29V «x XI—HC—22 3am, Wan—qt,W 2 W ‘\. Wmc'rg ...E...../ go) 200 ........... ....... W ......................... ‘ WW WW WW mmmw /l , WW§WW ém%nm 1 ‘ was brough? To The Police Sfa‘rion. The ma?fer‘ was reporfad by Sundm‘ @ 1 Sundem Kumar (WV-7) m1 whicl' The firsf informafion repor‘r Ex.P—3-A was : .V réqisfered againsf fhe accused/aimeiiam‘ for #he commission af offence under 5%;c'?§cn 302 af me IRC. The caused was broughf To fhe ?o!§ce 5faficn by surend'm Kumar' (PW-7) & 5am sjn Awas?hi (PW-6), Ccnsa‘abk/ and in their presence The weapan cf cffence. i'he axe, smined wifh blood was faker: inic pos§eesian uhder‘ EXP—4. The nves‘iigm‘ing Officer ieff fer fhe scene of \ occurrence and~+ook in‘io posses ion Heads-rained ‘soii and piain soii from fhe and fhe sh‘e of 'ihe piece if cscurreiice wider Ex.P~ prepared plan (EXP-7) since m‘ accurrenge. The Pam: nama (EXP-2) of ?he body of Gofeiai was prepared by fhe Invesi‘igafing Of icer’ afier' giving nofice EXP-1 m fhe Panchas. The body of Gofeiai was sen? f9 pos‘r-mar‘iem examina‘iion fa Primary Heeh‘h Cenire, Simga, where Dr. NP, T mrakar (PW-4) conduc+ed posf-mar‘rem and prepared 1-he pcsf-marfem repor (ExP-S) in which he opined ‘rha? ‘ihe cause of dea‘ih is syncope, shock and hae arr-image as a resuii‘ of muifipie injuries and injuries ‘ro fhe vii-a1 organs‘ie. bra n &-lungs. fier compie‘iion of inves‘i gaiion, charge sheei‘ was filed ii: ii'ie Com“? of , Addi‘i‘ionai Chief Judiciai Magisfr' fe, Eaieda Bazaar! who in Turn commi‘Hed +he case w the Sessicns Judge, Raipu , fmm where, learned 15* Adds-isms! Sessiens Jucige, Baicda Bazaar, received ’ih case on Transfer for iriai. The prosecu‘iion in orde To es‘i‘abiish charge against fhe accused examiried eleven wi‘inesses. S? emen? a‘. ihe accused was recore‘ed under Seci‘ion 313 of ‘l’he CrRC. in whic he denied fhe mal‘erial appearing againsf him ih i'he praseeu‘iion'evidence. Lea ned Addiiieml Sessions Judge affer hearing ihe argumen‘is‘ of Addi‘i‘ionai Pu lic Prosecuior, ceunsel for The accused and (ww) i "(Wy XI—HC—22 Haw;m,W mm Wm 00 .u. .nn. a). . CzM‘WQ/‘H W 2 Wmmw ’3 , WW§WW éamm perusai af’fhe record, convlc‘rea a! a samenced f§1e accused as manwaned m para Sf ’rhis judgment 11 1 We have heard Mr. Anand N ohan Tiwar'i, iear‘ned counsel for ‘rhe appeiian’: ‘nd Mr. U.K.S. Chamki, kameg Panei Lawyer on behalf 0f fhz 5mm! a ne$nondent v in! has nof baen dESpumd by ieamed counsei {‘m: :he apgeHam‘. Amr? fmm Thm‘, Dr. NP. Tamrakar (raw-4), W516 has $onducfe& pos-‘r-mar-‘tem 0n +he ‘ody of deceasqd Gofeid, has s‘rafed in Ms avidence '§'ha'r on 24—6—1997 he wa ' on dafy in Wimary Heal‘m Cem'r-e, Simga, on A irhcxi: day he candycfed posf-mor‘? m on ‘l‘he body of Gefaia! and found in a§i 19 injuries viz., incised & puncfured nds; iii-are was fraczmre of skuii, ribs ware aisa fracfured and ‘iher-e was incis & wouw am righ‘i‘ & ief? lung aisc. The cause of dea‘i‘h was syncope and haemor huge on accoun‘r 0'? muli’ipie injuries io viiai organs. Thz dea?h was hamicida! naiura. marefcre, if is esiabiisined “rim? fha deaih cf Gofei was homicidai in na‘iur‘e. As far- cs involvemenf' fine accused in fine crime in quesw‘icm is \ corieerned, iearned counsei fer T e appeiiam argued 'z'ha'i‘ ‘i'here is no evidence tonneci‘ing The accused wi‘i‘h fine co mission m‘ murder of his fa‘r'her. On i'i’ze eiher hand, learn d Panei Lawyer appearing fer ihe Side/ responder)? supperied i‘ne judgmeri‘ of The iriai {tour-ii Having heard learned cou sei for The pari‘ies, we have perused f'ne a‘udgmenf of fhe friai Cour? and i' e evidence avaiiabie on recora‘. In This case, ii‘iere is no direc’r and ocuiar evid nce. Whale case res‘is on fine circumsfamiai evidence. in order to rest‘convici based an the circums’tentiai evidence. as , \\ \i (nae W) \ .3 The homicidai deafh of &o‘ wiw‘quam ’ f u i o i n XI—HC-22 nun“ mmMgL/mm m Wmma%a WW§WW ésWW per'IiWe Se'ftleci law as new Dy $;1aaan}gy maazterjge V5. Eats “in a case based circumsiances fram be dravm have net a§sc that aii the airs be of a conclusive‘n ¢. kHypomesis u cf me’ circumstances sho explained by any ct the accused and the £9mp!ete as n9: t0 the beiief consi$t€ accused. it needs m ,g, the Horfbie Apex Com m me matter of of W5, repefted in {1954} 2 $313 220; on crcumstantiai evidence, the which ihe conciusion bf guiit is ie emy to be fwiy estab!ished but umstances so estabiished shou§d atme and consistent oniv with the guilt of the accused. These .iid not be capable of being 1er hypothesis except ihe guilt cf . chain of the evidence must be so ieave any reascnabie greend for hi wiih the innocence of the i remihder that iegaiiy estahiished n ci?cumstances and ot mei'eiy ihdighatich of the court can form the basis fconviction and the more serious ihe crime, the gre er shouid be the care taken tc scrutinize the evide ce iest suspicion takes the oiace of proof.“ In this case, conviction is t: sed on the foiiowinq grounds: i) the accused had a thong motive to commit the crime i.e. the accused was regui riy asking his father to transfer the agricui‘i‘umi ianci in his name and for that ourpose he used to secrhei with his fath r'; and immedia‘teiv after ‘i‘ e commission of crime, the accused was seen by 5urencirc Kumcr i W-7) running awey from his house and he was caught with the we can of offence, axe in front of the Tehsii buiiding. As for as the first circum tance is concerned, Surendra Kumar (PW—7}, who was i‘he iond icrd' of deceased feioi, has stated in his evidence that on the fatesui soy ct about 1C) am. he ent to his fieid, from there he returned cit (w W) \\ (W W) i o biood. Thereaffer, he wem' 1'o we “aw fha‘? Gofew was lyisng fkx‘r in ’rhe p001 af Poiite Sfafion and iodged fhz repor? (ExP—3- 1 é) Surzndm Kumar‘ (PW—Y) has fJm‘her smfed in his evidence we? The Pohce ‘ \ séized fhe weapen oi: offence axe w‘ainw wif’n bioad in his garzsance under Ex?- sfaiea‘ ‘i’hm‘ "rhe accuseci used "To quarrel wif’n fmher should fransfer The iand in‘his mme, fciher, sisier 0f fhe accused wiH demand inf, fhe accuses came in fhz house cf the ‘r‘nm‘ fhe accused is quarreiing wii‘h him for he wiii Transfer ir‘ne Sand in The name aiF the PW—7 ae‘vised Gofeiai ‘io iransfer’ same iand. rh i1is faiher a’r abaui' 1.30 pm, He etivised ”reling wii‘h him, men he shaeid 3e and iedge ~ea‘fier, PW-7 saw fine accused running away carrying axe in his ’nand and Tine axe & cio‘iiies of the accused were sfeined wiih . ' . - - \ . i Ibiaod. 'i'he Faisce arresi'ed ihe accused in his presence. En cross—examina'iion aiso, finis wi’rness (PW—7) has siafed 'i'he same ihing and said fiiai‘ eofeiai came and infermed him iha’i his son is cuarreli‘ng wiih him and asking him ie iransfer i'he iand in his name Inadveri'eniiy PW-7 has been marked 'i‘wiceg i‘i‘ier‘efore, 'ii’se wi‘inesses are record. Munjedas {PW-7,), brm‘her sf ihe d, has aiso sfai‘ed in his evidence i'ha'i ‘i'i'iere in ‘ihe name 0f his brofher Qafeiai and the accused used i-a ask Gafeisi +0 Teansfer ihai' iand in his name and he used fa (die W) 4 in para 4 of his evidence he has his i‘afher on fine gmund fim? his aiher'wise;a§fef ‘i‘he deafh of his simr‘e. On i'ha day cfi ihe imidx deceaézd. 6aféiéi informed him i§ansfar of his iarid in hi$ name, if acwsari, fhan he wii! sell fhe same. He saw ‘rhe accuse& quarreiing wi‘ 5efeia! Tim? if The accaiiad is qua repor‘r in fhe Poiice Sfa'ricn The u f being referred as marked in in: deceased and uncie of ‘i'ine accuse was a iand cf absu‘i 10—12 acres (W W) u ax weni i0 ihe house of Eofeiai and . XI—HC-22 5 man ‘ mm mmmm Sf/ WW%’WW WW W ' §;3T%1¢311%¥T abouf 1 pm. and he saw ThaT Tina u ‘cuxd wu; 1 ‘uzmhuj away frcr; H: hcuse. He XI—HC—22 EW,WW,W ( mm Wm "nun“..n.“ W mammm w é V WW§WW éawm quarral wrm vo‘raim. ror The bur; deceassd used 3‘0 purchase cm‘f3e disawk regarding fhz land ccm‘mx. fivaa? he, Mi! Wansfer ’{he Mnd in ‘ osa o? agricuh'um! ac‘l‘wri'azs as and when f’aa #he accused usad m 5e}? ?§'iase caf’rk, Trig ea' 1‘ar‘ 2-4 year‘s. The fieceased used ’ro SW fha name 91‘ his grandscn and he wm n94: transfer én ”Hm name cf ‘rhe accused. “he accused was no? doing (my work and he dsed 1"o fake money from his “fm‘h ‘ é!” fraquznfly, fha‘r is w‘ny i’he deceaémd was mg‘x wifh fhe accused. AT 'i‘he Tine of i‘he incidenf, €he awused was residmg in \iiiiaae: Mad§mr. f PW—7 Surendra Kumar‘, iandbrc of the y ‘Fne evidence cf PW~7 Wianjedas, brc?her of :cused. Bafh of fhem ‘mve sTai-ec: in ”their quarre! wi'r’n ?%e deceased on fhe ground E‘ha‘f iand in his name. In cross—examim’fion cf a? keen. nhie Te el§cif may circumsMnc-e, whieh esses unreiiabie and unims‘fwerfhy. ?W-7 [causes and $‘ye had no reason #0 im9£ica'}‘e his \ PWJ' Sureradm Kumar, ofher wifness, is an e ‘i'i‘ie deceased used i‘o iive and for 'him aisa in ?he ice cf fhese fwo wifnesses, i'ne moi‘ive OT " me D a accused had a swans: moi-ive i’o cemmi‘t The crime in quesiien for “me reeson iiiaa‘ he used ‘ro ask i'he deceased ic Transfer ihe icnd in his name! bm‘ fine deceases never obiiqed him. On ihe day cf The inciden? cisc, 'fhe accused quarreii ?W-7 Surendrc KLgmar‘ inc”? 'Fne a:cused was quarreiiing wi‘i‘h him. Surendm (aid W) T‘nerz‘fcre, ?h£ evidgncz c demaéed, has beéa corroborafed E: The ciaceasad and uacie of fhe m evia’eme fhaf f‘ne accused used 1'6 ¢ The dgceased shouid 'S‘ransfer f‘ne‘ . M.) MMess‘es, dafance Pics n makw fhe eweience of ”mesa Wm Munjedas is fhe reai uncEe bf ‘i‘he t :3 ! nephaw in a fake case Simuamy, imiabenéen? wé‘Mess m whose hous ‘rher‘e was na reascn 4:9 impiica‘. c’ircumsfances, in View of 'I‘he evider accused sfcnds esmbiished ‘¥ha+ fn ....-. -— a ‘e the aceusee in a ‘a‘aise -ese. ed wifh his fai'her. The deceased infcrmed (WW) 3s XI—HC—22 mm,m W ,W m y mm.é.2uu..un. .. ‘ Qa W own“... mmmm Q}: Kumar advised 14w deceasad 1'0 go ‘ circumswrxces, we are 0f fhe cmns mofive ‘i'a comm? he crime in ques As far as fhe secanc‘ circum in his gvidence '§*‘nm‘ wher! he re‘hir' m reside as a Tenant has cafegoricaib/ skated ' grid in§ormed him ihcn‘ fhe accus Wansfe} fhaiand, O‘n whkh he adv: e, h‘z forest Cczrryin§ axe in his hand, e ‘ bised. He reported The ma‘H'er i: j Awasihi (?W-é), who was fhe Coes‘ avidence fiacw Surandra Kumar‘ cc $amu Kumar has commi? mwaws fhe fores‘r carrying axe wen‘? *i'owar'ds f'he forest fhey sa; fcwards The fares? and he was cc aviégnce. m‘ surendm Kumar‘, whc carrymg axe in his hand whia’n has t Awas‘ri’li who abng wh‘h Surendra § 'Y‘ 4 ‘rving fine axe in 'nis hand siained wi‘ii': biood sf crime and befere ihai‘, ihe accu'sed was house, as such, ii is es‘ra‘oiished iha‘i ihe 0% W) WW§WW %31%H311%3T x‘e ‘rha Po§ica Affer same ?im 4 a“: San? m u a ff.ce mrmymg; ma axe, .ne accused, ‘J-he accused was seen cat $mmedia‘iay arm" ’ J.Jw ccmmissien quarreiiing wii'h. his faiher in i'iis and repor? fhe maf‘rer fe The Poke. In We iciered opinion fha? f‘ne accused had a sw‘ong #ion. s'ranca is cancermd, Surendm Kumur' CNN-7}, ‘ 5r: whose hcuse 'rhe deceased used v wed from The fidd; ‘fhe deceased name To him ad is quarreiing wifh him and askmg him fa sed i'iae deceased To go arid reper? The ma‘H‘er saw “ihe accused running away ‘i'owerds iee “rye cieihes of ihe accused were s‘rained wi‘ih i #he Poiice‘ As ear fine evidence cf Saniosh ‘abie in Polite Sim-ion: 5i‘mga, has siaieci in his me 'i‘o i‘he Peiice Sim-ice and infarmed ‘i'ha‘i red The murder of his faiher and ran away n his Emma en which he aicng im h Sryamim i 'i'i‘ie accused in from of Tehsii ffice gising .rrying axe sfainea‘ wiih bioodi T‘ney caughi i‘ioid of him and‘ brough‘i him is i‘ie Poiice Sie‘iion. \ Therefore, in View cf The sew ihe accused going icwards ihe feresir eeh wrrcbcraiea’ by ihe evieence e'f Semes‘n Zumar imze caugh‘i ‘i‘ne accuseé in fram‘" 0‘? i‘he * axe in quesiion was Giss reeevereu ,ruvr ‘i‘i inkyx XI-HC-22 01%W) y¥y 0;? g9 W