^'^»w^^ ft1?^ , ^ ^s^^ Cy? - f '"liiiini APP8AL PRtSONiB ^) -s>^^} 5'. T- Wo. Vo/'i^ No.. '783 Name -^.— fhef's Name. ~at^s»!i'»i' -^«<f c?rs-<^fl\ Age UnderSection 4©^TN" Sentencedto "S^^F^T . -^^^ r^fd{_ ii—j^ajL ^so2- yr.z-- •fq-. by~3ITPF:fe^--','Trf?nr'.^^'<."?:i?T''^?W5^[' .^-ATifr^^.C It is explained tp the .ErisQner fhat if he states or wishes tff'be' by a legal praetitioDer the Appellate'Court willnot proceed with the bass for geveadays uuless Sie legal practiti6ner appessfrs If^'the legal practitioBer does not ag^tr within seveir days he nSay be beardat all-ffi legal practrtioner the court may pit)efeed at; oncfe^ith th? cas& anid will npt bg obligerf tt) giye a bgaring t9 |°ga,lpractitionerwho shouldappear. y a,,*Dateofapplieati<}nforebpy ofJudgement:- /Jo • 2. Date ofwhieh copy received:- -1-L' / l ' S. Date on which^ppeal sent :- s /^' • ^ » ^ / - „ 4.'Whetliertheprisonerwishedtobe ; represented or not :- Yes^to^ No._ fSS Name Continued in ^^rwl 'T^Uf' -n^TT- ^" cy§^<T Jail . 'TjmTCTTT No. '7-2,6 /%<2s^)C*r Dated /g/9/9^ Foiwaided to the CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE X^TO^aT •, S^-T^ tegether nith a copy of Judgemerit or order passed in the case for favour of 1 ' iiission to the proper Applleate Court. • ', : :;^_ Su peri ^f DsteofreceiptmC.J.M. OflSce. . 2-tsf't/^ Date of re'ceipt of record to accompany i S/6/?/ 9 ^ Metno of Appeal of the Appellate Coutt. ,_ No. ^ AC^... dated_^3Z^5l. Foreaided to ^_^^ls^s!^^ tljt^ 'u-^1^ ;lr^<^ ^! ,.0 •L i^?^.^ @. ft. MAQISTRATB il—' df receipi in ••s-a.esws'.sv.f ";ri T'i' u H .tslH ^IJ E-'li XI-HC-78 an^r^iTR^icti cISfTaflS<lsht(l<») 'ble Mr. Dhirendrg AAislfrw, Jf. /'--) *11HMI Sh*ll<sh 'SSf "i|i<<id<<, yrfltf'16, (slcfiyy * * <£.*^*f**< »*»'0*^*/-»^»|**, 3)1^1 yach ('yi^sf^) ?RITW(rf?cT3TI^T 14-2-2007 AAr. R.K. Jdn, counsel for t| Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, Oeputy^ tlie appeilont. ity^ovt. Advocate for the State/respondent. Oral judgment dictated on This appeal is directed agaj of sentence dated 11-9-1997 pass^i Jagdalpur, in Sessions Trisl No.7U(/94, Judge after holding the accused/ under Section 302 of the I.P.C. sehtenced Cose of the prosecu+ion is October, 1993 at abo.ut 12 micl urinate,he SQWthat accused MadHam bullock on which Muski Mara asked Naga said "who is there" on which calf. Nagacailedthe villagersto When Muski Atara, Muski Ncga, -2) were poming towards the >. / •*i<<Fci41-i tiii<rtTfffei<0 <.fai(^i< ^iail^R'sn^r Dais. nst the jud9ment of eonviction and order ^d by the 3 Additional Sessions Judge, 1-, whereby learned Additional Sessions (ippellant 901 Ity for commission of offence him to undergo imprisonment for" ^•hat in the intervenin9 ni9ht of 2 & 3 ^iight AAuski Mara woke up and went to Narsa Muriya wcs tying caif near their his father Muski Naga to wake up. Muski the occused ran away leavin9 behind the 4pprise them about the act of the accused. Hunga (PW-3) and Muski Shankarayya house of Muski N090, AAuski Mara (since Utsa P.T.O. E1 K w; XI-HC-78 sn^T^iTR-fi-ti (W 311^13iIIR> tllH^II Sh*1|ch 'SSf "41<)|d<<, 8-rfl'M'IS, f«ldlti^< __ 6-5.A.^ •^ ^ee- Sll^l 4a«h(li,':li^G1^8T) ^Rnwiri^Tsn^T decessed) WQS ahead of a!l, the| carrying bow & arrow in his hand pierced into the chest of Muskl M arrow from his chest, fel! down accused was comir^ in the same street Ind he shot the arrow on AAuski Mar'o which (ara. Muski Mara imnnediately removed the cjnd .succumbed to the injuries sustained by him instantaneousiy. Tne matter was reported Police Station; Usoo" under DeHsti Merg Ex.P-6 was prepared and ti^e The Investigsting Officer took occurrence and after giving notj Ex.P-7 on the bodv of Muski Mar'<l. stsined soil, p'ain soil and arrowf The bow was also taken into DOSS Mora WQS sent for post-morter|s liemedi, where Dr. J.P. Sonkar (P^ post-mortem report Ex.P-1 and o^i shock due to excessive internal homicidal in nature. The arrowl under Ex.P-14 and the doctor qal'i on the body of Mors couid be cau; After completion of ii of Additional Chief Judicia! Mag1 the <y3Sft to the Sessioris Ju^ge wifa^riinrafifte^t rfSrezK ^srf^ETSIT^T on 3'd October, 1993 by Muski Naga in |sti Nalishi Ex.P-5, based on that Dehati first informstion reoort w'ss reeiistsred. up investigation, ieft for the scene of |ce to the Psnchss, prepored the inquest i. He creccred the site glan Ex.P-8. Blood were taken into possession under Ex.P-9. ;ession under Ex.P-12. The body of Musk' examination to Primary Hesith Centre, V-l) conducted post-mortem, prepared the ined that cause of dsath was hoemorrhagic bleedina by left lung. The dsath vios was sent for examinotion by the doctor •s his opinion Ex.P-2 thst the injury found ;ed by the arrow in question. nves't|igationi, charge sheet was filed in the Cour-t strste, Jcgdalpur, who in turn committed ;, J'a9dalpur, from whsre, iecsrnsd 3 P.T.O. ;( ••s BBI B! K. XI-HC-78 sn^r^rf^TR; (Wsn^rshtifti ^IHMI a»*( 3^ •^l'ilid'y, aTn+iJi<», Rii?ii*<y ^.^.A,,8Q^/T -y 20«~~ 311^1 '4flch (l,cl^'sl<<ff) STdiWBfgtTsn^r Additionoi Sessions Judge, Jags^pur, received the case on trcnsfer' for triai. TTie prosecution in order examined five witnesses. Ststehsn'f Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. W QQainst him in the Drosecution evidence Sessiohs Lssrned Additional counsel for respeetive parties, sforsmentionsd. Judge erfter hearing the arguments of lcomicted and sentenced the occused as We have hsar-d Mr. R.K. A/ii". Sudhir Bcjpai, lear'ned Deputj "espondsnt. Jlsin ttr- Mr. Jain has not disput^d Moreover, from the evidence of ther-e was a stab wound on the !eft lung wss punctured, injury wo^ homicidoi in nature, as also from eyewitness, who has stated that deceased, it Ss establishsd that natur'e. As far as involvement of / /• concerned, Muski Shankarayyc pV|/ «hl<lfcf'ifl-1^lHcll'ftTs^ <R]<^|< ^grf^Tsn^T +o establish chargs S9ainst the cccused ^sn'f of the accused was recorded under accused denied the matsriai appear'in9 ]ain, letyned counsei for the appellant and ^ GOV*. Advocate on behaif of the State/ the hornicids! deo+h of Muski Mara. -. J.P. Sonkar (PW-1) who hcs stated that ft side of the chest as a result of which ante-mortsm in natura and ths death wos evidence of Muski Shankorayya (PW-2), occused shot cv-ow on the chest of the •he death of Muski Mara was homicidal in the the the accused in tha crime in question is /-2.) has stated in his evidence that on fhe P.T.O. li t ^ w^- ffSp^ •I; XI-HC-78 3^ "i<|4|i<n'ii, BTfly'is, Ri-iiyy .y *11+1MI Sft*1ich ^ 200 311^1 4ach ('i^lt^iq'T) sn^rqiT^ich OTT31TOT<M11<0 ?¥(n'w;fl1?TT3n^r «bi<<Tci<fl-i iit«']Tiftei^)'<Ri+<i< ^arf^iTsn^T fatefui night when he was at resicfence, Hun9a, Muski Naga, Muski MWO.& AAuski Lachhi ca.me to his housejinformed him that AAadkam Narsa, the accused/appellant, has entered th^ house of Muski Naga and asked himto go with them and sse. Muski N090, M^ski Mara, Hunga, Lachhi and this witness were goingtowards the house of.M^iski N090, onthe way Madkam Narsa shot arrow on Aluski Mara which hi-t- on tfie chest, as a result of which Muski /•Aara died on the spot. The matte^r was reported by AAuski Naga, but unfortunateiy, before his evidenee Learned counsel for the q evidence of Muski Shcnkarayya (F^ night there was darkness, therefo the accused. lant argued that in para 8 of the (P|W-2), he has ststed that in the fateful |-e it was not possible for himto identify wals Perusal of para 8 of the evii he has simply stated that there in the ni9ht it was not possibie for informstion rsport was lodged in t has not been cross-examined furtH it was possibie for any' person to i ssyin9 that the night was dcsrk, no i| to the extent that it was not person standing nearby. Moreove Court has heid that on 2nd Octoberl two hours of/sunset, the moon >. / was reeorded he expired. ^ence of this witness (PW-2) shows thet wa|s dark night, he has nowhere stated that |them to identify the accused. The first he name of the accused snd this tvitness er to show whether on the fateful night ^lentify other persons or not. By simply ihference can be drawn that darknesswas po^sible for a person to identify another ', in para 15 of the judgment, the trial 1993, in the normal circumstances, after id hsve risen at about 8 p.m. The shoul P.T.O. BSJ m •••• XI-HC-78 an^TmR-ii'k (iqT3n^Tsbt|l»b 35T 'tiwwi, ®Tfl«'ls,Rldl+iy 7" *TTtRtt arfnch ^ 200 311^1 Mach ('i?lt3'stS<T) ??(ITWHf?(T3n^T incident was of about 12 mid-ni9ht, the statement under Section 161 oi there was moon light and on ac; evidence wos recorded, this witne; of the moon 'm the night and inadve Therefore, on the fateful night, tl' been mentioned ear'lier there is nc was not possible for the persons ti In the circumstances. we di of iearned eounsel for the appellai^ ftuski Shankarayya (PW-2), who i^ that in cross-examination ofthis any circumstance which discredit^ the considered opinion that the tr or infirmity in holding the accusei^ the I.P.C. Learned counsel for the <] nothing on record to show that th^ intention to cause death, as the| evidence that the accused shot ai| the deceased, by accident it mi9h In the circumstanees, offence agi^ Section 304!'Part-II of the I.P.C. -. / ebl'iltd'ifl-1 t|IK(-lTiffscA<,Rl(^lt ^srf^ITSn^T therefore,ther'e was moon light. Even in theCr.P.C.,this witness has statedthat ount of the passa9e of time, when his s might have for9otten about brightness rtently stated that there was dark night. lere was moon li9ht and moreover, as has specific question to this witness that it } identify other persons. 1> not find any substance in the argument |it. Therefore, in wsw of the evidence of an independent witness and viliager ond w|itness, defence has not been able to elicit the evidence of this witness, wie are of ai Court has not committed any iliegality guilty of offence under Section 302 of ppellant further argued thot there is accused shot arrow on the deceased with incident was of ni9ht and there is no row after pointing towards the chest of have hit on the chest of the deceased. inst the accused does not tpavei beyond P.T.O. XI-HC-78 &~ an^r^R-ficti CP1T 311^1 Sbt( f 3^T "i)i''4Kn<<, sSTn+ns, Rtdi'My *ii*iwi artn^i ^ 200 3ii^i ^ain ('i^t^'5'^) ?RTTWHf?(ran^T AAr. Sudhir Bajpai, learneip Deputy &ovt. Advocate supported the judgment of the triol Court-. In order to appreciate thi for the parties, w»e hsve perused report and other evidence availab fateful night, in the first instanc calf, he was tying the calf nea deceased AAuski Mara saw the 4 father to wake up and in the mear^ deceased Muski AAara and his fa'ti apprise them about the act of preparation having bow iSi arrow deceased which directly hit on into the chest and punctured the^ excessive haemorr'hage and Musfl examinntion or otherwise, there i| the accused without aimin9 at passion or otherwise, to inflict The arrow hit on left side of thel iun9 as a result of which !ung was ^ stuck is a vital part of the body if it is shot with a little force, ev^ 1lhe arid >.', / qillfotn-f >11H<lTtffW'<(S|^;K ^srf^R'STI^r tNie ; argumsnts advsnced by learned counsel evidencs. As per the first informotion le on record, it is established that on the s, at about 11 p.m. the accused esme with the bullock of the complainant, when ccused there, he immediately ssked his time,the accused rsn away. Thereafter, her went to cali the villagers in order to accused. The accused after making in his hand came snd shot arrow at the left side of Muski Mara which pierced left lung QS a result of which there was ;i Mar'a died instantaneously. In cross- s nothin9 on record which indicates that chest of the deceased, in a heat of injury with an arrow cn the deceased. chest of the deceased snd pierced up to lunctured. The chest where the arrowwos arrow itself is a very dangerous weapon, ;n then, it can pierce into the body at any •tfhe P.T.O. XI-HC-78 lilli 3TI^TWf?:IW cWSn^Tshli'b Soma '/' »..t//;'-; '^ /"-' ^ tTTWfT a»^T<t» '3^ ^WM-tl, aTflWKc, Rldl'My ria- &>.-.ft.-.'^&s/^?^ 2&0-— 3ii^i 4aa> (yilfli'i.ff) SRTTWtrfScT-BT^T place ond which in oll possibilities ths body. cflime Therefore, the accused and he shot arrow on the chle^t' instantaneous death of Muslo M<kra. any substance in the argument of In the result. we do ndt jud9ment of the trial Court.. Th^ dismissed and it is hereby dismis^e ^d/- L.C.Bhndoo Judge >. / +i'iifd'in-f ^i4<-ir^'fel<ri <Ri^i<. ^siRtiTan^T is alwcys fata! if it hits on any vita! part of with prsparation carrying bow & arrow of the deceased which resulted in ra. In the circumstances, we do not fino' iearned counsel for the appeliant. find any iliega!ity or infirmity 'm the appeal has no merit, same is liabie to be ;d. Sd/- DHIBENDRA MISHRA Judge P.T.O.