^ '%"%06Y598 APP6AI. PRISONER G-ft ^13^^^- ^TTRc. ^?^<?r No._ ^s^s Name_ ~<=?C?f<?f/^f> Oivision Bench (Criminsl) Father's Name_ Age__^3_ ^331 s. - Resident^S_^Sll3S-^ ~s.B<So^^:7_afc^^S^^^ Under Section3e2^o/_^f_^ by ^ Al sl^' 3 ^^llpj^v „^.. Tt is explained to the prisoner that if he states or wishes to be represented by a legal practitioner the Appellate Court will not proceed with the base for seven days unless the legal practitioner appears If the legal practitioner does not ^pear within seven days he may be beard atall if legal practitioner the court ly proceed at once with the case and will not be obiiged togive a bearing to :any legal practitioner who should appear. a '^1. l)ate of applicationfbr copy of Judgement:- ^'0 2. Date of which copy received :- f^ t ^ <.?6 3. Date onwhichappeal sent :- -^j^_, ^ ^ (f(a 4. Whether the prisoaer wished to be represented or not :- Tr?>3. No._ Contirtued in .Name ^TC'^r^" -^Tf^r- Jail^^^^l ^ Yes'/J>for- BSL G^^^^^t -^. No. 444 / ^r^^^r Dated ^-'i-— //o / 9^ / . '______'______. —^^' Forwarded to the CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE. tegether with a copy of Judgement or order passed in th^case for favour of lansmission to the proper Applleate Court- Su perintend^li^f^r^^DW / Sub-JaiI. Date of rcceipt in C. J. M. OflSce. ^ . j,^ ^ ^, Date of receipt of record to accompany. Memo of Appeal of the Appellate Court< No. 2-C_iAL_.. dated__l^lL3Ji Forwaided to the_^'lfi- ^e^'h^.. •J£(,4t<—'^t<~" e.R.MAGtSTRATE. •A '-^ y-h-^... ^PK ^??3^"%ff^T?S%! 6f recespi in A^' XI-HC-22 W^T^H" ^TN)3TI^T $h^lcb^rf?cf ^W^) 3^T •^1 l-41c1'4, ^Tflyjl<S, (c|crfl^^< 3TT^T Vf^^ ^-.CK;. ^l^c^tl sh^llch ' (2-^ ^ 200l^ [d-b^ 3TI^^T^-cTT^K^T^T ^ff^ &ivision Bench : Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo 1& Hon'ble Shri V.K. Shnvas+ava. JJ 25-09-2006 Shri R.K< Jain, Advo^ appeltant. Shri U.N.S. beo, Adjditional Chandel, Panel Lawyer for t^ie Oral judgment dicta-t|ed Per L.C. Bhadoo. J. This appeal is direct^d order of sentence dated Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur) tearned Additional accused/q)pellant guilty f4r 302 <& 201 of the Indian imprisonment for life anc| respectively. The sentence^; <=bi^?<ri<'fl-i Tnn^ff ^ te^ <Ri^<.i< ^3Tf^T3TI^T ;ate with Smt. Kiran Jain, counsel for the Public Prosecutor with Shri U.K.S. State. on Dais. ^.d against the judgment of conviction and 1-10-1996 passed by First Additional in Sessions Trial No. 296/1995 iwhereby Judge after holdir;ig the Sejssions :4r commission of offence under Penal Code and sentenced him to Sections undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years ^ are directed to run concurrently. (4^^) XI-HC-22 3:n^T^)T RFTW^T^T $h^l<=b^f?cT $h^l<=b 3^T ^I^Id^, ^Tn<-IJI<o, f^^ll^^< STT^Tq^ W[ 200 ^IH^II ^*<|ch ^t)Q& 3TI^T ^cTTW ^cT ...'l-- <=hl^?<vl41-l WT^ff ^T fe^ <r^<-<l< ^^rf^T3TT^T Th©case of the pro^ecution, in brief, is that on 6-8-B1995 deceased Manglu Ram went fo village Bandhpara to attend the iast rituals in the house of his neDhew Bandhuram. On 3-8-1995 at about 4.00 p.m. he left for his yillag therefore, he took sheiter ir| time the deceased was wearid ear rings of brass. The accu] when Manglu Ram was sleepin^ at about 11.00 in the night, he gagged a c!oth in his mouth, there^fter, assaulted him with a ston:e and pressed the neck and thereb deep. Thereafter the pit wa^ The Police, doubting ^ on 15-8-1995 he gave informc) e, however, on the way the rain started, the house of accused Dalsai. At that |g one golden chain, one braceiet and two ^ed Dalsai in order to take those |items, f committed his murder. The dead body was buried in the kitchen gar|den after digging a pit upto three feet filled with sand. When AAdnglu Ram did not return to his house, Asn^an Netam, son of the deceascd, lodged missing report on 13-8-1995* ie accused to be a thief, on 14-8-1995, recovered from him an amoun^ of Rs<2650/-. During the investi^ation tion to the Police that af-ter committing murder of A^anglu RQm, he h|ad buried his dead body in his kitchen garden; golden chain was solc| to Suresh of Keshka!, and the receipt 1 which was written by the acc|jsed in favour of Suresh was also taken (^^) XI-HC-22 ^TT^T^T f^TWW^T $hHich^rf?cT 3^T ^iqid^, ^Tn^41(o, fc«-<l^^< 3TT^TlT5ra7 *<IH^I ^+<icb f^re^ 3TI^T ^FcTT^R: ^f?cf 1 <=hl^fcrl41T1 TTFT^rf ^ te^t <^1^« ^3Tf^q'3T1^T into possession. The body of M|3nglu Ram was exhumed at the instance of the accused from his kitche^s garden. The stone was also recovered at the instance of the accuse<|. Panchnama of the body vide Ex-P/1 was prepared in the presence o^f the Executive Magistrate. A lump of goid which was made by metting was given by the accused ir possession vide Ex-P/2. The bi Heafth Center, Pharsagaon, wh J.K. Chourey and he prepared notes which were collected recovered from the accused ur bamboo stick were taken into soil and plain soil were taken ii the golden chain oind the receipt which favour of Suresh were taken into ^dy of Manglu Ram was sent to Prirnary ^re postmortem was conducted b^ br. |the postmortem rcport, The currjency ^ifter selling the golden chain were Ider Ex-P/3. The stone and the broken lossession under Ex-P/4. Blood stained ^to possession under Ex-P/5, from the phce where body of the dece4sed was buried. The spade which was used for filling the sand into l|he pit was taken into possession under Ex-P/6. The memorandum stafement given by the accused regarding the place of dead body was rec^rded vide Ex-P/7. The missing report given by Asman Netam was en|'ered in the rojnamcha sanha on 13-8- 1995 vide Ex-P/12. Merg inti|nation regarding the death of AAanglu Kam was given by the Assis^ant Sub Inspector, Pharasgaon vide Ex-P/13, based on that First I^formation Report was registered under (^^fe^) XI-HC-22 ^Ti^T^T f^t^3TT^T 5h^icb^rficT $h^lcb 3^T ^I^IKrl^, ^T[i^JI(o, ?c«-11^^< OT^rq^ 11 )Q>J ^3 ^l^c-ll $h^|ch -----•--•-414 ^- 200 Ex-P/15. Dehati Nalshi (Ex-P/j Officer, R.S. Sharma. After competition of ir| the Court of learned Judicial ^ turn committed the case to where learned Additionai transfer for trial. The prosecution in on accused examined ten witness^ accused was recorded under j denied the materiai appearing and stated that he is innocenl <=bi^f<n41ri HTrof ^ te^ <f^<-cii< ^3:rf^T3TI^T ^4) was recorded by the Station House ^vestigation, charge-sheet was fited in ^agistrate First Ciass, Jagdatpur, who in the Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, from S^ssions Judge received the case on ^dler to establish charge against the [s. On the other hand, statement of the ^ection 313 of the CrP.C^ in which he |igainst him in the prosecution evifctence and has been falsely implicated the Pubtic Prosecutor and counsel f<^r the ced the accused as mentioned cnme. LeGrned Additional ^ssions Judge, after hearing arguments of the Additional accused, convicted and senterj one of this judgment. We have heard teGrned 4 The fact of homicidGl disputed by the counsel f^i Dr. J.K. Chourey (PW-8) who n the para :ounsel for the parties. death of Manglu Ram has not r the appeilant. Apart from ;onducted the postmortem on th^ body been that (^^f^) XI-HC-22 3T^T^T ^i^hW^T ^TW^rfN' 'S^ ^WM^, ^W\<o, [^v\W^( W 4^^ c > ^ HT^(^IT$h^|ch iz 1Q,) Q> > ^ 200 f^s 3Ti^T ^FcfTW €f?cf <=bl^?<yl41T1 WT^ff Tf fec^- <Rr|^|< ^^ri^T3T(^T of the deceased opined that due to throttling. The death |Aangiu Ram died on account of asphyxia was homicidai in nature. Therefdre, on the basis of the medicai evic[ence it is established that Manglu Ram metwith homicidal death. As far as the involvem^nt of the accused/appellant in 1+i€|crime in question is concerned, lea^ned counsel for the accused/appellant argued in the first instance t|iat, as per the prosecution case murder was committed on 8-8-1995 ^vhereas the dead body was exhumed on 17-8-1995; therefore, in vie^ of the above time gap, the body was decomposed and the same second argument was that as Police came to know about tl IA/OS not in identifiable condition. The per the merg intimation (Ex°P/13), the ^e place where the body was buned, on 15-8-1995; and the same vu|as said to be exhumed on 17-8-1995, therefore, it cannot be said -fhat the body was exhumed from a place which was made known by the|accused vide Ex-P/7 dated 16M-8-1995. On the other hand, leaifned counsel for the State supporfed the Judgment of ieamed triat Cou^t. (<f^^) XI-HC-22 W^ToFT f^TTO3T1^T Sh^i<=h^rfN' Sh^lch 3^T -qiqicriq, ^Tfl^^Ko, f^<-ll^^< arr^r Cy 451 Ch /\ <1 I^^IT $h+<|ch }Z\<\) Q» ^ 200 f^s 3TT^T ^cnW ^f^T -4 CQU Having heard leame<^1 judgment of the trial Court record. Coming to the first ^ identifiable condition, the pr (PW-1) has stated that the c from the kitchen garden of witness has not been cross-e Manglu Ram, Ramlal (PW-2 Netam (PW-5), son of the de Tiburam, Nayab Tehsildar (P^ (PW-10), have categorically st the dead body of Manglu Ram been cross-examined by the was not identifiable. Moreove not show that the body was ir account of that it was not postmortem report shows tha was loose all over the body, e\ neck and other parts of the <=bi^f<yi41-i w^ ^* tecst <Ri^i< ^^Tf^T^TT^T ,nsel :or the parties, we have examined the as well as the evidence available on toint that the dead body was not in •osecution witness namely Mahanguram lead body of AAanglu Ram was exhumed the accused at his instance, but this xamined. Regarding -rfie dead bo|dy of '), Bandhuram Korram (PW-3), Ashmoin =eased, Sukhlal (PW-6), Bandhu (PM/-7), [ f-9), R-S. Sharma, Investigating Officer rt-ed that at 1+ie inslwice of the cic|cused was exhumed. These witnesses ha^e not Jefence counsei on the point that body r, the postmortem report (Ex-P/8) does i advance stage of decomposition and on identifiable. ftQther, the perusal of t the body was in swollen condition, skin ren the injuries which were found on the body were identifiable that there was :u (^^fN^) XI-HC-22 3^T ^l^lol^, ^Tfl^l^, Rlcni^^< 311^1 <^5ich ^l^c^l ^^lcb --"-•-•-----^ 200 W^T^T f^Tt^3TT^T ^Rt^^cT 3TT^T ^ffW ^rfgcT ") - redness around and over thel was brown colour bruise marl- 4>i^f<vi41-i w^ff^te^t<^i^i< ^3Tf^T3TI^T nose/abdomen was distended oind there present over the neck. Even the Doctor has not been cross-examinec| on the point that the body was|not in identifiable condition. Therefore, in view of the above, we are pf the considered opinion that the c^rgument advanced by learned counsel for the accused/appellant is de' evidence, on the record, giv^n by the number of witnesses that the body which was exhumed at Kam, even 1+ie clothes were a| Now, coming to the fo'[d of merit. There is a clear cogent the instance of accused was of Manglu so present on the body. question that whether the body was exhumed at the instance of the accused or not, it is an adi^itted position that the body was ^xhumed from the kitchen 9arden bf the accused. It is true that me| writing by R.S. Sharma, Inve^stigating Officer, on 15-8-1995 in it has been mentioned th<jit on enquiry during the investj9ation accused/ appelbnt disclosed Ram by gagging a cloth in his| r*g intimation (Ex-P/13) was reduced into that he committed the murder of Monglu which mouth, assaulted him with a stonel sitting on chest. Thercafter the memorandum (Ex-P/7) after dated 16-8-1995 was reduced into 4/riting by the same Investigating Officer i in the presence of six witn^s^s in which the place where the dead (^^f^) XI-HC-22 3:n^T^F)T RTlicb3^T $b^i<t) ^^ W<4c€TT$b*<|ch 3^T ^<1<IIQ1^, ^Tfl^Ko, ^lQll^iyi i^lq^^ ^ 200 fc|^ 3:n^rr s^ciTW ^rf?cf -f • body was buried by the pursuance of that the b< presence of Magjstrate. Th prepared. It has come in th] moved an application daj Magistrate for permission presence of Nayab Tehsi| Therefore, in view of the Investigating Officer was a| where the body was buried the body was exhumed at tl| sand of pit which was threej the accused, it was not pos^ filling the sand in pit, hadj conceal the dead body, Moreover, the place where garden of the accused. against the accused that af-| he buried the body of Man^ one bracelet of the acfcused apove deceasfcd <=bl^?<-l41^ WT^ff ^ fe^ ^I^K ^^rf^TW^T was a^Sh disclosed by himloind in |dy was exhumed on 17-8-1995 in the |s tnquest report of the body (Ex-P/1) was i^ evidence that the Investigatin9 Officer 1-ed 16-8-1995 before the Executive ^ exhume the body and thereafter in the Jdar Tiburam (PW-9), it was exhumed. evidence it can not be said that the |ready knowing in advance about the place iin the kitchen garden of the accu^ed, as [e instance of accused after removling the 1 feet deep. Without showing the place by |ble to locate the pit, as the accused after ploughed the surface of it, in orrder to wfiich is evident from Panchnama Ex-P/1. fhe dead body was buried was the l^itchen T[herefore, this is a strong circumstcince 1-er committ"in9 the murder of Manglu Ram, |lu Ram. Even pdr of brass ear rings and were recovered at the instancelof the (^^f^) XI-HC-22 ^IT^T^T RRW^TT^T $b^lchHf^cT padma ^ '\ ^' 3:ST "Ml<41(n<4, ^fil'H'Ko, ic|diy^< 3TT^T ^l^lch C-3- A- 1 ?- 1 c» ^-^- ^I^1C<1I $hHF^ ^ 200 [clOog^ 3TT^T ^cTTW: ^cf . ^- cbl^I<"l41r1 HTR^ff^ fe^t <fa^dl< ^3:rf^R"3TT^T accused and the same were id the test identification memo lentified before Tiburam (PW-9) as per Ex-P/11). (|Ex For the foregoing rea^ons, we are of the cpnsidered 'opinion that the prosecution has suc| Sections 302 and 201 of th^ to the test laid down by the sessfully established the offence under Indian Penal Code against the accused and the circumstcintial eviden^e adduced by the prosecution stood up Apex Court, for convicting the accused based on the circumstantial ejvidence. From the abovecircumstantial evidence, the only irresistibl^ conclusion that can be drawn against the author of the crime in question. illegality or infirmity in the judgrnent of the accused is that, he wa^ Therefore, we do not find an^ the trial Court. Accordingly, fhis appeal fails and is dismissed. Sd/.. L.C. Bhadoo Tudge Sd/- V.K. Shrivatava Judge (tf^^)