‘ \ '‘'twhi’tiéio ~ r, .P. 1g. 11 /94/2,ooo-, , ,mg/ APPEAL QF PRlsoNE 4 ..\ lsi n gQuCH K Name§=grarsieai=uw .. a J Father’s name EwawnaaqWrf‘aam‘zgW‘ €ET$EaParqLgmr Age Lam? .‘ ‘_\ ‘ m» ‘ N \ Sentenced to "Hm.a:f_§l‘.?]'.m.ai.\.......14.); I A ‘m: LL Ori.Lf..‘l.E/V,.Q‘4X9.8i.i.. U T'Tt U WV L 35.!..r3.I.U.§En$1-§” f okLIiged sented days he by to may legal give not a practitioner heard hearing at to all‘ thorcou’rt any . legal m practitloner 'souer ' states who that should he does ' not Wish to be repre- r/ , >3 _ ’]' Date of Application for copy of Judgement Date on which copy received .. 3 Date on which Appea‘lrsent .i ._ 4 Whether the pris’oner Wishes/to be represented or not: Yes / No ‘1 N0.... rear. ...\. ..., H1 Connnedinh‘vfr .3:..‘t ........i’..’Jan,.."(fmgett-‘Ingigyufw .. Name e‘grare‘wtvefwmxmw \, 7' x}\_‘No.......;§§§.¢faffu49awze Dated......‘.....03“i,/.1M99&............., <_ @ii: asr gawrr guitreJm/W aft f / aearf‘tra g’FafaFfe e _i aw as; area? Ira i Date of receipt in... . Date of receipt rec’ord’to accompany the Memo ofAppeal to the Appellate cour .........ivDated ii Forwarded tothe L t No . Date of receipt in Appellate Court ‘i p .. xV/vr' ‘ R \ #(/:/ HIGH COURT GF JUDHCATURE AT BILASPUR ‘CHHATTESGARH‘ §!V!$!92\J aENGH*:H'3N’B!—E $4.33 L5, BHAEéQ N‘éD HGN’ELE $HRI $1iTi3H iaGNiHx‘JTRL JJ, CRiMiNaL AFPEixL fi§.2€53 GF 1§$ indra Bai and another Versus State 9f MP. (Haw Ghhattiagarh) JUDGMENT F§E CON$IDERATION Sci/- L.C. BHATDOO Judge HGN’ELE MR. JU§T§CE SA‘HSH AGNMDTR} d/ S- SATESH K‘ AGNEHOTRI Judge i x pas? Foa JuaGMEm eN/f/INGVEMBER. 2005 Sd/- L.C. BHADOO Judge i 7" HIGH COURT SF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHAT'HSGARH) DIVISION BENCH*:HON’BLE SHRI L.C. BHADOO AND HQE’ELE SHR! $AT!$H AGNEHOTRE. JJ. CPJMH‘JAL APPEAL NG£550 9F 1$$8 H701? b'a! ana amjInEf VelEUs State of MP. (now Chhattisgarh) Prewnt: Shfi Abhav T§wari, Advocate: ¢ I Gr $k me appedanls. i i Shri Ashish $hukia, Pubiic Presecuior with Shri MP3 B‘natia, Panel Lawyer: Far the Staiefrespondent. éUBGMEN? {Se:ive.'ed an fHK‘ November, 2005} The iniinwing jurigment cf the Court was deiivered by Justice LC. l aha-$00:- .he accrrsed/apgaermnts have areferred tr‘ris crrminai aapea: thrcugh :... i. Euperintendent, Centra! Jan, Raipur questicning the regaéity 9f the judgment daied 15~4-1996 passed by the ist Addiiienai Sessions dudge, Durg in Sessions Trial No‘391j’97 whereby the learned Additianai Sessions Judge after convicting the accused/appeiiants for the commission of the cfi‘ence under Section 3G2 of t‘ne i.P.C. sentenced each of the accused to undergo imprisenmeni far iife‘ The areseciition case, in brief, i ihat accusedlagpeiiant ishwari Bai was IND married ta deceased Suresh. Accused/appeliant indra Bai is the meiher of ishwari Bai. However} on acccunt of certain alisyute between deceased Suresh and ishwari Bai. ishwari Bai ieft the matrimoniai heme within a very short duration and started residing with her mother indra Ear. indra Eai ana’ ishwari Bai friea’ a oompiaini before the Mahiia Paiice Stations Burg ieveting certam aiiegations against deoeaseci ouresn n J Ku‘mar upon d W M which Suresh was summaned to appear in the Police Siation on 23m August 19g? and on that day the matter was compromised in ihe Police Station The deceased anti accused ishwari Eai aiSo executed a compromise ietter Ex.-D/3 befere the Family Advisory Centre (an 23-8-9i r‘Kf‘W ccmpromise, accused/appeHants indra Bai and lshwar§ Bai invited Fineen Bai‘ mother of the deceased and deceased Suresh ta their house and said that they Shouid come t0 their hou$e and 3tay wiih them in ihe night Next day morning lahwari Bai will be sent with the deceased. Acaeding ihe request Firteen Bai: deceased Suresh along with PW~5 Ehsskham Lai. who was aiso present at the Police Station accompanied the appeiiants to their hcuse. After taking dinner in the night, accusewanpeiiant ishwari and her husband deceased Suresh went for sieep in a roam, Firteen Bai, mather a?” the deceased. went fer sieep in a gaparate rocm and Bheekham Lai aisa went fer $ieep in a separaie mam. Hem/ever, indra Bai siept in Varandah in front of the ream wheie deceaseci Smash and his wife accused Ishwari Bai were $ieeping. in the wse haum at abcut 4 am Fifteen Bai heard the cries‘ Hem/even she found that the deer of her room was cieseci from outeide. Somehow, she managed ta break epen the dear, eame out and sew that the accusediappeiiants were eiiacking her sen with an axe and crewber” She saw that en acceunt ef assaut made by the appeiiants her son Sureeh received iniuries on the head and face, biocd was eozing ou. 4- fe . .he imuries, i ihe ciothes on the cc: where the deceased wee Sieeping were drenched with biood. $he immediately rushed to the Poiiee Statian 5upele, Durg and lodged the repert at about 5.36 am upon which the S.H.O. Police Stetien registered the Srime No.434.’9? dated 24-8~9?. i Sub inseecror Ajit Yadav ereceeded to the scene of occurrence and erepareci the site plan Ex.2-Pf5. Under =x.-PI‘6 he eise ico‘ into 31osseseion the axe, weapon of offence en produe‘iien by accused indra i i Bai. Under Ex.»P/1 he a}so teak ihta scssession the bicad stamed sail and piain 30H from the scene of occuarrsnc’e. Undér Ex.gPl2 he aiso teak into possession the bicoci stained berj sheet and piiiaw saver. Under Ex“- ?13 he aiso took mm paswssion the crawbar staineé with bioaci fmm the ‘Jarandah‘ Under Ex.—Pl7 and Ex.-P/8 he a?so took into racssession the c§othes af the accuaed persons. Aftei giving no:ice EXP/9 ts the Panchas, he grepered Panchanama 0f the dead body of Suresh Ex.-P/1O arid 3am the dead body fer pestmortem examiriatbr: ta the D§strict Hcsnitai. Durg where Dr. $.K. Sinha cenducted the postmortem examination and prepared the eostmortem report ExeW’H. The c’rowbar anrj axe, weapons of offence were sent to the deeter fer his epinien as to whether the injuries, which were found 0n the deed bedy ef the aeceesed, can be cause“ ‘ey these weapons, in turn he gave his report Ex.sPz"1 5. The 300d $taified amcie5 Wai’e 5am far examinaiiOfi t0 we FGfenSiC $Ci6i‘ice Leberetcry, Sager from where report Ex.-P/15 wee received. Accerding t9 the repert, the bleed were fcunci an the soil which wee taken inte possession from the plane of occurrence, on the bed sheet: pillow: crowbar, axe and aiso on the oiothes of the accused. After comeletion of the investigation, charge sheet was fried against the 1:. accusediappeiiante for the commiseion of offence under Section 302 read with $eetion 34 of the l.P,G. in the Court of Chief Judicia! Magistrate, Burg who in turn eemmitted the case to the SeeeiOhe Gerri“: trom where learned 15" Additienai Sessions Judge, Durg received the case on transfer for triai. CH The oroeecution in order to prove the offence against the eccuseci/appeiiants examined in eii 9; witnesses. On rue in omer eh k“and. athe Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 er the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the proseeution evidence and said that in the morning they went to attend the oeil of nature and when they returned, 4‘ they faund that Suresh was 6ead. They have been falseiy implicated in the crime. Learned Additionai Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments canvitted and sentenced the accused/appeilants in the manner menticnerj in the eariier paw of this jucjgmeni We have heard Shri Abhay Tiwari, ieamed ceunsei fer the acgusediappellanb and Shri Ashi$h Shukla, Public Prasacutnr with 5M MRS. Bhatia, Panei Lawyer for the 8tatelrespcndent. As far as the question of death of deceased Sure5h Kumar being homicidal is concerned. same has not been Gisgu‘c’ed by ieéu'ned ccun$ei for the accusedlappeiiants. Apart from that PWa4 Fineen Bai has stated thai the deneased wa3 asaaulted by the amused perswna with a crawbar and the axe, and same was witnes5ed by her. Thereafker, she {aft the scene ef cccurrencs and iadged the réport in the Felice $tation. PW—5 Bheekham Lei, who was also sieeping in the same house, has stated that he heard the cries ef the mother of Suresh at abeut 4 am and when he tried to came oui of ihe room. he found that the door of the room was ciosed from outside and same was opened by riie moiher of fhe deceased, and he saw that Suresh was lying in the poo! of biood and his mother was weeping. PW-8, Dr. SK. Sinha, Medicai Qffioer hae stated that he conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased‘ 3 injuries were found on his head. in hie opinion, the injuries were caused by weapons of offence reeovered by the investigating Gffieer. in the oostmortem report, he mentioned that cause of death was shock and the iniuries were ante-mortem in nature. Therefore, in View of the above evidence, it stands proved that the death of the deceased was homicidei in halure. Now coming to the involvement of the accused/eppeiiants in the murder of (I) deeeased Suresh, learned counsei for the accusediappeiiants argued that @ U1 at about 4 AM” the accusedf’appeiiants W$nt ta attend the gal} of nature anti when they rammed after haif an hour, they found gureeh in an injureci eondifion. They immediateiy went to the Police Station anti reported the matter. He furiher argued that EAL-1, Savitri has supnortexj the above version who accompanied the accused/apneiiams when ihey wani to attend the Ga” Of fiatUi'e. D.W.-3, Rami‘a‘l’a‘n Sefi haS Stated ma: 9n hearing the criee, he went tewards the house of the accueed pereons and he saw that the accused pefsens were returning after attending the caii of nature. He further armed that the aeeueedlap‘eeiiahts have been faiseiy impiicated in the crime. . On the other hand, Shfi Ashish Shukta, Pubiic Presecutaf With Shri i‘v’IPB. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer supported the judgment ef the triai Ceurt. 10.Having heard teamed counsei fer the parties, we h ve eerueed the judgment of the triai Court as wet! ee evidence and reievent documents, and We are of the mneidereci epinton that the piea of aiibi raised by the accueeci/appeiiants does not inspire confieence of the Court for“ the reaeen that when the accuseG/appenants went to attend the cat: of nature why they had not asked the mother of the deeeesed Firteen Bei as to whether vshe wants to go to attend the eat! of nature, and why the acoused/appeiiante while leaving the house at wee hours did not took the house from outside. The evidence of D.W.—t‘ Sevitri, who has stated that at about 4 AM, she aiong with the accusediappeiiants went to attend the oati of nature also does not inspire confidence of the Court for the reaeen that DAN-3, Ramratan Sen has stated that he saw the accused persone returning after attending the can of nature. He hae not stated that $avttrt was atso with them. Neither $evitri has etated that she saw Ramratan Sen and other persons standing in front of the house of the aeoueed persons in para 3 of her evidence. ehe hae etated that after returning, \ i r “H .As far as the evidence of D.W.=3, Ramratan Sen is concerned, he has stated in his evidence that his house is adjacent te the heuse of the amused persons, Between 450 PM, ts 5 PM, he heard the cries 0f some iacty whc was saying “save save” and after hearing the cries, he same cut of the house and he ran after that iady but he couid not cateh her, therefore, he returned. Thereafter, three to feur persons were standing there to whom he informed abeut the incident and at that time thev saw that the accused eersons were returning after attending the caii ef nature. After opening the door, they went inside the heuse and they saw thatVSuresh was lying dead. Thereafter the accused persons went to todge the repert. He has further stated that he had not accempanied‘ them to the Police Statien. He has stated that he gave the statement ExP-te to the Poiice. His evidence before the Court is totaiiy contrary to the statement EXP-w given before the Foiice. His evidence is oontradictery i she went for sieep with her chiid. After hearing the cries. she woke ub and heard that soninwlaw of indra Bai has been murderad. At that time. except the accused persons, no 0ne was present in the hcuse. 0n the face of it this evidence i3 not beHevabie, as she has stated that immediateiy after returning. she was sieeiaing wifh her chiici and after hearing the cries she woke up, that means ai ieaet 1'5 ta 20 minutes she must have taken for sound sleep. As per the caee of the defence, when the aeeused pereens returned, they saw deceaeed Sureeh in an injured candition, iherefore: in ore‘inary course of nature, they might ta have raieed the cries immediaieiy after return. if the house of this witness $evitri is very adjacent 1e the heuse of the accused persons, then where was iime left for this witnees ta go fer sound sieep sa as to wake up aftei hearing the cries. Therefore, the evidence of this witness in comparisen te the evidence of P.W.-4, Fix-teen Bai is of no vaiue and aiso fer the reasons stated above. ta the evideme of D,\:'V.-1 $avitriA His evidence cannot be believed fai’ the same reason which has been mentioned while diecussing the evidence of DAN-1 Savitri. His evidence that he ccuid not catch the lady is aiso net beiievabie. His evidenee i$ of he vaiue in eomperisen to the evidence ef PW-4 Fifteen Bai and PW-5 Bhikhamial who were sieeping in i‘ne same house where the crime was committed. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly reiected the evidence of these two persona ilNow coming to the evidence of P.W.-4?, Firteen Bai, mother of ihe deceased, she has caiegoricaiiy staied that on 23-8-1997, she aiong wiih her son and Bheekham Lei went to the Mahila Felice Station where the accused persons iodged the complaint against the deceased and the matter was compromised there. Thereafter on the request of the accused persons, ail of them went to the house of accused persens and after taking dinner, they were eleeping in separate rooms. The deceased and accused lshwari Bai: wife of the deceased, were sieeping in a separate rcom. in the morning. she heard the cries. When she woke up after hearing the cries, she found that door was cioseo’ from outside, somehow she managed to break open the door and saw that the accused persons WEI’e aSsaLlmng With a Cl’OWbaf alid Axe t0 hel’ SGn. Thereafiel’, She immediately ieft for the Poiice Station and lodged a report. This fact finds corroboration from the F.l.R., Ex.P—16 which was iodged at 5.30 am by this witness and the Police Station is about 3 km awav from the scene of occurrence. ln the cross—examination of this witness, the defence counsei has not been able to eiicit any materiai which makes the evidence of this witness unreiiabie. Even though PW-S Bheekham Lai has been deciared hostiie but he has corroborated the evidence of FW-4 Firteen Bai to the extent that on the fatefui day he aiong with the deceased and Firteen Bai went to the Mahiia Poiice Station where the matter was compromised. 0n ,. the request of the accused persons, all of them went to their house and in eeJ_’—’—’*\ 5J the fateful night after hearing the crEes, when he woke up, he found that the door was dosed from outside which was opened by PW~4 Fifteen Baé and saw that the deceased was tying in an injured conditian. On cross- examination by the prosecutor‘ he has cleariy stated that Fifteen Bat told him that the accused persons have kiiled her sch. However, he has stated that at that time the accused persons were not present. This fact stands corroborated by the fact that the accueed pere‘ons reached the Police Statien befere PW~4 Firteeh Bai coutd reae'n and icdge the report before the Petiee Station. z... b). Jt is an admitted position that ishwari Bat was married to the deceased oh account of same eispute she left the house and she atong with her mether todged the repert before the Mahtta Police Station against Suresh Kumar, as he had married with some other lady, somehow they compromised the matter in the Police Station, The accueed goereone requested the deceased and his mother to accompany them to their house. Next day tshwari Bat wit! be sent along with Suresh and in the night, in the house of the accused persons the crime was committed. Regarding the compromise between the accused and the deceased document Ext-DB was flied by both the parties before the Family Aovisory Centre, therefore, there was an immediate cause for the accused persons to commit the crime as they were not maintaining good reiations with the deceased for the reason that the deceased had already married with some other tady that infuriated ishwari Bai and that was an immediate cause for committing the crime. The ciothee of the accused persons were taken into possession by the investigating Crfficer and same were sent for chemicai examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The biouse and sari of accused indra Bat and sari of accused ishwari Bat, on examination. found stained with biOGd and the W6ap0n5 Of OffenCe were ai$0 found Stained With biGOd. it i3 true that these articles were not sent for Seroiogist’s test but iooking to the i i evidence cf PW-4 Firteen Bai, PW-5 Bheekham La! and other circumstantiai evidsnce; this report aiso lends support to the prosecuticn case about the invoivement of the accused persons as the biood was found an their ciethes. it is true that the accused persens cauid net have been connected with the crime in question eniy on the basis cf circumstantia! evidence that biood was found on their ctothea without Serotogist repert to the effect that the group of blood of the deceaeed and grcup at btood whieh was fcund on the clethes were eimiiar, but in this case. there is other evidence to prove the invotvement of the accused pereons in the crime and the finding that btood was found on the eiothes of the accused persons atso tends support to the fact of tnvoivement cf the amused persons in the erime in question and the weapons of offence recovered from the place of occurrence were aiso round stained with blood. 14in Viewof the foregoing discussion, we are of the coneid'eree‘ opinion that there is no merit in this appeei and teamed counsei for the accused/appeiianis could not make out a ease for interference by this Court in the judgment of the triei Court. as there is no infirmity or iiiegaiity in the judgment under chaiienge. The judgment of the trial Coun is weii reasoned and same is based on the Sega! evidence, therefore, finding of the tria! Court cannot be interfered with. 15in the reeuit, we do not find any substance in this appeai being devoid of i anv merit, same is iiabie to be dismissed and it is aooordingiy dismissed. \ Sd/- 5d/— BHADOO, SATISH K, AGNIHOTRJ L.C. Judge _ i ,/i i Judge i