~ A> I - _ x . wwglgmé) _ i / - x m \ ‘ 17;)(Vivkl-189U‘aihcHER-1994 : a4 'f f 'v MN!“ L *4 ‘ - i APPEAL ~ ‘r : r OFPRisaNgRL -. q ‘Ti\\’\\’\\\\\\|\i\ V , ‘ V‘ L , ‘ ’ ‘ ’ V ' V ¢ x, l[5'3 I " Name " r '- ‘ r . r ' 7‘ _ .‘ g ‘mvxsion V i BegchW‘m‘a ‘ I I E. V ‘1 i Father’s name a; V. N‘ \ . V . w ¥ ._ ~v¥3w<ny W73 \_ ,. w , fRgsidenc‘e ’ 3102 V'Lgcy‘ _ 7 . Age“ f gq r Q 7 ‘ ‘ Ne, § y V.‘S€Vntenced ,Ugnder i ‘ Sectlon' rha‘wl‘iw to- i $‘W \W‘ <‘ , ' " ‘ by o’n , W 3L&. ?\7\,\ \ \ 5‘59: .& . $FX ‘ %g£Cw . u ‘ ?-) _ ¥ ’ ; 3 > v ;‘ ptaciitione'r f It iscxplained the lto ‘ppellate the prisqner Court will that [not if he proCeed stateshe with wishés the cas’er to be for représented seven days unless by a legal the ‘llegal s he pyactltionerjappears may not heard at earlier. all ' if the If thelegal Prisoner practitioner‘ statesthatvhe does does net not appear wish Within to be repre- seVen r V ’ i‘E‘é 'pt‘ed obliged-to by legal give' practitioner a hearing to the mylega] coiirt may ,praetitioner‘who proceed at once should with appear. the case and will not ’ 7 11 Date of ApplicationfOr eopy of Judgement _. 7W ‘ D§ate on whgieh’copy received x l i > V . ,' ;L Date en wliu$ ti h Appealsenr - ‘ ' _ _'.. V Ah i ,, L2,qg ' Whether the Prisoner wishesto be represented’or noti NO‘: onnnggin i #I’D'i/é'? 5 get e ' i Jai Name , ' ' 5 . . g iv i ’ ' W > “ Da to gether with a copy of judgement or order passed in the case ’for favour of’transn‘ii‘m 7 ssionfto the p oper Appellate court. . .':Et§§%%hhémx a l . M uLEJAa emswa z pt Jailv ‘ ' / gmm¥~w 1‘ Datei'ofvreceipt-in ’ ' Office" a ' hisrh ’X Vi »&§\,~W‘€ Date of receipt of record to accompanyz‘the ‘ ‘ ’ ' ‘ * ' i J .Me$o of Appeal to the Appellate court - 3N0 i Dated . or ' a #————-— " w , r w ‘ti ' Forwfardedgo the? J V ‘ e am;- , # “. t ‘ 3 l i i i I i 1 i Date ofr're‘eeiptrjin Appellate court’ g“ J § 1 M — Hm 1 }‘< ' ‘ ,> l \ rt , V . ‘ 1 \77 ‘ i r - \ .r o 7 ‘ ; f \ y gi . L ne lg ta. ‘ _ I » v " " ted I i V ‘ ‘ f . ¢ : i 43f Ts appeal is drecfed ag o.f sentence dafed 18-11-1998 pa Biiaspur, in Sessions Tria! No.51S Judge affer' holding fhe accused/ Under Secfion 302 of fhe I.P.C., Hfe. ’ { Case of The prosecuhon is Police Shflon Pall fa fhe effeaf Ipformed by Kalsx Gond that-pre' aim” Lagan Singh 60nd, ‘rhe acca niwr'der' of 'nis brofher-in-law Lakl’ Jiong with Up—SarpancHSamar- Si! s‘aw fhaf Lakhan Singh's body wa head. Receiving 1'his report The fha‘r Amrifial lodged the repor'i EXP-8 in fho‘i‘. on 12-10-1§97 in ihe morning he was Iious night in befween 12 mid nigh? and 1 .Ised/appeHam' herein, has commi‘H'ed The an Singh. On receiving This informaTion he 1gh wenT To The house of Lakhan Singh and s lying on The ground, There was injury on registered fhe crime under Secfii STaTion House Officer, Poiic'e $TaTion: Paii insi' fhe judgmenf of convic‘rion and order ;sed by the 4'“ Additional Sessions Judge] V97, whereby Iearned Addifionai Sessions appellanf guili‘y for commission of offence :‘enTenced him To undergo imprisonmenT for m 302 of The I.P.C. and lefT for The scene P.T.O. hi i v: XI-HC—78 33W,m, ‘ .Q?;.&%O7é‘q§ WNW W ,o m W WEEK(W) mmm‘ ‘ : EWQTWW " Q ’7 WWW %31%Tr311%¥r m § fgQ‘T WIT ‘ of occurrence. Affer‘giving noi'lce Ex.P-6 ‘ro 1*he Ponchos, he prepared The ihques'r (EXP-7) on fhe body o1: Lakhan Singh. The axe in ques‘fion was sieized under Ex.P-3 of fhe insfanee of The accused. Plain soil and blood sLfained soil were seized under EXP-4. Clo+hes of ‘the accused were seized ujnder Ex.P-5. The body of Lakhan Singh was sen‘r for- posf-mcri'em examina'l'ion ‘ro Primary HeaH'h Cen‘rre, Pali under EXP—10 where Dr. Pradeep Ag‘raWd (PW-11) conducted p05 f-mor'fem and prepared the posf-morfem reporf (Ex.P-16). 3 Affer comylefion of inveS'riga'rion, charge shee'r was fiied againsf fhe accused in fhe Cour‘l' of Judicial‘ Magishmfe, Firs? Class, Kafghora, who in furn oommi'l-fed fhe‘ case 'l'o fhe sessions Judge, Biiaspur, from where learned 4"“ Addifional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, received fhe case on fransfer for frial. The prosecufion in order +0 establish charge againsi‘ ‘l'he accused, examined eleven wi‘rnesses. On I'he o'rher hand, si'afemen? of The accused was recorded under Sec'l'ion 313 of The Cr‘P.C. in which he denied The l {jnaTerial appearing againsT him in The prosecuTion%vidence and sTaTed ThaT he is innocenT and he hasbee'n implicaTed in a false crime. Learned AddiTional Sessions Judge afTer hearing counsel for respecTive parTies, oonvicTed and senTenced Lagan Si 19h as aforemenTioned. We have heard Mr. R.K. Jain, learned counsei for The appellanT and Mr. G.K.- Beriwal, learned DepuTy AdvocaTe General wiTh Mr. D.K Gwalre, learned DepuTy Govt AdvocaTe on behalf of The STaTe/respondenT. \ ,LTT _ l ‘ ’ iii-w" l P.T.O. t XI—HC—78 EWWW ooo~.. o.o WW 376%) WW(W) WWW ‘ WWW WWW 3, Mr. Jain has no? dispu't Moreover, Dr. Pradeep Agrawal lbody of Lakhan Singh has sfa‘re‘d fha‘r there was an incised wound on the lskull in the size of 6 cms. X 2.5 cms. X 3.5 cms., the bone beneath the injury was fractured and brain matter w‘as coming out. There was an incised wound bn the right side of the head tr: nsverseiy placed in the size of 5 cms. X 2.5 cks‘. and fhe bone benea‘rh fhe WW§WW éswm i and fhe cause of deafh was haemorrhage ‘and shock. The‘dem‘h was homicidal in narur'e. Apar‘r from fhis medical ‘evidence, +he evidence of Ramku war (PW—2), Umabai (PW—7) and Jayanfi Bai (PW-8) esfablishes Thaf fhe ac used «Hacked fhe deceased wifh an axe. Therefore, i? is es‘rablished Thai- +he deafh of Lakhan Singh was homicidal in na'rure. As far as involvemeni' o fhe accused in fhe crime in ques‘i'ion is iconcerned Ramkunwar (PW«2) m 1’her of the deceased and mofher-m law of 1-he accused has sfa‘i‘ed m his ev dence 'l'ha'r on fhe fateful nigh? they were sleeping in ihe house, ‘rhe accu d and the deceased were sleeping In one room, where£ she was sleeping in ano'iher room, on hearing i'he sound she woke up and saw in fhe lighf of urning lamp fhaf fhe accused was at‘l'acking ihis son wifh fhe axe, fherefore, she caugh‘r hold of The axe when ihe accused was ai‘l'empfing 1'0 assaul‘i‘ again and she raised cries, hearing her icries, neighbours came on 1'he spo‘r and fhe accused was caught Similar is ,fhe evidence of Umabai (PW-7) who was sleeping with Ramkunwar (PW-2) I , “WNW P.T.O. i ,ed the homicidal deafh of Lakhan Singh. :PW—ll) who conduc'l'ed posf—mor'l'em on the njury was frac'iured. The brain membrane was ruptured, brain was aiso ruptured, injuries were ante—mortem in nature caused by hard and sharp objec' XI—HC—78 Emma, Wm, WI-m .QEZ" ao‘.g.©.7’é ..Q 40L mW<W> i mmmm r1 -// ~ anE‘Vhho has corroboraf‘ed ‘rhe evid ance of Ramkunwar‘ Jayanfi Bai (PW~8) was also sleeping wifh Ramkunwar- (PW-2), she is daugh‘rer- of ‘rhe accused, shg has also sfa1‘ed in her- evidencé fhu‘f her- fafher a‘H'acked her ma‘rernal unéle and her mafe'rnal grand-mo‘fhtm caughf fhe axe when fhe accused was affacking her mafernal uncle. ‘ , i Learned counsel for the accused/appellant argued that the evidence of1fhe‘se fhr'ee wifnesses shows 1ha+ a‘l- The fime of affack ‘Ifhey were sieeping,‘ they Woke up only, after hearing fhe sound of fhe affack, fherefqae, fhey h‘ad wifnessed fhe accused in ac+ually assaulfing fhe deceased. To some exfen'r‘fhe argume w advanced by !earned counsel for fhe appellan'r is correc'r, but the facf remains That offer fhe assaulf when fhese wifnesses woke up, ‘I'hey saw fha'r 1he accused was holding axe in his hand si-ained wi‘i'h blood, when he was affempfing To assauh‘ Lakhan again, Ramkunwar (PW—2) was able To hold fhe axe, fherefore, The accused was nof able +0 make the assaul'l' again. Ramkunwar also raised cries, hearing her cries, neighbours came and the accLsed was caught \d‘n the spot, he was not able +0 run away. Therefore, fhe ac: used was sleeping wi‘l‘h fhe deceased, he was cough? while having The weapm of offence in his hand and frying fa a'r‘ia‘ck again. The accused has not ex plained anything aboui' the said conduct, on ‘l‘he contrary, he has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the crirne, witnesses have implicated him in the crime falsely. There is no reason to disbelieve these three witnesses, as the accused was caught red handed in the room where the offence was committed. Daughter of the accused has mmm ‘ WWW WWfI‘WW §mf§wm I } P.T.O. XI—HC-78 HWWW WW G: Q$Q¥ m mm(W) Wwm WWW ‘ i ‘mmwm ialso suppor‘md fhe prosecution case. The evidence of +hese wh‘nesses !ends :supporf fof‘m The fac? +ha+ whan ‘rhe accused was caughf on fhe spo'r, on genquir'y, he made exfra judicial confession before Duh-awe (PW-3), Manhar'an ;Lal (PW-4), Samar Singh (PW-5) & Amrif Lal (PW-10) fhaf he affacked fhe deceased with axe, 1'haf exfmj dicia! confession-was volunfary, prompf and was h~ue for The reason Thaf h was immediafely caughf 6n fhe spo‘l- and fhel'eaf‘rer: the exh~a Judicial confessian made by 'him before fhese wifnesseé was supper-Ted by fhe r'cumsfances on fhe spot Therefore, from fhe gvidence of‘eyewifnesses no eiy, Ramkunwor (PW-2), Umabai (PW-7) 6i Jayarrii Bai (PW-8) and The exfr judicial confession made before fhe above , Manharan Lal (PW-4), Samar Singh (PW- 5) & Amri? Lal (PW-10),, if is esfa lished fha'r the accused was i'he author of fhe crime in ques'l'ion. The +rial Courf has no1' commi‘l'i'ed any illegali+y or infirmi‘iy in convic‘ring and senfen ing fhe accused. Learned counsel for Th accused/appellanf submi‘l'fred fha? The flirosecufion hasnoT been able To prove moTive of The crime as also The ihTenTion. ‘ \1‘ subsTance in The argumenT advanced by learned counsel for The reason ThaT iT is difficulT To esTablish moTive in each Iear and clinching evidence To esTablish if moTive is noT esTablished, The accused WW§WW <9 " aamm As far as inTenTion is concerned, The accused used deadly weapon like axe while assaulTing The deceased on his head i.e. viTal parT of The body and Km; W, J PTO. ‘ wifnesses nameiy, Duirawa (PW- BuT we do noT find any case, when There Is cogenT, cl ,l InvolvemenT of The accused, even cjan be convicTed. XI-HC-78 mmm 1 WWW 1 ‘ x { 1 mmmm K (P WWEwW évwm \k‘p ion accounf of fhe as‘saulf made, {. iand > brain maf‘rer' came out Th 1 faci fha‘r fhe infen‘rion of fhe a‘ was wrif larga In fhe result we do nof ’Iiable To be dismissed and if is he sku“ bone of fhe deceased was fracfured arefor'efabove fads we suggesfive of ‘rhe :cused To cause fhe death of Lakhan Singh fjnd any subsfance in this appeai, same is r-eby dismissed Sd/ I SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Judge ‘ i Sdl- iActing A Chief Justice o C5 P.T.O. w\