l -Xd-189 (Jail) C J.P.R./9-94 ^^i^ \: Fatiier's name Residence on Sentencedto ^,-fn^-7- go^^vn-^r^r ^-fc- A<&. (TBfi Tt is exDiainec^tb tEei<risofi?r7tl!?lifKeStai ^\k\^^<\^(L -\ws_^^ '^S3TOE^^^~^t<^~'-y3TFT^^-:M ^^^-T'- ^e^ s\ - r^e-i f-w^y^!' —€ g~ R^' >&?i5o ^•e-'represented by a legal "'-actitiocer the appeUalle Court will not procee(T^i9F1B?yase for seveiidays unless the cgsl practitioner appears earlier. Ifthe legal .practitioner does not appear within seven Jays he may not heard at all if the Prisoner states that he does not wish to be repre- I'^iSed by lega! practitioner the court may prcceed st once with the case and will not ,'1 c- obliged to give a hearing to my legal practitionerwho should appear. 1 Date of Application for copy of Judgement _____ 'Bfe. on which copy received on v/hich Appeal sent 4-^ Whether the crisoner wishes to.bs represented or not, ^r '<.! & ^^T^sT^w^^WBjTyyy^ ^-f^y^Fr-ev^^--st^^f^ iNo. Dated 199& ~?1W5 ^'or'vY to the -^3?-^^/K^('7'^/ S'S«7-ZiT/^/®^^-3jT§1pj^(J^y^^- ',ft gether with a copy ofjudgement or order passed in the-case for favour of transmi- t;:- Ssion to the proper Appeliate court. t. idM . ; BsaShsO,,. .ts Date ofreceipt in _ Date of receipt of record to/accompany the MemoofAppeal to thg Appellate court 11- No 'orwarded to the "Date of /receipt in' Appellate court t - (P. T. r2Q' XI-HC-78 Sn^TcfiT OTTSn^Tstitfich !;n!»!> 3!iTSS.;?"^jg^^:^S -^ tlTt^TT Sh*1|eh 3:ET •*IWM<i, W^WIG, KflMy. .^>::^W..^C>.\9. ^^or" 311^1 4^<t> (licli^°<^ET) B^aTWHfwsn^T Division Bench: - Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo & Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishrh. JJ. 26-2-2007:- ShriR.K. Jain, counsel Shri D.K. Gwalre, Deput; f<|)r the appellant. 'jl Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent. Oral judgment dictated 0^1 Dais. ®1 L.C. Bhadoo.J. This appeal is directed aj of sentence dated 19 Bilaspur, in S.T. No.126/97 wh^ the accused/appellant guilty foi) of the I.P.C. sentenced him to| fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of years. Case of the prosecution| Bai was doubting the characte^ 31st December, 1996 some his wife Radha Bai, on which thereafter he informed PW-2 committed murder of his wife, and Sarpanch. PW-2 Dipak Sarpanch, Kunwar Singh (PW-{ came and asked the accused t<|i saw that body of deceased Rs|( R^j 'hl'illd'fl-f *1|t|i-ll ffto^trf^RSTC ^3Tf;giT3n^T a^ainst the judgment of conviction and order Febru^ry 1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, ^reby learned Sessions Judge after holding commission of offence under Section 302 undergo imprisonment for life & to pay a >ayment offine to further undergo R.l. for 3 qu|arre |is that wife of the accused namely, Radha t- of the accused, therefore, in the night of took place between the accused and the accused attacked Radha Bai with axe, Dipak Raj at about 4 a.m. that he has therefore, he should go and inform Kotwar y informed landtord Dhanush Ram (PW-1), and Anupdas Kotwar (PW-4), all of them open the door. On opening the door, they ^ha Bai was lying on the wooden platform P.T.O. ^l XI-HC-78 ?sr •^wvi-ii, ^wt^, Ridi'yy *11*1crTsb^|cb WT 200 Sd^T'BTf^-TW ti"IT^I^|sh^i»b WWsas 3n^?r<ra^ (^crfgg^r) gRiTwgfe'sn^r wifefrr wicffff fec^ T^FRK ^i3ff^IT3n^T 0'akhat), two brass idols were|lying there, lamp was burning in frontof those idols, there were blood) spots on those idols. On enquiry, the accused informed those person|s that he has sacrificed his wife in orderto please goddess. Thereafter, FfW-1 Dhanush Ram gave merg intimation (Ex.-P/13) based on which F.l house officer left for plac6 <j panchas, prepared inquest Ex. Ex.-P/3. One prescription of tt Ex.-P/5. Axe, weapon of offe^ P/6. One Baniyan and one | ,R. (Ex.-P/t) was registered. The station f occurrence, after giving notice to the •P/2 on the body of deceased Radha Bai. He took into possession 2 bra^s idols of goddess Durga and Kali under e doctor was taken into possession under ce, was taken into possession under Ex.- Chaddi of the accused were taken into possession under Ex.-P/7. C|lothes and articles of the deceased were taken into possession under ^x.-P/S. The body of Radha Bai was sent for postmortem examination t< (PW-5) conducted postmortenl prepared postmortem report haemorrhage and shock. A| Death was homicidal in nati|)re. Site plan (Ex.-P/16) was prepared. Recovered articles were sentl \> the C.H.C. Bilha where Dr. A.K. Sanyal on the body of deceased Radha Bai and (.-P/10. He opined that cause of death is the injuries were ante mortem in nature. for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar fro|m where report Ex.-P/20 was received and serologist's report Ex.-P/19 wa|s received. After completion of the the accused in the Court of Ctl committed the case to Vn{ jnvestigation, charge sheet was filed against (ief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, who in turn ^ Sessions Judge, Bilaspur where the prosecution in order to establi^h the charge against the accused examined 6 witnesses. Statement of thfe accused was recorded under Section 313 of thc Cr.P.C. in which he d*hiod material appearing again?t-himjn the P.TO. XI-HC-78 SfT^T^T^-licb irarsn^Tstitii'* V^ :'9W B!:''!1"s::]sgfc ^sf •^i'fw^, a-rflti'Ki, (s|cflti^< <-n*<^rT aiTrra^ ^R; 200 Sll^l 4a<tl (l^I'J^Ki.'T) g^crreKHfNsn^r prosecution evidence, stated till 4.30 in the moming, when hi that the doors of the room we He does not know who has innocent. that he was on duty since 8 p.m. in the night returned after completing his duty, he saw fe opened and Radha Bai was lying dead. fcommitted murder of his wife and he is Learned Sessions JudAe respective parties, convict^d aforementioned. We have heard learned As far as homicidal dea' the same. Moreover, Dr. A.K. he conducted postmortem on injuries on her body. Injuries death was haemorrhage and Apart from medical evidence, Dipakraj,PW-3 Kunwar Singh the fact that death of the they reached, the accused wooden platform (Takhat). deceased was homicidal in natl deceslsed opefied As far as involvementl concerned, Shri Jain argued th|at the morning at about 4.30 a.i|n. doors of the room were openeijl he has been.implicated falsely.l ERrafcTifl^ ITTCRff fffe4 rfSTRR ^Slf^TTSn^T after hearing learned counsel for the and sentenced the accused as wunsel for the parties. (h is concerned, Shri Jain has not disputed ianyal (PW-5) has stated that on 31-12-96 |the body of the deceased. There were 4 hn/ere ante mortem in nature and cause of shock. Death was homicidal in nature. evidence of PW-1 Dhanush Ram, PW-2 pahu and PW-4 Anup Das also establishes was homicidal in nature because when the door, Radha Bai was lying dead on Tl|ierefore, it is established that death ofthe jre. of the accused in crime in question is the accused was on duty in the night. In . he returned to his house and saw that and Radha Bai was lying dead, therefore, P.T.O. ifc: F XI-HC-78 3^ •<<i<4ici<<, axdti'iG, fSioi^y *<i*ini *^icb sn^r w RWR ciqT3:n^Tsbt< ^'t^^ 'ws^t. |§^.;- ^s^.j^^g ^ 200 •3ll^l ^aqi (lic'(3ct^iET) ?RiTWHf5cr3n^r <=hNf<~l41-1 HW«\if fS^S {[v\W( ^isri^pTgn^T On the other hansl, l^arned counsel for the State/respondent supported the judgment of the <rial Court. In this connection, PVV-1 Dhanush Ram has stated that the accused along with his wife us|^d to reside in one room as his tenant and in anottier room one Dipak w^is residing as tenant. He was working as driver. At a distance of 10-12| the house. In the fateful night room. When he was sleepifig in the night Dipak woke him up and informed that Narayan has cojnmitted murder of his wife. Therefore, he asked his neighbour Kotwar Ar|up to wake up, he informed him also. They were informed that accused I^arayan has committed murder of his wife. Thereafter he went to the Sa persons came to the room of Kotwar got the room opened| namely, Radha Bai was lying room and informed him that he| informed. Thereafter when S feet he was residing in another portion of he accused and the deceased were in their I'panch and informed him also. All these |the accused, door was bolted from inside, |, they saw that the wife of the accused |dead, her neck was cut and axe was lying on the ground stained with blo|od. On enquiry from the accused, he said that he has committed murde|r of his wife in order to please goddess. Thereafter they lodged report ^x.-P/1 . PW-2 Dipak Raj has corroborated above evidence and stated th^it at about 4 a.m. the accused came to his has committed murder of his wife. He also asked him to call landlord Dtfianush, Kotwar and Sarpanch ete. of the village to inform the police. T^erefore, he went to Dhanush and informed him about the incident. Ther^after, village Kotwar and Sarpanch were irpanch came, he called the accused, on which the accused opened t|ie door. They saw that the wife of the accusRrl was lying in the roonl. P\A/^3 Kunwar Singh Sahu, SaFpanch of P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3ST "i<i'i|irt<<, E?Tn<i'i6, (sii'11'yy <41*ICTI Sh*1|ch ^T 200 sn^rw traT3TT^TEt>i-fl«h ^^^•^u^ ^•^^"t^^i sn^T'ra^? (yal^q^ff) g^aTWfffwafl^r thevillage, has stated that at ^bou to his house and informed W committed murder of his wif^. Narayan where Kotwar was alf accused to open the door, on them to come inside the room.l on the wooden platform (Takhs|t of head of the deceased. deceased. Blood was splas^ed Clothes were drenched with bl( in order to please the goddes^ Baniyan of the accused were of PW-4 Anup Das. Therefor( body of wife of the accused wa^ cut injury on the neck. Blood On enquiry, the accused inform|ed order to please goddess. accused, has stated that the a|( and said that he has committec these witnesses, it is established confession before these witnesbes voluntariness of the said fact, saw that wife of the accused w| supported by circumstantial e^ established in view of evidenc< of the accused that he was on at about'4.30 a.m. he found jnformled ^rafe^T IITO-ff ff fec^ rfsTOTt ^STf^ITSD^T ^bout 5 a.m. in the morning Dhanush came im about the incident that Narayan has Thereafter, he went to the house of (•eady present, thereafter Kotwar called the lyhich the accused opened the door, asked The dead body ofthe deceased was lying ^t). There were 2 idols of Durga on the side fhere was cut injury on the neck of the on the ground and also on the wall. (od. On enquiry, theaccused informed that >b he has sacrificed his wife. Chaddi and ttained with blood. Similar is the evidence ^, all these witnesses have stated that the i^ lying in a room on the Takhat. There was )/as splashed. The accused was in a room. r(ed that he has committed murder of wife in PW-2 Dipak Raj, neighbour of the a|ccused cam®to his room to wake him up murder of his wife. From the evidence of that the accused made extra judicial In order to ascertain truthfulness and lall these witnesses went to the room and ijas lying dead. Extra judicial confession is (iderice. The presence of the accused is of all these witnesses, therefore, defence |duty in the fateful night, when he returned |his ffife dead is not established by the ^ P.T.O. ES XI-HC-78 an^ridTfN^ cT^T3n^?T^HICh Bi ?:!:i!ia tss>B«ii>^ 'i:<"x'ils^^, Barve "^ ^ :.'/",.^<''' ,' ••v^, • 3^ •-^l<ll<n'l<, SS'Tfl'H'16, Rfll'My tTTtrWT sft*1|ch ¥RT 200 341^1 W<h (l^3P5?T) STdTWHficTSfl^T accused. Except the evidenc^ extra judicial confession as al( room, no other evidence has establish the fact that he was of these witnesses before whom he made ^o the fact that he was not present in the ^een adduced by the accused in order to duty in the fateful night. on reasdns For the foregoing the trial Court has rightly convi his wife. In the result, we do not liable to be dismissed and it is ^ereby dismissed^ ^3T L.C.Bhadoo Judge ^rafeft-r WRff^ te1^': ^srf^iran^r >, we are of the considered opinion that [cted the accused for committing murder of pnd any substance in this appeal, same is Sd/- DHBtENDRA MISHRA Judge ^. / P.T.O. •)