/ ‘ m8@11) 'QTJIP.—5,ooo-9-31 APPEAL OF P'RISONER a ‘H““JFO!!L|L|L‘LU5L’|”N No JQh \ ‘ Nam€ —W Father‘s name ——r ' , c KJ I \ Residence—'Fgfjtg-gT-Ei g—w—Age ”—53% ,rg ‘i § ’K: Scntcnwd to 6n ~2&Lg)°1r3 . _ “57-51% Wm? ' : UM“ mm“ go; 37 W ~WWWWK4R % K , @wVKpp’zJfDy% 1t Is explamed to the prlsoner that 1f he states 0‘ wzshes to be reprwemed b\ .1 .eynl mactmancr the Appelate Court w11l not plocned wxih the bdse fox seven < .A s m Auk the legal practitioner appears If the legal practmonel dees Pm ap (.u “.m m scvcn days he may not be heard at all If the pnsoxm statcs that ha doeg not wxsb It, b9 replesented by lagal practmoner the coutt muylpmcecd 6t once Mt} tke \uc «m mll net be abllged 3g glve a hearmg te any legal plactmoner w}10,,lmtdd apptu LDate of Apphcatwn fox copy of Judgement —~ ~£lléJ3 Dat: of whxch copy received o &&L¢J&3 Date on wluch Appeal <ent Whether the prisoner wishes to be represented or not -— Yes/W - ‘ .29 [o 113 « +,—— Name— ,Wm—y Continued in~7_ -~-§_¢u ‘ Jail WWW— No g 11 , g ' dated wfgfgg I98” H‘_h Forwarded to the CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ~ga4. to gather With a copy of Judgement or order passed m the case for farm e A trammxssmn to the proper App1llxate Court Superintenhehfwmfl Date efrecelpt 1n C J M ’S Otftce— Date of recelpt of record to accompany Meow ‘ eal of the Ap elia e Court t Ne *_ /Q‘ $4’61g/eQwd—Li—7 §———l98 WW emt“ Date of receipt in Appliate Court 7/ .R f 3 i? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1113 OF 1993 Nanhootam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisyrh) JUDGMENT (Dated 29th sept. 2005) GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILABPUR H! CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. 1113 OF 1993 Nanhooram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Stats of Chhattisgarh) Chum ‘ :- Hon’ble Hon’ble Bhri 8hri Fakhruddin, Dilip Raosaheb J & Deshmukh, J é» Shn Ranbir Singh, Advocate with Miss Samta Jain, counsel for W thig appellant. éhxi Ravindra Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State] respondent. t 1 _ { Per Bing Raosaheb Deshmukh, J .1 u n G M E N T ‘ (Dated 29th Sept. 2005) H Heard. 2. This appeal is dilected against the judgment dated 28—5-1993 delivemd in Sessions Trial No.180/9’2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur Nagar the then District Raigarh, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian VPenal Code for committing munier of Kunjalmm on 15—6- 1992 in village Marol Mandar Toli and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. {a 6 3. Briedy stated the prosecution case is that appellant Nanhooram had borrowed an amount of Rs.IOO/— from Kunjalram. Whenever Kunjalrnm asked the appellant to repay the said amount, the appellant used to abuse him and threatened to assault him‘ “On 15-6— 1992, while Kunjalram . r b was returning from the market, the appellant‘in wait for him. Near the house of Blasiyus (P.W.2), the appellant assaulted several blows on the head of Kunjalram by lathi due to which Kunjalram dicd on the spot. First Information Report was lodged by Pawanram, P.W. 1 vide Ex.P/ l. Station House O$cer E Shri A.K. Khan, P.W. 10 reached the spot, prepared the inquest memo vide Ex.P/ 2 and sent the body of the deceased for post- \ mortem. Dr. Y.K. Toppo, P.W.7 conducted the post-mortem on 161-6-1992 and found the following injuries : l) Laoerated wound seeming to be incised, on left side ‘ 0f face 1" bélaw left angle qf mouth vertically V 2"x1 ”xl’ marqms irregular stained with dried i t blood. 2) Two Jacarated wounds over-forehead seeming to be ina'se‘d, horizontally I” above left eye brow. Another wound is just V2” above it each has got 2’x1 ”x1 ’ with irregular margins 3) Lacemted wound just over left temporal area of head 3»"x1 ”x1” with stained dried blood and irregular marginjust on left ear. Abrasion in between both eye brows on forehead. It is superjia'al to skin 2 x 2 ems. brownish red in ool‘our. 5) Bluish red dis—ooloumtion over chest. It is 2’ oval in shape. It over upper end of the sternum Superficial to the skin 6) Fracture or broken upper left hand. It 1§ compound typefracture 4" above left elbowjoint, 4) In the opinion of Doctor Y.K. Toppo (P.W.7) death of Kunjaimm was due to neurogenic shock as a msult of extemal injuries No. l to 6,,mentiqpgd above. He opined that death was homicidal in natuxe. 0n the memorandum (EXP/8) of the appellant one lathi was seized vide EXP/9 hem him. After i... f as.“ w @ completion of investigation, the appellant was prosecuted under Secu'on 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4L The appellant abjured the guilt, pleaded innocenceeand led no evidence in defence. 5‘ The trial Judge relying upon the ocular testimony of Blasiyus, P.W2, Devanram, P.W.3 and Sudama, P.W.4 as also the nisdical evidence of Dr. Y.K. Toppo, P.W.7, convicted the The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. i appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. ‘ a 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that there is no legal and reliable evidence on Iecord to establish the guilt on the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He also contended that the onence, if any, was committed by the appellant upon a sudden quarrel and was not premeditated, therefore, the oEence, ifany, committed by the appellant would not navel beyond Section 304 Part—ll of the Indian Penal Code. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State argued in support of the judgnent of e- e c 1 the trial Judge. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the record. The case of the prosecution rests on ocular testimony of Blasiyus (P.W.'2), Devanram (P.W,3) and Sudama (P.W.4)‘. Blasiyus (P.W.2) has stated in his evidence that he saw that Kunjalram was returning nom the market along with Devanram, P.W.3. When they reached near his house, the accused suddenly started assaulu‘ng Kunjalram on @ ‘w head, neck and hand by a lathi and dealt 5 to 6 blows by Iathi on Kunjalmm. Kunjalmm fell on the gmund and dicd on the spdt. Blood was oozing mm his nose, head and mouth. This testimony is cormborated by Devanram, P.W.3 as well as by an independent witness namely Sudama, P.W.4. Learned counsel for§the appellant has not been able to point out anything in the moss—examination of these Witnesses to rebut their testimony. The testimony of the above mentioned ocular witnesses is consistent, xeljable and un-iebutted. We are, thexefore, of the i consideied opinion that the tn'al Judge has rightly relied on the ocnlar evidence mentioned above and concluded that the ap‘penam had inmcted the fatai blows on Klmjairam by a 1mm. The testimony of Dr. Y.K. Toppo (P.W.7) also corroborates the evidence of the above mentioned ocular Witnesses and proves that death of Kunjalram was homicidal. Considering the evidence led by the prosecution in its entimty, we are of the considered opinion that the nial Judge has rightly concluded that the appellant had caused the death of Kunjalram by assaulting with a lathi several times on vital parts. ¢ 8. The only question which requires our consideration is as to what odence was committed by the appellant The testimony of the above mentioned ocular witnesses clearly shows that immediately before the occunence no quarrel had ensued between the appellant and Kunjalram. The evidence shows that the appellant had laid himself in wait of Kunjalmm and was fully prepared to kill him The ocular testimony of the above mentioned witnesses and Dr. Y.K. Toppo, P.W.7 also shows that the appellant had repeatedly assaulted Kunjalram by a lathi on the vital parts as a result of which Kunjah‘am succumbed to the injuries on the spot due to neumgenic B shock. 9. 1 Considering the evidence of the ocular Witnesses in its entirety and also the medical evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the requisite intention for causing the desth of Kunjalram can safely be attributed to the appellant iV‘ ‘ and the evidence led by the prosecution establishes beyond doilbt that the appellant had intentionally caused the death of Kuhialram by reneatedly assaulting on vital parts by lathi on 151-64992 in village Marol Mandar Ton. Thus themal Judge has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. In the result, we hnd no substance in this appeal which __4 t Sdl- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ’ "29312005 fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sdl: Fakhruddin Judge #" 329-9-2005 p awn-i.