^.^)-<S!o.^69fQ-°^ k- XXI-I^CJatl) C* J.P. R;/9-9-. APP£AL OF.PKCSDNER No..^r^.<?/^^... Neme- ^^^.^-^- - - - - • Father's Name- --^^^^r/^r-^f-- - - ~ -, 'Z2: Oif - - - - •^-~^Ve?t - - - under Section- ^,^^ y^^-^r^y ^ JTJ^- by <^^^~^ff-^T f^To -^rzyy/y (f^/^J ~ - It is explainedto the prisoner that if he stetes1 he^wisffes !• be reprc.sent-cd by a legal practitioner the appellate Cburt •will not procecd with the case for ^^ven days unless the lc£al ^- practi^ioner appears earlisr, If the legal practitioner does not appear within seven days he may not heard at 811 if the prisonsr states that he does not -wish to 1»e represent-Qted fcy le&al prectitioner th€ court may procesd at once ^ith th€ case ^ and will not b4: obliged to give a hearing to my lc^al practi^ tioner whc .shcul-d eppesr^ . . . l' ^. Date of Applicgtion &r copy o£ ^d6ement^.7^^^^^^i^yL/ 2'< Date on which copy received- - ^cS/^ ^-. 5, Date on which Appeal'Sent- - ^-- ^f^.y-- ^.^^^- "- - - ~ - -- A* Whcth^r the pris0xki6r wishes to be represented. e^r not-^ ww ^ ^o- » ^/2Y^-^/^<e^., ... -Name- y^^r ^Qr^-^^-^^^^y^g^- con£ined in - - ^«^^~- - -Jsil-y^7^£—^'/"<^ •---""- No- - - - ^^SL- - ~ - Dated- -- -^i^-i^^-^^9- fbrwarded to the^^^r ^/^<r^/^- ^ <"^/^ t,~?<eJ^ ^^5 /^^^(^A^/L) to g€th€rwith a copy of jud^emehtor prder passed in th< casc for favour of tre.nsmission to the proper Appellstc court* Date of receipt in- - - - - - -Office- Dat€ of receipt of rfcord to accompany'the Memo o£ Appeal to th€ Appellate^Court- No' Da-fce, Pbr^warded to the s Dste o£ reccipt in Appellate court' v XI-HC-22 3TT^T^T f^TtcF^TT^T ^TW^f?cT ^TW v,^y z 3:^'r«l<4IC'1<4, •E$Tfl'M<l<o, is|dl^^< 3TT^?T W^TC'TTSb^l^ [?TM?|cb _<:-?-.l.^.Wo^(>3J&j ^^.....•^..•.•....l.—^ 200 3T^?T^<TTW:^rf?cT Dlvlslon B^nch: - Mon'Sie Mr, L.c., and Mr; V.K. 12-10-2005 ccfei roft When the mctter was the appeliant was not presen^ oppearing in the cause' !ist ft to contact Mr, Akhil Agrawa!/ Deepaii Pandey, Adyocate, wd of the accused/appeiiant to availabJe to &eeDaii Pandel Mr< &.K. Swaire, Depl resoondent. .Argu'ments heard. Orai Judgment dlctated. ?^rJ-.C,._BhQdo<L_Z:_r This appeal is'directed order .of sentence- dated 21 Additional Sessions Judge, ^ tearned . Additional . Sessiol accused/appeibnt -for commis LP.C, for havlna committed-thl Ghi^I<n41Ti iTm^ff £fteT^t <^i<-<.« ^3Tf^T3T^?T Jl^ lled out, Mr. Akhi! Agrawa!, counsei for in the Court This matter is reguiariy 18aa9-2006. Evan an attempt was 3ut he is not avdiabie. Therefore, Miss appointed as Amicus Curiaeon behalf argue thls appeai, Record / for' preparation of the case. jty 6ovt. Advocate for the. Stats/ )H Dal^ against the Judgment of conviction and Ist Morch, 2001, passed by the 2nd ^aiaarh, in S.T. No.13/2000, whereby ns • Judge. after convictlng the sion of offence under Section 302 of 3 murder of-his wife name-ly, Shyamvati, (^^f^) XI-HC-22 ^n^T^r f<'lich3TT^T ^cT ^fl<=b ^-: ^ T^T ^Nicn^, ^Tn^<i(o, Ri<ni^^< 3TT^?T M5|Cb <TTRCfTr Stl^TT^) ^ 200 W^T ^RTTW ^fgcT ssntenced him to undergo im^, fts,l,OOOA, in defauit of paymBnt of fine to further undergo RJ. for six months. tlle Case of the prosecutlot| (PW-6), brother of the accu4^ Station. ©harghodato the.eff^ am<; the accused/ appellant w|: years son of the accused nl attack his mother. He woke u| the accused was cbsed and- the room, thereafter, the acci|j entered. the house of the al accused lying on the| (PW-8), Sarpanch and also to of them went to Poiice Stationl: about 9.15 a.m. The Statioit .registBred.the Merg (Ex<P-6) ^ The Investlgating'Offlo after glving notlce Ex?-2 .to of Shyamvati Ex.P-3 one carpenters axe and one from' the placc of occurrence, <=hl^?<rl<iTl-< HTR^rf ^* te^t <f^<-<l< •isonment fo^a?Sqi^1to pey a fine of i/ in brtef, is tnat Sukhdey'Ram Rathla {ed, reoorted the matter to the Poiice ]ct that on 5~h July, 1999, at about 5.30 attacking his wife Shyamvati and six xmely, Sarovar was asking hlm ,not to and that the door of th^ house of accused was attncking his wife inside iised ran away with h Is son Sarovar, He xused and that the wife of the Iground. He went to Vinay Kumar Panda |the Kotwar, and informed them, Three ^harahoda and reporl^d the mattar at House Officer of the Poiice Station the first information report (Ex.P-7). ^r ieft for the scene of occurrence and |he Panchas, inquest report of the body ^red. The Investigating Offlcer seized bjckie stained wit-h biood under Ex.>P-4 H€dso took into possession piain soil, (^y^r) n XI-HC-22 W^T^T f^ff^3TI^T ^W^^f?cT ^RT^) ^-' d^T ^l^c'll sb^l^b "4I*1I<<1'4, ^T{1^ilC, is((rll^^< 311^1 M5<cb ^ 200 f^s , 3T^?[ 5^<TTW: ^ bbod stained soil'anc aiace of occurrence. The (Ex.P-10) of the ptace of o^ accused gave rnemorandum E^ L€. sickle, carpenter's axe & he got recovered the wood^ LungJ of accused was seized u] by Community Heaith -Centre, Inv^stig^ting Officer prepared the site plan ^urrenc®. VVhiie in police custody, the 1<.P-11 regardina the weapons of offence ^ooden Senda and in pursuance of that, |n Genda undsr Ex.P-12. Biood stdned hder Ex.P-13, Clothes of Shyamvati sent ^harghoda were seized under Ex.P-14. The body of Shyamvati| Heaith Centre/ Sharghoda, w| Ekka conducted .post-mortem the post-mortem report (Ex^ of death was comma <&. injury to biood vessels of The death was homiddai in-n^ for immediate death, • They! externa! part of the body, rt incised wounds on varlous parj it found that there wa^ bonas and smali amount of There were muitipie fracture; .found crushed on account of chi^f<n41Ti WT^rf ^* te^ <f^^i< pieces of.bar^i<siS:c mte'i Ex.P-5 from the was sent for post-mortem to Communit^ •bere &r. M.L. Thawdt (PW-12) ^ &r. S. on the body of Shyamvati and prepared 1-15) in which they oDined that the mode t on account of Injury to head A. brain/ n^cR to profuse bieeding and shock. |iture, injury Nos.,2' & 8 were responsible |noticed as many as 10 injuries on the iost of them and ^•s of the body, On internal examinatlon, fracture of ieft temporal and frontal t>rain 'was also missing from the cavity, ^ of right mandibie bone and maxiib was |nu!tip!e attack by hard and biunt object. (^y^) XI-HC-22 3:5T^TPTR:W, «iTn^<l<o, Rf<;1W^< OT^?T <^ch RTOCTT^HT^ ^ 200 f^^ CT^T^T ^Jch 3TT^T $h^icb^rf?cT 3TR?T5^cTTW <=hi^I^41ri WT^rf ^ te^ <Ri^i< ^3T^T3T1^T articles were Science Laboratory, Sagor, fr}om the Seroioaist reportwas a!so| for chemlcal examination to Forensic where the reDort was.received and After completion of inv| •Court of JudiciaJ AAagistratel committed the case to the iearned 2na Additionai Sessiori; transfer for tria!< received, sstigation, charge shaet was fiied in the First Ciass, Sharghoda, v^ho in turn Sessions Judge, Raigarh, from- where Judge, ftaigarh, received the case on orlder The prosecution in' accused examined 13 witne^ses, recorded under Section 313 materiai appearing in the evld^ further stated that there wo^ •Sukhdev regarding fand;-he is m the crime by his broth'er/wh to establjsh charge against the Statement of the accused was |of the Cr,P,C, in which he the -nce of the prosecution against him cnd disputa between hlm ond his brother Innocent He has.been falseJy imDiicated <) committed the murder of hjs wife, After conciuslon of tria conyicted and sentenced :the a< V^e have heard Miss D^ for the accused/appeliant and ^dyocate on behalf 'of the Stal , iearned 2nG Additlonai Sessions Judge :used as mentioned eariler* .epaii Pandey, iearned counse! appearing 1 Mr» &.K< ^waire, tearned Deputy 5ovt, te/resDondent* (lft^^fe^) ^ XI-HC-22 CT^T^T ^i<=h3TT^T $h^l<t)^rf?cT 3^T^Tpn^R, ^^^(0, f^^ll^y 3TT^?T M5«ch ^l^dl $b^icft ^ 200 fcTC^ 3TI^T ^n'aiK ^cT Miss &eepa!i Pandey h^. Shyamvati, Apart from that the accused before Sukhiai (P|^ 3), son of the deceased, as 12), who has stated in his evid|i the • body of Shycmvatj and disfigured, broin matter was| multlpie Incised wounds A bce| were found fractured, right frQctured, the deceased died| 'injuries on head & brarn and nature, therefore/in view of Js establlshed that the death ot As far as involvement the crjme in question is .cor .co^un^el' appeoring for the app cross-examinctjon of the pros^ that there was animosity b. Sukhdev (PW-6), who iodged regarding the share 'of land Shyamvati. He has Jmpiicated t! Gbi^TQi41vi ^i^^T^te^if^i^K ^3^^T3TT^T ^s not djsputBd.the .homicidal death of the extra judidd confession made'by |VV-1) and the evidence of Sar'ovar (PW- s]p the evldence of &r, M*L, Thawalt (PW- mce that he conducted post-mortem on Found that face. of the coming out of the head, there were 'ated wounds, temporai &. frontai bones mandible A r^axiiia bones were aiso due to comma & shock on account of ^aemorrhage, the death hotnicida! in l|he above ocubr and medica! evldence, It >f Shyamvati was homicida! in nature. ^f the accused/appeiiant in committlng |cerned, Miss Deepaii Pandey, learned ^Jiant, at the outset, •argued that ·fr.om ^cution witnesses it has come on record )fctween the accused and his brother the compiaint, on account of dispute bnd therefore, in fact, Sukhdev killed tle accused in a fa!se case, (^y^r) XI-HC-22 CT^T^T f^t^^T^T 9b^lch^rf?cT ^ *<1*1C<11 $h^icb 3^ '<11-41<vf<1, ^iTn'y'IG, (c«<1l'M^< 311^1 M5|C*» ^ 200 f^s 3TI^T ^<TTW ^T On the othar hand, Af Advocate supported the judgrr|< Havi'n9 heard iearned the Judgment of triai court Conviction of the accused restt 1. Evidence of Sarovar (P'l accused, who witnessed 2, The accused made ex1 (PW-1) Kotwar, Vinay M KuniGrHotQ.(PW-lQ). 3. Witnsss Kartikram (PW| his son Sarovar, ciothes| •and he was .holding clui Sukhdev (PW-6) & Sard 4. Vyeapon of offence bio^ Instance of the accused stained with b!ood< \ &*K< ^waire, iearned Deputy ' 8ovt< ent of the triai Court, c^unse poln|t A€far as the first the accused & the deceased, examlnation-in-chief that his carpenter's axe and- sickie.. At father, he.was in-the house, h Gbl^Id41T1 HTOTt ^f fS^ <f^^l< ^3:rf^T3TT^T for the parties, we have perused and the materiai availabie on record* on ths following points; - V-3), minor son of the deceased ^ the "he crime. ra Judlda! confession before Sukhlai mar Panda (PVV-8) Sarpanch, and Sushii -2) saw the accused running away with of the accused were stdned with blood 5 in his hand, as aiso the evidence of iaram (PW-11). )d stained Senda recovered at the land ciothes of the accused were found is concerned,. Sarovar (PWro3), son of |aged about 7 years, has stated In his Father has murdsred hls mother with |the time of.attacking his mother by his aiso.asked his father'not to attack his (^y^) XI-HC-22 (^ ^l^ctl sh*ll<h 3^' •^i^i<i<4, «>Tfl<a4i<o, {s)diy^< 3ii^i M?|ch ^ 200 f^^; ^TT^T^T ^icb^^T $h^i<=b^rf?cf $h^l<=b W^T ^RTT^K ^fgcT chi^T<n41ri ^i<4^T^tel:^t<^i<-<.« ^)3^R'^T1^T staNd mother, H€ has further was beating hlm, he kicked him in his evjdence that when his father Iso. hald ^ne Learned counsei for th| the Court towards cross-exanli thot he was steeping and he argued that in cross-exQminat|ion and father were sleeping In room.. he woke up at: 7 a,m^ mother did not wake up, he ca!) he sdd that his mother is d^< tned to wake up hls mother, |? hi^ father took him to Amia<|a el-der brother has co'mmitted ^ appellant whiie drawing attentlon of ^ination of this witness (PW"3) argued not witn©ssedthe crime* She further i/ PW-3 hasstated that hls mother room, he was steeping In the same |his mother sleeping and when his led eider brother of his father on whlch ^ad. Thereafter, his father came and |?ut she was aiready dead, Thereafter, |ih' to the Sarpanch and scid that his murder of his wife. d3 tHe Zf Sfl we peruse the abo, exo.minatjon-in-chief he has his mother, whereas, in sleeping tiii 7 a,m< and when h dead. Being a child witness contradictory evidence, much ^e contradictory •evidence of PW-3, in xted that he his father attacking cross-laxamination he has stated that he was ^ woke up, he saw that his mother was ^)f 7 years? aae, In v5ew of the above r^liance cannot be piaced on it. As far as the second. ^oint i5 concerned, Sukhte! (PW-1) has stated in his evidence ' that v^[hj!e he was sleepinq ln his house, the (^y^) XI-HC-22 ^TI^T^T f^TNT3T^?T $b^Ich^rf?cf TacT^TPTT^ra', ^Tfl^41<o, [^^1^^< 3TT^r ^^|ch ^1^(<11 $?^RTch ^ 200 8 f^s 3T1^T ?^cTTW ^Tf?cf accused came early In the djsclosed thot he has carpenter's axe; sickie <& Latlt the house of Sarponch Vlnay the accused again said that h^ Thereafter, they took the-a^ examination, Sukhiai (PW-1) between the accused A Sukh4 witness in para 4 of cross-e. suggestion of counsei for the| the accused stated that his Sukhdev, It is aiso incorrecl) extra Judida! confession befor of defence counsei has dt to say that the accused s^ committed the murder of hls w| The above evidence of Vinay Kumar Panda (PW-8), w relevant time. PW"8 has sta' when he was brushing his t^ present there, the'accused. c< that he has'murdered his wif^ cbi^fd41^ ^i^^T^teI:^'<f^^i< ^3:r1^Rr3TT^T morning to his house and on enquiry comhitted the murder of his wife with Thereafter, he took the accused to Kumar Panda (PW-8) where on enquiry has commltted the murder of his wlfe. •adcused to the Pollce Station, In cross" |has stated that there was a dlsDute l^v regarding the partition of fand, This <amlnation has cat^goricaily denied the |accused that it is incorrect to say that l^ife has murdered by. his brother to soiy that the accused dld not make fe them< Agdn in para 6/ the suggestion by this witness that it js incorrect sfeid thct Sukhdev & Sardharam have ^fe. |ukhlaj pW"l) has been corrobora-ted by ^ho was Sarpanch of the viilage at the ifed in his evidence that in the morning 4eth, Sushii Kumar Hota (PW-10) was ^me carrying stick in his hand and |, his son was wlth him, He further said (1cft^^(<9^) Ui XI-HC-22 % 3^T r^|<41d14, ^Tn<Hjl?, f^^l^y 3T7^T 4^cb WR^TT^HT^ ^ 200 Id^<4 3T1^T^)T ^i<+)3TT^?T $b^ich;Rf5cf $b^|ch 3TT^T 5^<TT^K ^f?cf <^i^I^i41Ti nrroY ^ te^ <f^^i< ^3ri^T3TT^T murder of his wife, she would have got was sent with the Kotwar to the Police i, PW-8 has stated that it is correct •hat he wcs going to the Superintendent ig'the matter, It is aiso correct that persons have murdered his wife and he aiso. He has also said that there was 'egarding partition of the agrlcultural ^hat Sukhdev has murdered the wlfe of that the accused has not made extra b. Sushil Kumar Hota (PW-10) has aiso ice and stated in his evidence that the ifession before him and Sarpanch Vinay ^red his wife. that had he not commitl^d tht him murdered, thereafter, he| Statjon, In cross-examinatictn.. that the accused was saying ^ of Police, ftdgarh for reporti| the accused was saying'.that a| was Takina the name of Sukhdfev dispute among the brothers land. It is incorrect to say the accused and It is.incorredt Judjcial confession before the corroborated the above eyidel accused extra judicja! cc^n' Kumar Panda tfiat he has-murd^ Therefore, In view of t}| witnesses who had no anim< Kotwar, Sarpanch of who was the independent made extra judiciai confession reason for these witnesses to witrtess As regards the third p stands corroborated - by th^ ic evidence of these three independent slty against the accused, one viilage l|he viilage and third SushiJ Kumar Hota, ?/ it is estabiished that the accused before them voiuntarily. There was no |mp!icate the accused in a faise case. ^int, the extra judiciaj confassion fact that as p.er the evidence of (^^T) XI-HC-22 CT^T^T {^t^^T^T St)^i<=b;Rl?cT $h^l<=b ^ ^IHC<1T$b*11ch 3^T ^l^Krl^, ^Tf1^Jl(o, [c|dl^^< 3ll^l M51<h W^ 200 10 [d^ 3TT^T ^cTTW ^f?cf Kart'kram (PW-2), SuRhdev quarreling with his wife on w^ house of the accused, he saw with his son Sarovar, h Is c!otl| carrying a c!ub in his hand, the accused and saw that wifl ground, Therefore, the extra by the eyidence of Kartikram who the accused running <^ hS's son and h is ciothes were st| intormed him ThaT Ttie is [ich he along with Sukhdev went to the 1-hat the accused was running away aiong ks were stained with biood and he was ]Thereafter, they reached the house of :^ of the accused was lylng dead on the judiciai confesslon stands corroborated |(PVi/-2), who is an independent witness, ^way carrying ciub in his hand a!ong with feined with biood, the accused were on inimico! regard to share of land, has adjacent to the house of- the room of the accused was cio^ corner of the door and saw tH he asked the accused as to wi door of the rOOrn of the accu| alongwith his son, <=bl^Tol41vl HTR^ff ^* fe^ <Rl<-<.« ^^Tf^T3TT^T Sukhdev (PVtf-6), broth^r of the accused, whose relations with iterms on account of the dispul^ with ^tated in his evidence that his house is accusad, at about 4 a.m. 1n the morning he heard the sound of .quarr^I between the accused & the deceased, ied from inside, he through the IOT wife of the accused was lying Inside, lat he is doing, but he did not stop and continue to attack h Is wife, h^ Jmmediateiy saw Usatram & Kartlkram, informed them ond caiied thei|n/ when they assembled in front of the ^ed, the accused came out 'and ran away (^y^) XI-HC-22 ^TI^T^T f^TW3TT^T ^ri^^cT ^l^^l $b^icb 3:5^^1<41<vl'4, ($Tfl^<l(o, [c|(ytl^^< 311^1 M?ich ^ 200 11 f^^ 3TT^T5^TTW^f?cT bo^-n Ev«2.n though it ha^ appe!!ant that in fact, Sukhdet the accused has been faisel substance in this argument fof In the eariy morning and the a^< the house^ . When Sukhdev accused has not objected and has not been expiained by th^ made extra Judicid confessio^ namely, Sarpanch Vinay Kumar) 10) and Kotwar Sukhia! (PW-| thought, ^s reiations of the ^ not cordjai, rather their reMt accused has taken a false • p iea and to ImDiicate His brother In dame As regards the fourth and ciub was recovered- at sent for examlnation to the Hors the Seroiogist report, the As the bbod, whlch was therefore/its origin could not stdned with biood* Had Sukh^lev <=hi^?<n41Ti w^ff ^ te^ <t^^i< ^3Tf^T3TI^T ar'guod by l^arn<scl coun^®! for" th^ murdered the wife of the accused and implicated, but we do not find any the reason that the Incident happened lcused has not stated that he was not in and attccked his wife, why the |how he reacted to the act of Sukhdev, accused, On the contrary, he himself before three independent witnesses |Panda (PW-8), Sushi! Kumar Hota (PW- I.). The?u'efore, it appears to be after- kcused and his brother Sukhdev were were on inimical terms and the lin order to save himseif from the crime \he crime. reldtions |)oint, Lungi of the accused was seized instance of the accused, were Fforensic Science Laboratory and as per was found stdned with human biood. on the LungS, was disintegrated, be determlned, but the sarne was found ^- brother of th^ accused, committed (^ft^^fe^) tNe Ger^Q folund XI-HC-22 3T[^T^T f^TT^W^T ^RTO^rfgcT Soma 3^T •^lqKn-q, yTn^li<s, fcf<ni^^< 3TT^T M5(Ch 12 ^l+lfll ssb^icft ^ 200 3TI^T 5^<TTW ^fN the murder of the wife of thd j.e. Lunai wcs stained with accused. Therefore, this cir^ JudiciG! confession made by tl| 1), Sarpanch Vinay Kumar i0),.aiong with the fact th^ carrying Senda (ciub) in his these circum3tances conclusivl was in fact, the author of| irresistibie conciusion can be Pan|ja tha|t h4nd accused was author of the crinle For ^he foregoing rea< infirmi'ty in. the Judgment of the accu^ed for conimission of ^ppep In the resuit, the appe|2l djsmlssed and the same is hereby <=bi^?<n41Ti WT^ff ^ff^6 <I^<-<ii< accused/ thefi Eow1 ciofh of the accused ^iood, has not been expiained by the ;umstance, also coupied with the extra ic accused before Kotwar Sukhiai (PW~ (PYi/-8) and Sushii Kumar Hota (PW- the accused was running away and his son, cumuiative effect of all /^iy estxtbiish the fact that the accused the crime in question and the on!y drawn from the above evidence that the in quesTion, i^ons, we do not find eny ^egaJlty and <tfie trial Court convicting and sentenclng : |the murder of his wlfe Shyamvati. being devoid of merit.is!l^DJe__tobe dismJssed,' Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Sd/- V.K. Shrivatava Judge (tft^^fest)