.<» ^^^- ^' \Vi^i No.^ <^3 t Fafber's Name. APPEAL PmSONER Name. ^>yn' -3^^ ^" yn'^ ^^_r ^^. R.^dem-^'W^ ^?1 •::nd J Age '-.-; £& f^_' ^---" -'~- ^ ~^IZ-'ISZ'L-. _^^'^"^/'/'^/•v-^ ^<^^¥^^Q Sentenced to._@@^®-^A^T^?" on. ^'/l«^S_ Uader Section _ c3^2-_^f^SiJ^by ^r/B <F^?2?^.^^ €€€ X %^ 4T^€^Pf^ It isexplained to the prisoner that if he statesor wishe^tfo^be represented by ,a legal practitioner tfae Appeltate Court will not proceed with the base for sevendays unless the legal practitioner appears If the legal practitioner does not appear within seven days he may be beard at all if legal practitioner the court may proceed at once with the case and will not be obliged to give a bearing to any legal practitioner who shpuld appear, 1 - , Date of application for copy of Judgement :- ^o . 2. Date of which eopy received :- Q ./2- • ^€ 3. Date on which appeal sent :- ^ 9^ 4, Whether the prisoaer wished to be represented or not :- _ VTes / Nb. ^r Q^^r^'r No.__^lL Continued in _Name ^^7: f^Tyf^ Jail ^rpT^c^f ^ No.^ZS ^!^ST€T-/ Dated ^i A^ - ^ Forwarded to the CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE_^I£^3^- tegether \vith a copy of Judgement or order passed in the <|ase for favour itansmission to the proper Applleate Court Su perinteri Dste ofrcceipt in C. J. M. Office. Date of receipt of record to accompany. Memo of Appeal of the Appellate Court. N^rl@___.__ dated ^. h^ Q@^i~ tTSub-^ail. '! M-^. Forwaided to the^^J^_^____^_^^ W«*^ir^& 'ymf^f'^ { ^vf \ G; ~"~~^y''"v< ? t</ <v "'t/ >^ t^)f^ Q-f^ G. R. MAGISTRATE D&te Bfreceipt iri Applieaie Court_ ^ XI-MC-78 3TT^T ^)T f^TfcF cT§TT3TT^T5b^|ch ^-•<p. h^ ^ k 3'ST "4NI<rl<4, «>Tf1^^1<S, fs)<-ll^^< ® ^II^MI 9h^|ch ^ 200 311^1 M^ch (lcl^ds<^,)ST) ^TTW^cT^TT^T APPELLANTS 1. SodiGait Age - 21 lUirami Ase - 5Q Both resl Baslar) 3. MaclKanili Age. - 3^ Gadiras^ I i|iga, S/o Hidma Muriya 4Jeva, ^/o Joga Mimya years Idents ofpordem Thana, Gadiras (Districf RESPONDENT State o: Gadiras DJ5, .14-3-2907 goB'Die Mr< L-C^Btia<loo_and HO!II> ble Mr. Dhis*el Sim R.K, Jam, Advocate fofi Shri Ashish Shukla, Govt. j^dvo ArgameBts heard. Oraljudgjnent dictated on ^ais. •.Fer_l..i;.Bliac!oo, J. Crimmal Appeal No,i279/| Crirnm.al AppealNo. 1280/1997 f|: Crimmal Appeal No. 1281/1997 fi| disposed of by this common jucj iiTipa.gned judgiiiexit dated 4"! The accuBed/appellaiits h|i legali-ty aiid correctness ofthejudi; chl^F<yl41-l Hl^clT^te^t^T^K ^3T^T[3TT^T •t=?s years. -\^ i D^a, S/o Bhima Muriya years, R/o Gufcdi, Dokapara, Thana - (District Bastar) M.P. Versus. , Madhya Pradesh, through Police Sta[i (Dist*-ictBask2r)M.P. iclra Mi.shra..JJ. 3Jr the appellant. .pLcn^ocaie tor me responaeirt/^tate. QKAI^^JlID^MEIiT i997 filed by accused/appeliaiit Kiirami peva; |!ed by accused/appellaiit Madkami Devtx aiid led by accused/appellaiit Sodi Ganga are Igment as all the tiiree appeals, arise cjut of 1996. Decelmber ive prefbrred these appeals questionm^ the lipient of conviction and order ofsenfence[datcd 4th December 1996 passed by 4ie 1st Additioiial Sessioiis Judge, Jag4ilpur, P.T.Ol. icn Demg XI-HC-78 W^T^T^TW cW3TT^T$h^|ch 3^T "4NIC1<4, «iTn'y41<o, fGjctl'H^< © tll+f^TT 9b+1ich ^ 200 ^TT^? (^f^^) ^RTT^K^fN^T^T Dismct Bastar, in Sessions Triap Sessions Judge alter holding th^ offence under Section 302/34 oft.l t.o uiidergo impisonment for life. S|i1 Case ot tiie prosecution, Kolii'ami Naiida gave merg mtirn|atioii 16.6.1995 at about 6.30 a.m. to tlt iie aiong witii momer ancl tather v| aboiit 11.30 p.m.Sodi Ganga, Ki| Sodi Ganga shot an arrow with a ihereafter, they ran away. He alo^ were mmimg away ana witiim mjuries sustained by him. Recej registei-ed the F.I.R. (Ex.P/1) for| lefi for the. scene of QCCuiTence 4" prepared the mquest ^fEx,P/5. postmortem examination to Prim.1 Dr. Aldiileshwar Uraon (PW-.J postmortem report (Ex.P/11) m result of shock, haemorrha.ge md| na'ti^re. While m police custo| (Ex.P/7); pursuant to that a bow| arrow was ta.Ken into possession with blood was seized under Ex.B sheet wa.s filed in the Court of Ju^ committed the case to the Se| Addmona! Sessions Judge, Jagdal chi^?^i41Ti ^i^<nT^:tet:^<Ri<-<ii< ^3Tf^T3TT^T No. 325/95 whereby the learned Additional accusecVappeilants guilty for coniEimssion of .e IPC, seiitenced each ofthe accuscd/appeUants brief, is that Koiii'ami Himga (PW-l),! (Ex.P/2) m the Poiice Station Gac|; ^e eftect that yesterday Tiight after takmd ?cm sleq)mg m thc courtyard oftlieir ho1ji i|ira.mi Deva; Madkami Deva ca.me toget) |bow, which hit on the stoma.ch ofhis fatl bg with liis motjie-r ideiitified thosc 15 to 10 mmutes his father succumbedl (vmg tiiis repoit. ^.i-i.U. Foiice ^tation Ithe offeiice under Section 302/34 of th^ |rid alt.er giving notice (Ex.P/3) to the Body of deceased Kmami Naiida was |iry Health Center, Gadiras under Ex.P/^ 1-) conducted postmortsm and prepaiji ^vhich he opmsd that cause of death ^ cardia.c faihire and the death was homit »|:iy, a.ccusea ^oai Uanga .gave memo^ was taken into possession under Ex,Pt limder Ex.P/10. A vest of the • deceased | ^9. After completion ofthe iin7estigatior^ (|ticial Nlagistrate First Class, Sukpia who| ^siom Judge-, Jagelalpur from. wtiere bur received the ca.se on traiisfer for trialj P.T.O son of Ga4i3'as on diimer iise. At lier and licr and ers^ns who to the Oacfaas I.P.C., P|mchas, ^ent tor wliere id the ia.s as a. .bidal m famlmn |S. ATI Ista.med charge mtum.. ieamea XI-HC-78 W^T^Tf^ri^) cT^TT 3TR?T ^TT^ ^ 3^[ ^lt^H<4, ^Tft^^Ko, t^<ni^^< ^l^ldl a^qicb ^ 200 311^1 M^ch (idi'isi^) ^R1T^K^N3TT^T chNTd^l^ ^I^^T^f^ti^l^K ^3:rf^R'3TT^T Prosecution m order to e^tt.ablish the charge agamst the accused J.. exammect t^e wiinesses. ^tatemd' Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. •m wj agamst them in the prosecution ^ have been falsefy implicated m the] ^ersons Imider nts ofthe accused persons were recorde^ iiich they denied the circumstances ap^eariiig ^vidence arid sta-ted tha.t thev are imioctot and cnme. Leamed Additiona! Sessiofl parties comdcted aiid sentenced th^ We have heard leamed coul: Mi. R.K. Jain, leani^d coit this . case tiie prosecution has prd^ Ilimga, son of tfae deceased aiid| showing them eyewitnesses but fi^ tiiii.e ofcommission ofthe crime; t( hearing the cries of deceased Nt accused persons commrttmg the cri) On the offi.er hand, Mr. As3 Statc supported the mipu^iedjudg? s Judgc aft€Thearmg Qoimscl fbr the rcs^ective accused as aforemesirioned. isel fbr the parties. .nsel for the accused/a.ppellants argnsd tthat. m duced two witnesses namely PW-1 KJJ: PW-2 Kutoami Pise. wife of the'de^ om thcir evidence it is established thatl |iey were sleqping and th.ey woke up oni^ afier |inda, therefore, they had not wimess^d thc |ne m qucstion. lish Shukia leamed coi^lei appearmg nent ofthe trial Couil. ilis'ami .eased, at the or me lii order to appreciate the aji'gument aelwinced by leamed couiisel ^31- the tfae evidence ofPW-1 Kuhxami liun^a and |.e only two witncsses on whose e^den^e the accuseO/appellaiit we have pemsec] PW-2 Kiihrami Pise as tiiese are •tl] ^omdction ofthe accused persons h|is been based. It ig admitted fact that the t3Hence was comiiiitt&d m tfae niglit at 11JO p.m. PW"1 Kzihrami Hungal son of me deceased. has 'st^t^ri tl^t h P.T.' Mvas D. a.bout XI-HC-78 3:[T^T^Tf^{f^ cW3^T5h^ich '-- 4 'tf. 3^r ;:?TFn^ra', i$T{1<H<i<o, fsf^iy^< tTTH^n Sh^tich ^ 200 311^1 ^sich ('i,c<^6<^) ^cTTW^rfN'W^T sieepmg at otlier piace., wtiere^ lujlirami Deva, Mudk.ami Deva ai^d had quarreled with his father in| arrow. In paragraph 4 of his cro^ arrow was shot at his father he wat tliat ii.e li.as iiot seen tiie acoustK accused Gaiiga shot aii arrow. stated that there was a dispute b^t aCTicultaral fleid. Accused Ma4k< between his father and accused mcideiit. He ha.s further sta.ted tlk shot, they were sleeping snd on h4 is also correct to say.that tht from behiild while tii.ey were deceased, has stated that arrow stomach ofher husband. In the c|i seen me accused siiootmg arrow| from a dista.nce of about 300 cojiirmssion ol tlie cnme Iier N slce.pmg on the gi'Otmd. Ganga c-ame to l&is -house m the niglit, as they the eveniiig and they shot his father with a.n ls"exammation this witness has stated that when ^ sle-epmg m aiiother rooin. It is in.coiTe^t t-o .say |d shootmM arrow. He himself adniitted that l^i para^aph 5 of his cross<"examma.tioii| ;tween acoused Ganga' and his fa.ther r^gardmg Therefore, from the evidk decea^ed Kuhrami Nanda. was sle^ sleepmg on the gyound, his son if room and "Ihey woke up only aftei] being shot by a.ccused persons sta'ted the incideiit occim'ed at th^ behmd wiien they. were romiiiy chi^?^i41Ti wraY £fte^t <r3i<-cii< ^3Tf^T3TT^?T s his tather was sleepmg at Bnothe^ "picice. ^ami De\^a is of village Gum.a.di, Uie he has quarrei |Gmga took place a week before the |date of t.at it is correct to say that when the arrpw was tariiig the screain.s ofhis fa.ther they wokt^ up. It ^- arrow was shot they saw the accused ^ersons n4iiiifig a.way. PW-2 Kuhrami Pise, wil^ of the w|a.s shot by accused SodiGanga which h^ on tlie cli'oss-examm.ation she has stated that sheliias iiot but she saw the accused persons from| behind p. while they were mimmg. At the "(ime of ^sbaiid was. sleeping on the cot and spie was yrse fcnce of above two wilnesses it is cl^ ^pmg 011 a cot, his wif^ PW-2 Kxihrami pW-1 Kruhrami Hmiiga was sleepmg m hearmg th.e cries raised by deceased N^ Ni arrow. These witnesscs ha-vG cate^bricalb' mid iiiglit, they sa.w the accused persofis from away and PW-2 has stated that she ^aw- the Niti P.T. ;ar tliat was aiiother mda on D. XI-HC-78 3TI^T oFT f^IW cTSTTW^T^TT0^ ^ t ^ ^ ^K TaET ^|q|<viq^ ^Tf1^-i|(o, [GI<^I^^< +1I+1<<1I Sh^lich H^ 200 3i1^1 4^ ch ( llc<^61^) ^cTT^K^rfNw^T mimttmg the crime i?i c|uestion. Orily a accused persons fi-om a dista4< therefore, it was difficult for the|ii to identif^/ the accused persons m the 2) too from bdiind when they werej roiin-mg away and these. persons, m fa.ct.J witnessecl me accusecl persons ^ i^covereci at tiie mstance ot accUsed pierced m the stom.ach of the| evidence also to comiect the the a.ccused/appellaiits can not ^ of above n¥owitnesses. Thcilt susta.med. ac^usecl persons witii tlie cnme m questio^ neia guiity only on tlie basis ot wcaK lore, tiie jucl@iient ot tiis triai Couil ( chi^Ioix41-i wrdY ^f te^ <^i^cii< ^3Tf^T3TT^T •e of 300 ft. when they were rann.ing away, igiit, that have not Dow was sed Sodi Ganga a.nd m fact, the aiYow was found deceased, therefore, there is no c.ircumstantial as sucii eviclence a.miot be Ippeal No. 1279/1997 filed by aocused/appellant al No. 12SO/1997 filed by accused'appellant are aliowed. Comdction an.d ser&te-ncel se.t aside and they are acquitted of tl-j Bi the result, Crimmal ^ Kfarami Deva, Crimmal App^al Madkami Deva aad Crimma! 2s|ppeal No. 1281/1997 filed by accused/ Socli G-anga, succeecl, the same| upon the accused/appeUants ar^ under Section 302/34 of the IP(t detention smce 19.6.1995, thef required iji any other case. g^ 'J Dhirendra Mishra L.C, Bhadoo | Jud8e Judge appeliaiit imposed ic cliarge . The accused persons are said to hav^ been m 'efore, they be set at libeitv7 foilhwit i, il not P.T.0.