^ (^.A.NG.^/-77/^ APFEAL (y—^^""" ^.....' ' CF0000066574 _s- s^. •--'& 4&R aw ^f^it ^i ^sa^pt ^'. -.-•'• . -:-.3..S.<i.J.c.ll- -._ Name ^^'^l.j'^s.^'g.^Tijgj^ Father s name ____._i^'IS'3Ta-f f^_ _ , j f^ Kawy Residence .^iq_-,.t$^A?T .&JTT)_£3<?|_^^. ,, . Age . •XT. 4^"-~- --^'a-sx cosrt, Sentenced '^^.^ l^-^/63_Ctj1T}.^KZW-On .A.-S~.-:..2-..-_..0-L.) under section .JHJ:^3^~. 'SHlflJ^_ by<%@^3'."iZB«g^---^T5[cSi3IS''^T ^----••--••--^^^Ty-^^vfrvr~'tmT~'''~~~~~''''~~^Tfi=wvr^''^'-^^ ^ j-b is explained to the urisoner that if he states or wishes to be represented by legal'practitionsr the Appeliate Court will nofc proceed with the base fGr seven days unless the.legal pi-actifcioner' appears. If the legal practitioner cloes not appear with-in seven days he rnay not heard at all'. If ths prisoner sfcates thafc he does no^ wisl-i to be represented by Isgal practiotionsr ths cour'b m'ay proceed at: once v/ith the sase and will not be obliged to-give a hearing to any legal practitioner who should appear. SKs'- 1. Date of Application for copy o-£ -Judgenient _^ ^t>~_-^;-S.ff' 2. Date of which copy received __^^_^___^_..2J7 _':._'Z_-_..'2:_?I?.^J 3. Date on which appeal senfc ._,,....,.___., _.^. ,_,_, ..3, __3_-_3._C'tt.y 4. Whether.the prisoner wished to be representad or not~Y^s-ifyv:o. ^- ......23.Q-/-3.S1^. . Name ^~J^'^.nHH^.j&is..7T^w~^ Cont-inued in,_f6-c37^--.~ Jail -'l£IfcQ^I^[__....„.._.- ,s«'i@aTO* ..j.z^iz-.—y^-^^M^-s/.^.-^---}-0'^ -„—-—.-——-/>,.- ' [?^H ^LLt-rS!tttWr:r}_£f^t3^rT'F^'rSjfill^l'^ ^JrsT^lSli^ ?orward to th^'&!"3Ei?-i3yb^^£-^^3^5S ^;''-~ ^ "' --•-•--1 ^---.--••.^ ';o gather which a copy of order passed in the case for favour of transmission to the proper Appelliate Court. ^TJ^f- f^if^cST^5^ (^ ^gl^Q^- 1 „_'SSl-.^.^ Supsrinfcenden't ysff'sf^^F^"' ^-v 'f.i^is^.S^. ^:^f^^::~I-i:^^ Da-te of- receipt in C.J.M's Office Date of receipt rocord to aceonpany Memo of Appeal of the Appeliate Court Ko. Datcd 19° Forwardec!. to the C.J. I'flgistrafce Date of receipt in Appelia-te Court //SURGUJA TY./y ^ ^ '^ .:iaia!Uiiiui!52.ita!Mit±ii XI-HC-78 3n^r?;TR-<i+ (Wf311t<:(ISti11':t> ^ ^. ... S'Sfl •^^f ^ ^?;:^^il^%^to. S'i"-;"'""-'SS|;gte tii+iwi a>*rra> Ssr^Trai^PT, ^Tny'is, Rdiuy ^.^:f\:^^2/. ^ 200 ^ Sii^i 4a«>(liyi(dq'<&r) ?RnwHf?tTa;ii^r Division Bench: - . L.C. Honble Mr. 6hirendra Mishra, 13-2-2007 Mr. Abhay Tiwari, counsei| Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Panel L-<^ White hecring on M.(Cri.5D| santence imposed and 9rant of 'earned coursss! for the appeiiant since 12-12-2002, thereby he is month therefore, instead of finaiiy be heard, as it is a smali the State/resoondent has no counsel for the parties, tha appe< OroS .iudgment dictsted ori Per L.C. Tnis appesi is directed cg of sentence dated 25-2-2004 (Ambikspur) in Ssssions Trial No sftsr hoiding the accused/appel!' Section 302 of the I.P.C., sents ^hi14[c1^1T1 iTT^ff ^' te^ <f^^l< ^srf^iTsn^T trj. for the oppeltant. jwyer for the Stste/respondent. |No.989/2Q05, applicstion for suspension of bdl during the per.dency of this appeal, submitted that the accused is in detsntion in detention for more than four years one hejiring this ,*A.(Cri.)P., the appea! itself mcy Imstter, to which learned Pane! Lswyer for ol^jection. Therefore, with the consent of il ishear'd finaily. Dais. ^tinst the judgment of conviction and order passed by the .Sessions Judge, Surgujs 1145/2003 whersby learned Sessions Judge |int guiity for cominission of offence under ^ced h'm to undsrgo imprisonment for !ife P.T.O. XI-HC-78 fti *11+<CTT ShHrai T5T -qiqiclf, (STflu'l^, (s|CII«y —...^...A...'^~^.7J^ 200 311^1 ^vh (yiigoi^sT) an^rqiT^ich traT3IR?TOTTO ^Sf g-E ^--'•-'' tesS'StessNESSS^ ^ '"""' ^^••^-^^s-^^g ^:tiw:Bf?g'a:n^?r and pay a fineof Rs.500/-, in def^iult of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. foronemonth. i!h tlhe Case of the prosecution, i^ p.m. sorne citereation took plgcs^ father Ramnsth fsince deceased) his fsther. On the next day, the requested him that he hcs assaui^ his father. On the request of went to the house of the accusedl succumbed to the injuries sustain) was reported by Dr. Prem S'mg^ Lskhanpur and merg intimation Ex| WQS re9istsr'ed. Tne Investigatinc| After giving notice Ex.P-10 to thi on the body of Ramnath. The Hectth Centre, Lskhanpur for Ksrketta pW-2) conducted post-j Ex.P-4 and opined that the cau|si causinq suooression of vital functitn brisf, is that on 10-12-2002 at about 3 between the accused/oppeilsnt and his bnd in that Drocess the accused assaulted After completion of inve; of Chief Judicial Mc9istrsts, ths Ssssions Judge, Ambikopur; °hi<i?ci<fl-f iw<iTfftetc9'<Ri«i< ^siRliTa.n^r .ccused went to tsr. Prem Singh Marco and ^1-C-/><«^1>'< ed his fathar, 1+ierefore, he should/treat->^«-—i- ^. occusad, Dr. Prem Singh Marco PW-I) |and started treatment, however, Somnath )^d by him within hatf an hour". The matter Marco under Ex.P-1 to Police Station; IP-3 wss oivsn bssed on ohich F.I.R. Ex.P-2 Officsr left for the scens of occurrenee. Psnchas, he prepared the inquest Ex.P-11 l(>ody of Ramnath wos sent to Community ^ost-moftem examination where Dr. P.S. •I'nortem, prepared the post-mortem report ie of death is intracroniai haemorrhage of the br-ain tissue. 'estJgation, char-ge sheet was fi!ed in the Court Am^ikopur, who in turn committed the case to PT.O. ^"RS XI-HC-78 sn^r ?!T fqwR traT3nq?TsbM|ch ;;^^-s ;'efl:s^ ^ss^'SSSSSS ys,: --.:- •• i'.'i.—t'.^siQ-^^sa *1I*<WI !h*l|ch 3^ "!<i<iici<(, d'Tn<H'l(», fsiciiuy,< .-Cr?.,^.-^-^?./. ('-/) ^ 200^ 3ll^l 4S!«i(•i?^^) ?RITWBf?cf3n^T The prosecution sxamined was recorded under SectFon 315 material appearing ogainst him in his father was a man of criminal not ct residence. he js innocen^ crime. crflter Lear-ned Sessions Judge on oeriisci of the racord, cotivicted aforeraentioned. Ws have heord Mr. Abhc^ and Mr. AA.P.S. Bhatia. lecu-ned respondent. courisel refits Havir^ heard learned judgment and svidence availab eyewitnesses have turned hos^il Drosecution case. Conviction Marco (PW-1), Assistant Surgeo^ before whom the accused madal convict the accused based on thd the iow is that the extra Judici^l prompt. Dr. Prem Singh AAarco P]j 12-2002, the accused came to hinf is serious, please come, see| °fti<<Fd4t:i'iiHdTiftecA'<Ri«;i< ^arf^iTsn^r 14 witnesses. Statemant of the accused of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the the prosecution evidence and stated that hature, on the day of the incident, he was bnd he has been falseiy imolicated in the • hearing counse! for the partiea as clso snd sentenced the accused as Tiwari, iesrned counssl for the appeilsnt Panel Lcawer on behalf of the Stats/ fo" the parties, we hwe perused the |e on record. In this cass, all the |i!e and they have not supported the on the testimony of &r. Prem Singh h, Primary Hea!th Centre, Sumgara Kala, extra judicia! confession. In or'der to extra judiciol confession, requirement of ^l confession must be voluntary, true and ^V-l) hcs stated in his evidence that on II- and said that he has assaulted his father him and giva treatment to him. After XI-HC-78 3n^r^R-< (raT3T]^Tg>ITR; *11*IMI Sh*<l<h T5? '<ii'4i<t<i, »xfl«'is,(«i<ii+iy< .<^.:^ ^ 200 <^- aii^i iid<<? ('icil3°"^6r) ?T(TTWHf?cT3I1^T r'esching the residence of the within a short durfltion. Ramnath therefor-e, he lodged the report which Ex.P-2 F.I.R. wos register-ey 11-12-2002, Qt about 11.30 a.m. in the hospital and disclosed thct| father as a resu!t of which his speaking, thersfore, piease come house of the accused, aave pri; time at about 12.30 p.m. Ramna-) him. In the cross-examination ofl elicit any circumstance which discjr [accused, he examined Rcmnath, however, jsuccumbed to the injuries sustained by him. :x.P-2. In Ex.P-1, the information, based on s^, &r. Prem Singh Marco mentioned that on l^diesh (the cccused/cppellant) came to him I'yesterday at about 3 p.m. he assaulted his ^ather sustained injury on head, he is not [and examine him", on which he went to the treatment to Ramnath. but after some \h succumbed to the iryuries sustoined by this witnass, defence has not been able to dredjK-the evidence of this witness. mfiry Assidtant Dr. Prem Sinqh Marco is time, he wss working as ffumgara Kalc, before whom the c in pursuince of that, he went to injured condition, he gava primary in.juries sustained by him ot 12. witness is corroborated by ttie ci thot is whatever stated by the when he reached on the spot and that whiie in police custody, rsqarding the weapon of offenc. house and in oursuance of that ^rofcNN'iinirff ff fWt'rf^RZK ^srf^iTsn^r an independent witness. At the reieyant Surgeon in Primary Heaith Centre, ^ccused made extra judicial confession, and |the house of the accused, ssw Ramnath in treatmsnt, but Ramnath suecumbed to the .@0 p.m. Therefore, the evidence of this ^cumstantial evidence available on the spot a4:used to this witness was confirmed by hin*, |saw Ramnath in injured condition. Further ttie accused gwe memorcndum Ex.P-18 :k olanner fw) which has been keot in his the said weapon of offerice planner wcs P.T.O. " XI-HC-78 3n^r?irR-ii+ traT3ll^lsbt<if) Q.-SSSSW B".,' *<IH^I 9nH\W> ^S? ^WW^, tSiTfld'Ko, Rlcfltiy • »^~v */* * *"*\t* *»*»~* * * *f> * ^ 200^- 3ii^?i 4a«h('i^^S.'T) STHTWHl^sn^T accilised recovsred at the instance of pnsved by Investigating Officer offence wce examined by Dr. P.S. 7 to the effect thot the injury could be caused by the same. Thj the extrc Judicial confession maipe Marco (PW-1} 'tS corroboroted. accused in the crime.in guestion is| Learned counsel for the ap a man of criminal nature, he w quarreling with tha members of deceaaed hcd conaumed iiquor" accused, during that process the lying in the house of the accused| planner. There was no intention fsther. Therefore, offence agc| Section 304 Pcrt-II of the I.P.C. In order to iappreciate th for the appellant, we hwe scrutin) «hl<lfa41-f111<-lTff)W)'<Fa1'KK ^3lf^IT3TT^T under Ex.P-19 and the same has been I. Tirkey (PW-14). The said weapon of IKerketta PW-2) who 9ave his report Ex.P- Ifound on the head of dsceased Ramnath fcrefore. from •ttie circumdtcmtial svidancs. by the acctBed before Dr. Prem Singh tn the circumstances, involvsment of the estab!ished. p^ellant crgued that deceased Ramnath wcs fps in the habit of consuming liguor snd |ths family. On the day of incident, the 4nd gtarted quarreiing with his son, the accused picked up the plonner which was and assauited the deceased with the said lof the accused to csuse the death of his inst the accused does not travel beyond On the other hcnd, tearnetl Panel Leusyer supported the judgment of the triol Court. s arguments advanced by learned counsei zed the evidence. P.T.O. l' f1 XI-HC-78 sn^TwR-ii* (PlT317^TshHicb b «.:.8SSSS' ^IMWI aiW^i 'ssf '^ww'ii, wS\wie, Rciitiy -^..<b...^.-.?-.?7j ^R; 200 ^_ 3ll^l Maw (y(3<s«<'ST) STHTWHfStT-W^T 6r. Prem Singh Marco (PM^ the next dcy of the incident has 4 of lifluor was comin9 out from th^ judicial confession made by the clear'ly stated that on accountiibl assaulted his father. Brother of also stated in his evidence that and quarrelling. Chhatarpsti (PW^ in her evidence that her husbanO criminal trial in the cases of thefll Therefore, from the abov] (deceased) and the accused/appel <t>i<ifCT<{l-f >iit«iTfffWf<R]t<i< ^3l1^IT3T)^T f-1) who went to treat iryured Ramnath on (tated in para 13 of his evidence that smell mouth of injured Ramnath. In the extra ticcused before this witnsss. the accused qucrrel between him and his fcther. he ^•he deceased namely, Rqjnath (PW-10) has R^mnath was in the habit of consuming !iquor (12), wife of the decsased, has also stated was a man of crimina! ncture, he faced and dacoity. e evidence available on record, it can be inferred that thers was some q^arrel between the father of the accused ant, in that process the occused picked up the planner lying in the house and ^ttacked his father as a result of which he sustained injury on the occipi^al region. In the circumstcnces, the orosecution hss not been abie to ^stablish that the accused had intention to cause the deoth of his father, bpt it can safely be inferred based on the facts and circumstances of the dpse that whi!e asscuiting with the ptanner on vita] organ, the accused hsd l^ decth of his father. Therefor^ offence aaainst the accused doesl the I.P.C. no«Bledqe that he may likely to cause the , we are of the consider'ed opinion that not travel bevond Section 304 Part-II of P.T.O. •assis ^; XI-HC-78 *11*<MI StiHlch 3^' "lll-;ll^tt|, arflu'is, RlMl'yy ^-..Q5...A....^.5-.7./ V^ 200 ^L sn^wV^K (i^ijisj^a') sn^T^iTR^icb awaii^raiiiti it' Soma ?T(TrwHf?cT3n^r In the r'esult, the oppeal ailowed. Conviction and sentence I.P.C. ore set aside, instead therebf TTI of -i+ie I.P.C. ond sentenced mentioned that the accused is therefore, he wil! be entitled fdr against the sentence imposed upo^i Conaequently, M.(Cri.)P.N4 disoosed of. Sdf. L.C. Bhadoo Judge *i<ifin<n-f tii>i<tTfftecA'<Ri+iii< ^3Tf^tT3I7^T partly succeeds ond the same is partly of the accused under Section 302 of the •, he is convicted under Section 304 Part- to under9o R.I. for- seven years. It is n detention since 12-12-2002 til! today, set-off for the above detention period him. ,989/2005 and I.A.No.1182/2005 stand ";I>1 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O: Ki. y"