-HC-22 SH^T'qiT R-li«*i 311^1 ?b*i <ifea %s; 'FSf 'i\W\v\^, v»ia\w ,V»»wy. WWII shlich 3(it?r 1fi?ra? , .;62.;..A.Jf5^T7 286- 'fsre^CT' aii^i'S^iTWHf^r Division Bench: - Hon'ble Mr. L.C. Bhadoo and Hon'bte Mr. Dhirendra Mishra._ y. 1-2.2006 MissSangeefa Mishra,e0u|iset forthe appellant. Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Additiona Panel Lawyer fpr the State/respon|dent. Oraljudgmentdictated ws Ipais. Per L.C. Bhadoo. J: - By ttiis appeat, the app^llant has quesfloned the legatity pf the judgment ofconvictjon aiidorder ^S sentence dated 27-2-1997 passed by the ,for commission of offence undef Gase ofthe prosecution,in| lodged the report Ex.P-13 in Pol| father was grazing ox, when he house, he saw ttiat in the field o' iather after him down. dead and bloqd was oozlng out (j report, the Ihv^tjgaBng Officer .r_- 's CM<4id41l ^IH^ff "^ 'fe^"^R?H ^arfigiTan^T Public Prosecutor with Mr. M.P.S.BhaUa, Additional Sessions Judge, Korl^a; InSessions Trial No.116/95, whereby leamed Addjtional Sesstons Judg^ after holding Uie accused/appellantguilty ^ectton 302of the I.P.O. forcommitting the murderof Shambhu Charan Mah|o,seniehced him toundergo imprtsortment forlife. brief,is thatRajesh Kumar Mahto (PW-11) ce Statton: Bateo Nagar on 1-1-1^5 at 3 p.m.to the effect that on that ds|y he went to forest fw bringing wood, his Iretumed from the forest and reached Uie Samaru, Dheer Smgh was assauMng hfe |0n seeing this, he raised scream and the accused fled away. He went ne^ir his father and saw tfiat he was already |f mouth, head, nose & ear. Receh/ing this ^ft for the scene of occurrence^afi8^fter [l^^f^ XI-HC-22 "3^ "i|W)<'l'l<, dTily'lia, fawi'yy sn^T'qii Vi-u^ sn^i ^i4icr> <ifia *<|t|CTf Shlich 3:n^?T xra^ , , ...&?^,ll5~:^7^_ / "^I: 29ft- fc|'b<yT' the gMng noUce E)®.P-16& P-17 to 1 Ex.P-18 of the body of Shambhu| Charan Mahto was s®ntfor post-m(»rtem hospital atKorba under Ex.P-19 post-mortem on the body ofSham|»hu mortem report Ex.P-IC. The lnve|stigating pair of slippers under Ex.P-20. H^ blood stained soil from tte plac^ memorandum Ex.P-7 gwen by ft^ was taken into possession under Panchas, he prepared the Panchnama Charan Mahto. The body of Sha.mtrfiu examination to the hundred-beekled vlfhere Dr. P.S. Sisodia (PW-1) TOnducted ',< : •• ' Cftaran Mahto and prepared the post- Offieer topk into possesston one l^ also took into possession ptain soil and of occurrence under Ex.P-21. On flie i^ accused, the weapon of offence arrow <.P-8. Elx After completion of investig^itton 1 of Jydidal Magi^rate, Korba, who Judge, Bilaspur, from where toa^ received the case on transfer for frial. The prosecution in order examined 11 witnesses. Statem Section 313 ofthe Cr.P.C. in whic steted that he is innocent. Leamed Mditional Sessioilis Additionat Public Prosecutor and| -sentenced ttie accused as mentioried 'We have heard Miss accused/appellant andMr. U.N.S. chl^41'I TTFT^ff ^ 'f^t <r3t+rii< ^T 3if;giT an^w i, charge sheet was filed In Bie Court |n fairn committed the rase to the Sessions 1-ned AddiUonal Sessions Judge, Korba, |o establishcharge against the aceused tent of the accused was recorded under \} hedenied the prosecuti<»ievidence and Judge after hearir^ ttie arguments tf counsel for the accused convicted and in para 1 df this judgment Safig^ete Mishra, teamed counsel for the Deo, leamed Addittonal Publte Prosecutor [Tft^;if^ XI-HC-22 sn^i-^r Ki.-ti.eb 311^1 sr>^itf> <-rf^f ~s^l~:WvPf, ofllu'i®,hciwy WHeii ai*<ra» _.&?.:..&:..11.:S/<32 with Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, learned respondent. accu^ed/appeltant conce^ned, The homicidal death of Shahibhu far as the involvement of the Shambhu Charan Mahato is of Rajesh Kumar Mahtb (PW-11) lodged tto report immediatelyafter|seeii he mentioned that acctised Dheel father. Charan Mahto is not in dispute. As in commiBing ttie murderof the convtetton rests on ttie evidence Who is the son ofthe deceased and who Iseeingtheincidentytde Ex.P-13, inwhich Singh has committed the murder of his SGiteam Rajesh (PW-11) has stated| went to feteh wood from forest 4» retumed from forest after coltectin^ was assaulting his father whilfr sitt|ng assautting his father, he raised scene ofoccurrenc®. Thereafter, and saw ttiat his fatherwas alrrac|y blood, btood was oozjng out of th^ arrow. 1-te lodged the report Ex.( cross-examination of ttiis witnessj cireumstance, which makes the untrustworthy. chl^td^t 'W:E?lfi "^ fe^ <t"^-(-c;.l< ^siPgtisn^r Panel Lawyer pn behalf of the State/ fin his evidence that on the fateful day he 4nd his (ather was grazing ox, when he wood, hesaw at accused Dheer Singh on his chest. On seeing Dheer Sir^h and the accused fted away from the fjiajesh reaehed near the bddyof his father dead, the body was lying in ttie pool of injuries arel his fafrier was srttacked with * .|3-13 atPolice StaBon: Balco Nagar. In defence has not been abfe to elicit any evidence of this witness unreBabte or at»pellant argued that It has come in ttie .6^.. . .' (PW-11) that there was ^ dfspute Learned counsel for the evidence of Rajesh Kumar Mah|o totween the deceased and.the a<»used, fterefore, the acrajsed has been felsely ii^iplicated in the crime. ['qt^^Fia^ XI-HC-22 'yss 't)i<<l?ltl, afll'M'is, fayi'yy sn^iqn' R-ii'h an^r •ginra"ffl??f ^...&.:.A,!.1S.£?_Z. aii^r ^gTWHfCT ti- As far as ttie djspute is weapon. Dispute can be used for| implication. But, if we lookintc^ witnessed the erime in ^iestipn, light and Rajesh *immediatefy correctness of the statement of Witness stands corroborated to Balamsai (PW-4) who has stated ir( he was grazing cow in ttie gardeit, Dheer Sihgh & Shambhu Charan about the fact that Dheer Singh near the body of Shambhu Chara|i was lying dead and btood was oozijig h&s as fractilire quejsBon As per the medical conducted post-mortem, as many 4; Shambhu Charan Mahto, his skutl on jaw, there was compound ofthe neck. Even ttie arrow in accused. Dr. P.S. Sisodia (R<V-[ mortemwas conducted by him an<jl post-mortem report, cause of dea^ eome in the evidence that when assautUng Shambhu Charan Mahh|> on the chest of Shambhu Charan. ^— ^PfeN •RTtRlf'3'f&St^RSR • ^SlPgHCT^ cjlncerned, it is just Uke a doubto edged icommitting ttie crime as well as fpr fatee Sie evidence of Rajesh (PW-11), who the'crime was committed during the day [odged the report which •testifies Uie Ijtejesh. Moreover, the evidence of this la certain extent with the widenee of Ws evidence that on the fatelut daywhen ^, he heard the nase ofquarrd behween l^ahto. Rajesh came to W(n and informed murdered his father on which he went M.ahto and saw that Shambhu Charan 1 out of mouft & nose. evid^nce of Dr. P.S. Sisodia PW-1) who eight injurieswere found on the bodyof (xme was fradured, there was stab wound ofjaw and cutwound on Uie baekskle was recovered at tti®instance <rf the I) has stated in his widence that post- report was prepared by him. As per the (h was syncope due to throttting. It has t came, the accused was '&^yl:<tiL~"~' ~" ~~~~~~~ '" aftertMaamg himdownand aftersiBing - [TT|^ if^f XI-HC-22 «1^!Sit ~ ^iW 311^1 ^nW^ ^[^n Soma ^S[ ^IFIRI^, •^CT®;^qit<ll< G-?.:..fr..i(.S^"7 HWWI %in*K 3ff^' ^-^ff^T ^ff?T --S- Therefore, in view- of ftie ^ author of the crime in question w^s 1111 ' any illegafity or Ihfirmity in ttie judg|nent In the r^ylt, this appeal 1s dismissed and tt is accordingly, Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge t s iaiiji^.iagri.Li E •»>'if- •••^--fVuimi^fit =ht^<d4ti ^w^^ fe^ <^R$i< ^sifigii sn^i bove evktence, it is esteblished that the the accused/appellant. We do not find' in question. devoid of any merit.same is liable to be dishiissed. Sd/- \l DHBtENDRA MISHRA 1 Judge 1 >. / m^s^ -:£li!'^'-^^^E^^^^ii^^