m 4P& C - ^ •L:NQ,, ^al ir BllllB l ^-^0^^^ .1' ;.:; ' • • '. , - APPEAL PRISONER ^- ^°-^5^7 Name_ Fat ir's Natae ,T^r-tl^L®F^ ResidentM ^e '3<2>cffr Scntenced to <3n3^^ _^®^'T^_ on ^^^c)^ UnderSection30<S &.ff?Te^ by ^^^^H^^'^^^^SSl^^ ^-t It is explained to the pnsoner that if he states or wishe^to be represente( by a legal practitioner the Appellate Court will not proceed with th^ base for ,, ^even days unless the legal practitioner appears If the legal practitioner does not ^ar within seven days he may be beardaXall if legal practitioner thecourt s^|^proceed,at once with the case and will not be obligedto give abearing t9 a^legal practiitioner who should appear. 1. Date of application for copy of Judgement;- 2. Date of which copy received :- ^if7 / ^8 3. Date on which appeal sent :- 4. Whether the prisonerwished tobe - represented ornot :- Yes ^ No. No.^J6^2L_—Name"VTF^'~ <^?flJ ^'S^'^1^ _ No Continued ia^^ No.S^^I Jail ,^^0^. ^ Dated ,^ /^^ ForwardedtotheCHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ^^/^"(^ <0'^ (^^ ggether with a copy of Judgement or order passe jansmission to the proper Applleate Court Supei X>ate of rcceipt in C. J. M. Office. ~)^1-^ T Date of receipt of record to accompany. Memo of Appeal of the Appellate Court No.___^>is_.^__ dated /o^-^-^^ Forwaided to the ^^C^L'^7^/' fl^ '^^S' -H'?HTT^ ^^_^[H^_2ife^^ ^ & R. MAGiSTRATElZ12] the casev for favour of Distt ^Sub-Jail. <-r?' .^,^ •^sny^^.^S.^^w^rT.rr ft&ie 6f receipi tn A^plieate 6ourt_^ E:-^ XI-HC-78 3TT^T^rf<rli<=b ^^TT3n^H'sh^l<+) ^ (^ +11*1^1 ISh+llch 3:^T^<1^I^1<1, ^Tf1^41<o, f®ldiy^< .Q^:^^.^^^/l^. ^-^w- ^T1^^ ^TT^K ^rf^T 3:n^T cbi^?^^ri w^ff ^*te^ <r3i<.<ii< ^3Tf^R'3:n^T DMSION BENCH HON7SHRiVIJAYKUMAR SriRtVASTAVA. J & HON. SHRI DHIRENDRA MlSHRA. J 31.10.2006 Shri J.K. Shastri, couns€|tfor the appellant. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Addl. Ffublic Prosecutor wrth Shri Dinesh Chandra Pandey, P.L. for the Sta^e/respondent. Heard finally. Judgment dictated on Per \4iav Kumar ShrivastavaJ Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur holtfing the appeltant guitty for committing m|yrcter of his wife Muchkl Kosi punistoble under Section 302 of (he Indian Penal Code victe judgment of convjction and order <>f sentence dated 22.7.19^ passed in S.T.No. 265/97, sentenc|ed him to undergo imprisonmentfor life. Prosecution ver^ion as unfoided during trial is that on 22.6.1997 in the night i appellant and his wife M it around 10.00 p.m. a quarrel in b^ween iichaki Kosi, who was pregnant, took ptace. The appellant assaulted| her by foot on her stoma©h,she feN dowi. Thereafter, the appellarft by pressing her neck, klllect hei. Dudhi Hadma, brother of dece|ased Muchakj Kosi witnessed the incident. On the next day Pancha^at was convened, the appeltant was ealled XI-HC-78 3n^T^TR'li<=b ^TT3TT^?T$h^i<=h HI*IWt Sh+lich 7S[ 'qfAlld-tl, yxIl^Ko, (c(dlti^< ri^0^^..4^^tl?^-200 sn^rq^? (lic<^^) ?^TT^R:^fi<T3TT^T <=bi^f^i<41Ti ^\H^\ ^ tec<ft <Ri<^i< ^3^H3TI^T who made extra |udicia|l confession before the Panehayat. Appellant's brother Much^ki Bhuska on 23.6.1997 gave merg inttmation and lodged Firel Informatton Report at Police Station - Kukanar. Assistant Sub| Inspector Ram Nivas Saxena after recordingboth the docume^ts directed Head Constable Shankarlat to conduct inquest and ir| Shankarlal conducted in] forwarded the dead body| Chindgarh. Dr. Ramesh K^ opined that Mut^iaki Kos| injuries, he fonnreirded the ivestigate the crime. Head Censtabte ftuest, prepared inquest report and for autopsy to Primary Health Centre, imar Nachankar ccnducted autopsy and died due to aspt^xia as a result of throttling. After mentionin^ comptete detaits amt also deseribjng postmortem repert to th®police station. Statements of the witnessjes have been reeorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and aft^r comptetion of the investigatton charge sheet has been led in th|e Court of Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Sukma, who committed the case to the Court @f Session for trial. Charge under Secti4n 3°2 of the IPC was framed, read over and explained to the app^llant who ab|ured^tti^guilt and in his defence claimed hlmsetftolbe innocent o^' XI-HC-78 3TT^T^T^i<?h cW3n^?T$h^icb 3^ +11*1^1 ff»*11<ft ^raT^PT, ^T(1^4i<o, fa<nw^< ^^:^^^3/^' - T.- ^ 200 ^T^^ch 5«11^K^Tf?cT3:n^rT Leamedtrial Court Gbl<M?d41ri ^RTTOt ^ f^t <fa<-<-!< ^3Tf^T3niST appreeiating evicteRce cn record told the appellant guitty for commi|lting murder of his M^fe Muchsrfd Kosi and accordingly, convicted an<|l sentenced him. Death of Muchaki Kosi betng homieidal in nature has not been disputed. Even oth^rwise from the statement of ©r.F^inwsh Kumar Nachankar (P.W.1D and autopsy re^wrt (Ex.P^), it hss been established that following) e)dwnal and internal tnjurtes have been found on the body of th^ deceased, her death was homteklat in nature and cause of her djeath was asphyxja due to throttling. External Iniuries: (0 (ii) One contus below the ar on present on r^ht side of neck 4 cm. of mandtble, siz»2.5 x 4 c.m. On left sidel of neck four contusions distributed from above downdwards and outwards. Size 2x4 c.m., 2 x 5c.m.,2x3|c.m. (jil) Crescentic ^crateh is present in right ear (inner upper side). Internal Iniurv: Fracture second a< with sternum left sWe. ^d third ribs, 3.0 c.m. away of thelr joints XI-HC-78 STT^T^T^icti ^8TT3T[^T^i<=b /••• *11*1^t »»*ll<ft 3^'^l^Krt^, ^Tfl^Ko, facrtl<rl^< _^_ Chr-^ - ^^>'-s/??_ ^ 300- ^' ^ 3TT^?T<T^W (v^^) ?^TTW^(N^n^T Dudhi Hadma (Fl.W.2). his statement categori<|;ally Muchaki Kosi were q^arreling house. Appellant assa|Lilted threw her down and thfer the incident he came kiack went to see his sisteit. Appetlant was absent. Bhuska. Learned counsell Hadma (P.W. 2) in hi^ tense, therefore, he is this contention. Statembnt cro^s asawhole. Inhis as to discredit his statejment seen the incident. Afte( the opinion ttiat tfiis wi^ness presence ttie appellant| but also pressed her neSpk. <=bi^f<n41vi ^i^^iT^fte^t^^K ^3Tf^TW^T W.2), brother ofdeceased Muchaki Kosi, in stated that the appellant aicl his wife arreling; thwefwe, he went to appeltant's her sister by foot on her stomach and reafter he pressed her neck. fiSter seeing to his house. ^i tfie ne)d mernir^ he He found her lying dead in her house. He apprised ttiis fact to his brother-in-law iliot for the appellant c@ntended that Dudhi statement has gh/en the verslen in past an eyewitness. We are afraid to accept of Dudhi Hadma (P.W. 2) is to be read examination nothing has been tNroughtso or to accept that this witness has not careful scrutiny of his siatemert, we are of has witnessed the incident and in his not only kicked his wifejyho was pregnant wilness 1 ^. XI-HC-78 ^n^T^rf^ricp cW 3TT^?T ^ThF ^-G^ *ll*1Cft1 St»H|Ct» '<«*IIC1<1,»Tfl<^<l<o, fsidl'My O^- ,^-. ^^-^3/?^ ^-^o^- 3T(^7T q^TER (y(i^<s«<iiT) ^cTTW ^rf?cT W^T cbl^?<<l41'l HPT^if ^* fe^t <f^^j< ^>3T(^T3n^?T Dudhi Hadma (p.W. 2) further stated that Panchayat was convened and appeltani when asked aboutthe incident, stsrted that Muchaki Kosi did not s^rve him meal, therefore, he has kilted her. Muchaki Bhuska (P.vy. 6) in his statement deposed ttiat a Panchayat was convei confessed that by pre^sing the neck he kSIIed his wife Muehaki Kosi. Learned counsl extrajudidal confessior ^ied, the appellant before the Panchayat ^l for the appellant contended ttiat has been made before Panchayat and different version has b^en stated by the witnesses, tfierefore, no reliance can be placed |?n such extrajudicial confession and placed his reliance on the ju<|gment rendered by the Hon'bte the Apex Court jn Kishan Lal Va SC3062. Ontheothei I. Stete of Raiasthan reoorted jn A^ 1899 hand, learned counsel <br ttie State ptaced his reliance on the juc|gment rendered by the Hon'bte the Apex Court in Gura Sinah \fe. State of Ralasthan reDorted In 2001(21 SCC 205 and conten<|ed that tf the extrajudlcial cenfession is voluntary and not obtapned by coercion, inducement or promise, that alone is sufficient t< convict the offend^" 'T.O. H XI-HC-78 W^T^rf^TOF cW 3T^?T ^TT^ •\' N1*1^1 ffi*1ich 3^ ^i^i^t^, ^Tn<H4i<o, fs«nw^< ri^0?c^^^r?./.<??. -<0 ^200 ^T^^cb ?^cTT^R ^rfgcT 3TI^FT Hon'bte the Apex Court djstjnguishabte. Law is jt has been made before and voluntary and has n chi^Fci41r< ^i^^iT^'fe1c^'<f^<-<.i< ^ 3Tf^T 3Tlip?T On the fact of th^ case, ttie judgnnert rendwed by»the in the matter of Kishan Lal (supra) is on extrajudicial confession whether 'anchayat or anybody etee, if it is natural &t been obtained by threat, eowciwi or promise, the same is to b4 accepted and that alone is competwit to convictthe culprit. Here, in the insta^it case atthwgh there is «>me mirwr discrepancies jn the state(nents of wttnesses who are vlllagers and whose statements have l|>een recorded after a lapse of time, but reading as a whole the gi^t of their statements is that the appeltant confessed kitling his wif^ by pressir^i her neck. There is no evidence to suggest that t|ie appeltent was threatened, promlsed or pressurized to make a(iy confession but frem the evtelence availabte on record it is ev|identthat before Panchayatthe appellant voluntarjly confessed his guitt, therefore, extrajudlctal confession made by him before Panctiayat js trustworthy and that alone can be relied on for his convictiont Thus, from the confession made by the lent of eyewitoiess and exfrajudicfal Itant, it has been establlshed that the ). !.j l..,:.1' XI-HC-78 w^T^rf^Ti^ cWW^fT^TrioF ^^ ^: .\: ^' ^ *11+ldt S»»+11<ft 3^ ^MRpr, ^Tn<H4i^, (®i<nM^< . <^rA- ^s-T^, ^ ^200— 311^1 451tt»(^cii^CK^) ^cTTW ^rf??f 3^T appellant killed his pifegnant wtfe. In the result, we are of e considered opinion th^t the teamed trial Court dkl not commit any error in holdlng the ap] being devoid of substa accordingly^d^rti^ed[. Cbl^fcnx41rl W^ff ^* fe^t <Ri^j< ^3:rf^R'3T1^r ^ellant guilty for committing the mwder of his wife Muchaki Kosi an|d imposing sentence @n him. The appeal hce is liable to be dismissed and tt®same is Sd/- V.K. Shrivatava Judge Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.