‘u r 3 XII-189 (ImbC J F Rll-9l ‘ cr=ooooo5a198 J AWPEA OF” msgm ‘ ‘ ¥ _ Maw ‘ r . §1§5W¢w %cr’s F 11am: W Gf—qaj'a‘gg i k sidence ‘ ‘ mg " 57 Sentcnced to ’l 9 * @wwuj Cnmqw Under Secuon g E § It 1s explained to the prlsonct that 11’ he states he mshes to be represented by a legai practltlonwr the appellate Court wxll not pro:e:d With the ca‘e for s3 1m divs unie ‘ the legal practltloner appears earlxer If the legal practltxoner does not appear wnhm seven days he may not heard at all 1f the prxsoner states that he does not w1sh to be repre- acnted by legal practmoner the court may proceed at once With the case and W111 not he obliged to glve a hearmg to any legal pracntloner who should appear k 17 Date of Application for copy ofJudgcment- t '_ V , , , , V _ ,. 2r Damon which copy receivedw .. N; » N > 3, Date on which Appea’l sent, . t, \ 4£ Whether the prisoner wishest‘o'be represented or ant. m k ., ‘ No._ o 6:37 t Confined in *\ No. ‘ Forwarded to the ’ ' “ to gather wnh a W eopy)of Judgement kylbl or @LH order paseecl '1 m iak the case mom" for favour of transmission to lhelproper Appellate oourt, \JN) 2%g i i r, {“ gill ‘l;}ate of receipt in 1 Officer . Date of receipt of 3record to‘accompany the _4 _ ‘ I Memo at Appeal togthe Appellate court“. I 'rf- X1—HC-22 kitchen—garden. The accused ‘Sarpanéh‘ Lalmohan enquiring ‘lpresent, u * x but his father Bolaram was present, when Bolaram . why he is enquim'ng about the enquired from the accused as tc { Saipanch, then accused disclos Sarpanch so that he may take 3d that he is searching for the him to Police Station. When ‘Bolaram again enquired from himras to why he wants to go to the Police Station; then he disclosed that he has murdered Sumitrabai, at that time the accused was carrying an iron rod. He further said He ‘ requested Bolaram to keep that iron rod otherwise if he will carry :that iron rod then the villagers would be frightened, on this, him. Thereafter, the Samanch i Bolara'm kept the iron rod with ‘ Lalmohan returned from Patthelgaon. Bolafam informed him the accused again came and about \ the incident. However, repeated the same story before the Samanch. Upon which, '2, Th€ case of the prosecution, in brief, iS that, on 14—3- 1994 at about 4 P.M., Sumitrebai was found dead in her went to the house of Village about him where he was not that, with that. iron rod he has murdered Sumitrabai. , d“. XLHC-22 Lalmohan wént to the Police Sta1 EX.P~1 befom R,B.Singh, Assista BaS6d on that report, Merg ,I R.B.Singh, Assistant Sub—Inspe‘ V . 'occun‘ence. Oh 15-3-1994, a Panchas, hc prepamd a Panchr Sumitrabai and ssnt the bodv Government Hospital, Patthalgac ‘ Surgeon; P.W.—8 conducted post the head, back of ”the body and of oEence was also taken into the investigation, a charge—sheet ‘ Ofdcer, and after completion of i was filed in the Court of t Indicial Magistrate , First Class, Dharamjaigarh, who, in turn, cg )mmitted the Case to the Sessions ‘ Judge for trial. ' Q). ~~ the accused, examined 9 Witnes ses. Learned Sessions Judge also order to prove the charge against , The prosecution; in ion Bagbahar and lodged a report, .nt Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.—7. mimation, EXP—2 was recorded. :tor of Police left for the place of fter giving notice, EX.P~3 to the Lama, EXP-4 of the dead body of for post mortem examination to in, Where Dr.G.._K.Verma, Assistant. mortem’. 'He noticed 4 injuries on on the left shoulder, The weapon v possession by the Investigating $ f3 MaW XI—HC-22 recorded statement of the accu sedunder Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused denied most of the prosecufion evidence. However, he admitted that the Lungi was seized from him. ‘- ; 4. Learned Sessions Judge, after healing the. arguments of‘ lealned dounsel ’for both theparties, convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment, a 5. ‘ We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Alun Kochar, learned Amicus Cunae, appearing on behalf of the accused] appellant, has not disputed the fact of homicidal nature of death of Sumitrabai. Apan‘ from that, P.W.-8, Dr.G.K.Verma has stated that, on 15—3—1994, he conducted post mortem on the l bodv of Sumitrabai and found that there was an incisedwound on the right side ofthe head in the size of 3V2 inhhes X f/z inch. The , ‘5 . ' bone was fractured and there was clotted blood on the brain. Therexwas incised wound on the right side of the neck in the size of \ blew .4 inches x 1/2 'inch. The spine was fraétured. There was a eontusion on the Tight side 011’ the head below the injury No.1. There was a cohtusion on the‘l shoulder‘in the size of 2 inches x Va inch. The cause of death w s shook andrexcessive bleeding on oaccount of the injuries. The n ure of death waS homicidal. Even _ from the‘evideonce of P.W.71, han, P.W.—2, Bolarani and P.W.— 4, Vidyadhar,'it is clear that, the accueed made exna judicial confession before them regard 1g the commiss‘i'én of the crime in question. Therefore, in View of the extra judicial confession and the medical evidence, it is lestabiished that, the death of Sumitrabai was homicidal in nature. 6. As far as involvement of the accused in the crime. in question is concerned,-there is no direct or ocular evidence in this case. The case rests on the circumstantial evidence i.e. ‘the extra , _ Q judicial confession made by the accusedbéfvore the aforesaid prosecution witnesses and the weapon of offence, the crowbar was taken into posseSsion on being produced by P.W.-2, Bolaram. In paw 7 : e t L o order to mst the conviction bast id 011 the circumstantial evidence, Hon’ble the ApCX Court, in the vs. State of W.B., réported iii the Jaw relating to api3reciatic under : - matter of Dh‘ananiov chattel-jee 1994) 2 SCC 220, has laid down n of circumstantial evidence as “11f ’a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn have not only to be fully established but also that all the circumsiances so established should he of , a conclusive nature and consistent only with the- hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. circumstances sho uld not be capable of being explained by any ot ler hypothesis except the guilt of complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the belief consistent with the innocence of the accused. It needs no reminder ' that legally Those established ‘ circumstances and not merely indignation of the court - can form the basis of conviction and the more serious taken to ce lest suspicion takes the place scrutinize the evide the crime, the greier should be the care ofproof.” a 7. produced by the prosecution as to whether the evidence stood .upto evidence Now, we' shall proceed to examine the \[aéeea r the accused and the chain of the evidence must be so XI-HC—22 ‘ Wm W the test laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the above matter. P.W.—2, Bolaram has stated tliatL he was at his residence. 'At about 4 O’clo’qk 1'11 the waning, the a ccused Suks‘ai came to his house and he was enquiring about u ‘ disclosed that the Salpanch has ‘, gone to Patfhalgaon. The accused fufther diS'closed that he is seaiiching for the Samanch because he ‘ wants to take him to Police Station as he has committed murder of- Sumitrabai. He was also cairyii ag an iron rod 1n his hand and said witness because if he will carry the that it shou1d be kept with this same the villagers would be frightened, \At about S to 6 P.M., the of this Witness retulned from‘ disclosed the above fact to him, with some other persons, went to )f Sumitrabai was lying. The above had bv RW—i, Laimohan, the Hie son of Boléram has stated that, \ after sometime the accused a? extra judicial confession befort the Sarpanch, then this witness a Sarpanch Lalmohan, the son Patthalgaon, then‘ this witness thereafter, the Sarpanch, along the place where the dead body t evidence has been corroborz Saipanch. P.W.-1, Lalmohan, 1 ‘5 ain came to his house and made a him that he has committed the ‘ ‘r [draw W XI—HC-22 murder of, Sumitrabai, and the: Station, Bagbahar and lodged the signature. P.W,-3, Jageshwar ah'z returned il1 the evening’and savx p “kitchen—garden, fhen he was infc accused has committed the’ m: a i‘eafter thev went to the Police report, EXP-1, which bears his is Pitar has stated that, when he ' the bodV of his mother in the rrmed by the Saipanch that the nder of his mother. -P.W.—4, Vidyadhar Has also comoborated 1 and P.W.-2, Bolaraim that the confession before the Village Sa handed over the iron rod to Bolarz the cross-examination of these evidence is not trustworthy. A11 Lahnohan, P.W,-2, Bolaram independent Witnesses and there 3 implicate tha accuS€d in a falsa c , has ‘stamd that, the accused hanc it was takenwinto possession by the Police Odicer from him under EXP—7, and this has also been co: he evidence of P.W.—1, Lalmohan accused rnade extra judicial rpanch Lalmohan and he also am. Nothing has been‘elicited in Witnesses indicating th'at their the three witnesses i.e‘ P.W.—1, and P.W.—4, Vidyadhar are is no reason before them to ase. Moreover, P;W.-2, Bolaram led over the hrowbar to him and wia froborated bv P.W.—-1, Lalmohany '[qiaéfea XI—HC—ZZ The extra judiciai conibssion can be relied upon if the same i$ voluntaly and true. Nothing has come on record that tile accused made the extra judicial confes§i3n before these three witnesees on or inducementf As far as the truthfulness of the extra judicial confession is concerned, P.W.—1, L’almohan has stated that, immediately aftex: hean'ng about the murder of Sumitrabai, he, along with the villagers, left for the scene of occmren'ceand saw the hody of S1i§nit1abai lying? 1'11 her kitchen-garden, and thereafter he reported the matter tothe Police Station. corroborated by the verification of facts by these witnesses when they went to see the body of Sumitrabai where the accused said to have attacked Sumitrabai and committed her murder. Moreover, the weapon of offence i.e. the crowbar was also handed over by the accused to Bolaram and in turn Bolaram under EXP—7. About 1he four injuries, which were found on the body of Surnitrabai, P.W.-8, Dr.G.K.Verma has stated that, ation, Bagbahar, he examined the ,r Vaccoixht of ahy threat, pmmisc same was handed over to Police by $ at the request of the Police St WeW Therefore, the extra judicial confession stands XI-HC—22 crowbar, the weapon of examination he was of the opinon found on the body of Smninabaf of oEence, the crowbar, and hiS ‘ V f ‘are of the considered opinion made by the accused inspires donvicnon “can be based on that with the recovery 'of the crowhar Therefore, we do not find any grc of the trial Court convicting committing the murder of Sumitrabai. 8. ' In the result, there same is liable to be dismissed and offénce on 21-3— 1994 and after that the injuries, which were could be caused by the weapon feport is EX.P-15A. Therefore, we that, the. extra judicial confession ihe confidence of the Com and extra judicial confession coupled and the medical evidence. und to interfere with the finding and sentencing the accused for is, no force in this appeal. The is dismissed. Sdl- V.K.Shrivastava «1a Judge Sdl- _ L.C. Bhadoo b‘ \ Judge I [View