.0^„^, a'^n^-Y^ ?'l n -_:„,......»....—^\ . Kff-189/(Jail) ^.J.P.R. 11/94/2,000 f CF006bb5'973S" APPEAL OF PRISONER^ „ j tigh.Court cf Msohya JABALPUR. 27 rr^ ReceprClerk p?^^v....^ -- .SX^>,7 No.... 5.9.1.(...........—......."............Name...^g5fsrTR.. Father's name ...j^, ^g^..ynTf^^^^.^;..Ar^r.-.tr'TWI-S • Residence.^.|.r^§^Y-^^-..g..^0.5-0.1,.Age'..55.-?TP[---—-^--'-"--"-~ •••••—......... Sentenced to .3n-5ft-^:r.^q:.^^r^...^Q-|-o&g/-pn^.2.9^G^/9.8-- .—• ~ _ 9T&: TTTE' T' :ler sectio_n .502" HT'-OSf-Sf^O •••—••••••— by irT^sfl-^-..=^n-^ry^^.^^^-^..3^?:. ?^..T^T? ' s^ > .. . ^TuFfl-?--f^T7rMfmrnq:r wo^o^ It is explained to the prisoner that if he states or wishes to be represented by legal ^ practitioner the Appellate Xourt will not proceed with tte base for seven da^ unless -the legal practitioner appea^-s . If the legal~practi-ti~o-ner-does-n(jrappear within seven days he may not heard at all . Ifthe prisooer states that he does not wish to be repre- sented by legal practitioner the court may proceed at once with the case and will nct be obliged to give a hearing to any legal practitioner who should appear . 1 Date of Application for copy of Judgement ........ ... ...........................^. 2 Date on which copyreceived •••2^/|*Q/98----- -• ••• •• -......-........*... . ..... 3 Date on which Appeal seat ^5/i-Q/98. 4 Whether the prisoner wishes to be represented or not - Yes / No _^.____,_______ _, _ ^^ , • No....8.9-l--l-"-"-. ............................,.; Name ... 3^.5?T1:T. .KTS'ffyt..%ga..^g2'............... \ ^ f^finedm ...... ....^^t:^. ................. Jail .....H:Z{q:?'...S..T1.0-g:O..S. M^--^^ ./f>gf4/.98....- - Dated ...... ^.<J../1 0/199.a............ ................. Fo^/arded to the QlEBE=HJBd€iAfc=MA©iS?RA=¥g.^f.^1;U.srfttfT^T..0^3%; agt??T, Trr^^fl-^ ^c^ •?:zn-?rT?rir jroyo "T®?rq;^ togather which a copy of judgement or order pl^sed m the case for favour of^ trans- mission to the proper Appellate Court. ?^T^:- ^ ^^r ^ffr^-25/9lr ^t" , ' HfqrfTO ^lTf 1 y4-: S:upe© fe&iNte!ir ...^K^....^ailr.:URH.^ 'f?'- IM..AT' - ^ Date of receipt ia... ........ ..............j..;.office Date of receipt record to accompanythe ....... \ Memo of.Appeal to ihe Appellate court No Forwarded to the Dated ....................199. Date ofreceipt in Appellate Court "•'^'' ,/ ( P. T.0. XI-HC-78 sn^T^rfN^ "^TW ^. ^ 7S[ r^|Hld<LI, ^Tfl^^Ko, fc«rtl<iy qp^TTOTT^^^^^7^^: 200 341^1 <45l«k((ic'idsl<1^) ?^TT8tP:^fN3;T^T Diylsion Bench: Hon. Shri LC. Bhadoo & Hon. Shri Dhirendra Mishra. J chi<4ld41^ wpr^f ^ te^ <^^i< ^)3Tf^T^ST 21.2.2007: Shri R,K. Jain counsei fo^ Shri M.P.S. Bhatia panei The accused/appeiiant i^ dated 13.4.2004 he was directe the accused/appeilant. awyer for the respondent/State. in detention since 16.12.1996. Vide order |d to be reieased on baii but since he could not furnish the baii bond, he is ^till in detention. Therefore, v/ith the consent of the counsel appearing for res^ective parties the appeaj Is heard finaliy. (QRAL JUDl L.C. Shadoo. J: 2. rhis appeai is directed ag| iiVSENT DJCTATED ON DAIS) sentence dated 29.9.1998 pa'ss<j Sessions Trial No. 25/1997 wh^ guiity under Section 302 of the namely Bhuri Bai aiias Durpatib; for llfe and pay flne of Rs. 100< undergo Ri for six months. sinst the judgment of conviction and order of sd by Additiona! Sessions Judge, Janjglr in ^reby the accused/appeilant has been heid I iPC for commltting ^he murder of his wife - ^w .-:_: ai and sentencecjjto unciergo imprisonment )/-, in default of payment of fine to further 3. Case of the prosecution is| iodged a report in poiice station about 9 a.m. Darasmati Bai Yad Bhai) Umendram Kewat has com that on 15.12.1996 one Nammuram Kewat Pamgarh to the effect that on that day at av informed him that his cousin ( Moysera nitted the murder of his wlfe Shuri Bai aiias P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3TT^T^T1^TW r5b^l<=b '^" s' TocT^TPTT^PT, ^Tfl<rt41<o, fs(Crll<M^< +11*1^1 S!b*l«ch WRT 200 311^1 ^isich ('idi^sK^") ?^<TTafK^f5cT^n^T conlducted memoralndum Durpati Bai. On receiving this |r to the house of the accused arld the accused, was lying dead in| inquiry as to with which weapoit? accused/appeDant told him th^t receiving this report, the Statiort commsssion of the offence und< P-3 was given by Nammuram ^1 the scene of occurrence, prep^r Ex. P-5 to the Panchas he alias Durpati 8ai and prepare^l custody accused gave had kept the iron weight of 10 the lungi of the accused were stalned and plain soii was (Sandow Baniyan) of the ac< possession under Ex. P-10. Re\ Thereafter, body of Bhuri Bai examination to Primary Health D.C. Chaudhary (PW-6) conduc|ted of Bhuri Bai aiias Durpatibai an<| The doctor who conducted the of death of the deceased is sho|ck injury and multipie bone fracturs rscovered articles were sent fo| Laboratory. Sasar from where <=hi^?d41-i ^ii^dT^te^^^K ^)'3Tf^R'3:n^T iformation, he aiong with one Amritdas went saw that Bhuri Bai aiias Durpatibai. wife of |a room and blood was spreading nearby. On he has attacked Bhuri Bai alias Durpati Bai, \A he attacked her with an Iron weight. On House Officer registered the FIR Ex. P-2 for ^r section 302 of the IPC. Merg intimation Ex, l^ewat. Thereafter, investigating Officer ieft for (red site plan Ex. P-4 and after giving notice inquest on the dead body of Bhuri Bai inquest report Ex. P-6. While in police Ex. P-7 regarding the piace where he <g. and in pursuance thereof Iron weight and [taken into possession under Ex, P-8. Blood into possession under Ex. P"9. Vest ;used stained with blood was taken into fenue inspector prepared site plan Ex. P-11. |aiias Durpatibai was sent for post mortem ientre, Pamgarh under Ex. P-12 where Dr. the post mortem examination on the body submitted the post mortem report Ex. P-13. Ipost mortem examination opined that cause slck on account of severe haemorrhage, head and the death was homicidal in nature, The >[ chemical examination to Forensic Science Ireoort Ex. P-20 was received. Seroloaist's P.T.O. Nken s&3»-ii'3^.»^S'&S.«;-^ (^) XI-tiC-78 ^a^ ^|Hld<4, ^Tfl^4l<o, fsKrlKiy ^l^dl sb^ich ^ 200 341^114tl«b('iclt3s«<<ST) ^rn^T^T^rN) '$h^l<=h ^TTW^rf^TW^T chi^fd41Ti ^i^<nT^*tel:^t'<f^^i< ^3:ri^TW^T ^"k, 1-eport Ex. P-22 was also received| ;harge sheet was fiied against the a<|; Vlagistrate First Class, Janjgirwho in| Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, from wh^? lanjgir received the same on transfer| Prosecution in order to iccused/appeilant has examined ir| iccused/appeliant was also record^ ^iminai Procedure in which he deni^ |he prosecution case and pleaded hi^ ^ase, After hearing counsei for the| tonvicted and sentenced the After compietion of the investigation ;cused/appel!ant in the Court of Judicial turn committed the case to the Court of re learned Additional Sessions Judge, for triai. estabiish the charge agalnst the all 10 witnesses. Statement of the id under Section 313 of the Code of |d the matsrial appearing against him in innocence and faise implication In the respective parties the tria! Court has as mentioned above. accusecVappeiiant We have heard Shri R.K. Jain| ihri M.P.S. Bhatia learned Panel La^ nd perused the record ofthe triai Co^irt counse! for the accused/appellant and ^yer appearing for the respondent/State Counsei for the accused/appe] (eath of Shuri Bai alias Durpati bai ).C. Choudhary (PW-6) who conduct ^ody of Bhuri Bai alias Durpati Bai h< crush injury on the left side of her (one, maxillary bone, nasai bone, ^yebali was fractured v/hich wax exte tlant has not disputed the fact that the Ivas homicidal in nature, Moreover, Dr. t^d the post mortem examination on the 1s stated in his evidence that there was face in the size of 8 x 5 inch, frontal ttnandibie bone and the socket of the ihding upto ieft ear, there was injury on P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3^T ^i^id^, ^Tn<M4i<o, facii<-iy,< ^n^TT$b<41ch ^ 200 3ii^i Ma<*»('icii^s«^2;T) ^n^T^T^TT^ [.^ ^<TTW^f?cT3TI^T the right eye also. Right side cause of death was shock as a r death was homicidai in nature. Bai alias Durpati Bai was homicids ceihtral incisor tooth was dislocated and the Issult of haemorrhage and head injury and ThUs, it is established that the death of Bhuri in nature. 8. As far as the involvement question is concerned, there is present appeliant and the case evidence only. The circumstan^ accused/appellant are as under: 1 of the accused/appeilant in the crime in ho direct or ocular evidence against the <t»f the prosecution rests on circumstantial ^es leading to the involvement of the ('O just before the deatil inthehouse; (ii) accused/appetiant (iii) weapon of offence the instance of the Iron weight were fouhd 9. First circumstance: accused/appeilant has stated daughter-in-law and accused is the wedlock of the deceased anc( beat Bhuri Bai who on account months before the incldent and days prior to the incident, brother) in-iaw's house. Bhuri Bai stayed the accused that he would be^ <=ihl^F<n41v1 ^l^<rlT^:tel^t<Rl^dl< ^3T1^TT3TT^T accused and the deceased were together nlade extra judicial confession; |.e. iron weight of 10 kg, was recovered at feccused and lunQi of the accused and the stained with human biood. F?W tHiat fW-1 Sahodra Bai, mother of the Bhuri Bai alias Durpati Bai was her ler son. There were seven chiidren out of the accused. Accused used to harass and fear had aone to her parents' house two itayed there for a period of two months. 8 of Bhuri Bai came and ieft Bhuri Bai at her vith her for two nights as she was scared of rt her. She used to sleeo with her only. d>f r. P.T.O. XI-tlC-78 3^^TPT[^pr, ^TH'M^KO, facni^y *fT*^TT 8»*T1ch ^ 200 341^1 Msltb ('ic<^c«^s:T) ^T^T^T^Jcb '5b^|cb ?^TT^K^f?cT3TI^T cbi^td^-i ^i^<nT^teT:^'<Ri^<-i< ^3T^T3TT^T Thereafter, accused gave assuran^ and thus took his wife in his room. the household chorus and there^ ?e to her that he would not beat Bhuri Bai lln the mornina hours Bhuri Bai used to do er she did not see Bhuri Bai. in the morning children went to watch TV and she went to Rautpara to coiiect money in iieu of milk and when stl was cooking food but at that time | stated that when she was going to| food but when sheretumed she di| thereafter called her son and the the door of the room, door was c| were injuries on her face. Thereaft^ 10. PW-3 Nammuram has stats when he came after watchlng TV. ie returned, she again saw that Bhuri Sai accused was not there. She has further collect money she saw Bhuri Bai cooking i not see either her son or Bhuri Bai. She jaughter-m-'aw and when she went near osed aiaet-when she went inside pushing open the door, she saw that her (paughter-in-iaw was iying dead and there r, she came out and started raising cries. d that on the fateful day at about 9 a.m. one Darasmati Yadav informed him that his cousin (Mousera Bhai)\.e. the ^ccused, has committed murder of his wlfe Bhuri Bai. Thereafter, he a!ong| wlth Amritdas went to the house of Umendram and saw that Bhuri Bai| was iying dead in a room and blood was spreading nearby. In paragraph |4, he has stated that on inquiry by the viliagers, the accused stated that with iron weight. PW-7 Dina Dhobi Ihe has committed the murder of his wife Ihas stated that on the fatefu! day at about 9 a.m. mother of the accused Sauthadra Sai raised cries that Umsndram has committed the murder of his wif^. on which they went to the house of Umendram and saw that Bhuri Baj was lying dead and an iron weight of 10 kg was aiso lying there. PW-8 iVlok|helai has stated that mother of Umendram was cryins on which he went thei|e and inaulred as to who has committed ' P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^. 7S[ ^NKrtq, ^Tfl^Ko, [^crtKiy Nl^dl sh^lch ^ 200 311^1 M^I* (l^rf3^r) 3TT^T^)T^icn "^HW ^RTTW^cT^n^T 4)l^?d41^ ^l^dT^tel^'<fa^l< ^3T^T3Tlit?T ^' murder, on which she replied that went to the house of Umendram a|r dead. There were injuries on her A.G.P. he stated that Bhuri Bai w4; people came there. At that time, there was blood on his vest (Bani^ accused was in the Patav and Therefore, in view of above evideil murdered in the house of the accut found. in the previous night, the a< assuring his mother that he would n| was found dead in a room. PW-81 standing in the courtyard and ther^ the villagers were coilected at th' disciosed that he has committed weight. Therefore, presence of th< commission of crime is also estabiis with any explanation regarding the murdered. He has simply pleaded committed the murder of his wife. W in the room of the accused. that fact accused, therefore, as per requirem^ |was the duty of the accused to exp| |Bai, wife of the accused sustained Ifaiied to discharge the burden, ther lagainst the accused connectina Jmendram has committed murder. They id saw that his wife Bhuri Bai was iying lead and face. !n cross examination by lying dead in a pool of blood and the ac|cused was standing in the courtyard and in). Mother of Umendram informed that /hen she calied him. he came down. ice it is estabiished that Bhuri Bal was sed/appellant where her dead body was xused took Bhuri Bai in his room after )t beat her and the next day morning she Mokheial has statsd that accused was was blood on his vest (Baniyan). Even (e place and on inquiry, the accused nlurder of his wife by attacking with iron accused in the house at the time of ihed. The accused has not come forward lcircumstance under which his v/ife was lis innocence and stated that he has not fhen the body of the deceased was found |was within the special knowiedge of the i^nt of Section 106 of the Evidence Act it lain the circumstance under which Bhuri Injuries and she was murdered. He has rWore, this is an addltional circumstance ta with the crime in question. PW-4 P.T.O. XI-1HC-78 7^[ ^lNKrl^, ^Tfl<-l4l<o, RcrtK-iy Nl^dl a»*«ch ^ 200 3ll^l ^5icn 3:n^T^T^i<=h "5b^11<=b ?^T^T^f??T^n^T cbi^?<n41Ti ^i^<nT^fteT:^'<^i^i< ^3Tf^TT3T[^T Kalasram has aiso stated that th^ (Sandow Baniyan) was stained wit|i accused was in his house and his vest biood. PW-3 11. Second circumstsince; the accused has confessed beford the with iron weight and this witnes^ aspect. Therefore, as per the evid< that the accused made extra judic(ial assauited his wife an with iron wei^ht. Nammuram has stated that on inquiry viilagers that he has attacked his wife has not been cross-examined on this nce of PW-3 Nammuram it is estabiished confession before the viliagers that he s^> w|th 12. Third circumstance: Ve^ accused were taken into respectively, which were sent Science Laboratory, Sagar and found stained with biood. Even th^ incldent was aiso found stained the iron weight and lungi of the same has not been expiained b^| stained with blood, therefore, thisl with the crime in question. together, conclusively establish the crime in question and based that accused was author of the cr| accused attacked the deceased w| which frontai bone and maxiliary spontaneously, the intention of writ large. ^t (Sandow Baniyan) and lungi of the poss|ession under Ex. P-10 and Ex. P-8 fdr chemical examination to the Forensic per Ex. P-20 Lungi and Baniyan were iron weight recovered from the placs of biood. As per the seroiogist's report on ^ccused there was human blood and the the accused as to how hls cloths were 1 circumstance also connects the accused Thefr-efore, the above circumstances; if put th^ invoivement of the accused/appeilant in oh that irresistible conciuslon can be drawn |me in questlon. The manner In whlch the hth an iron weiaht of 10 l^ as a result of Ibones were crushed and Bhuri Bal died thfe accused to cause death of Bhuri Bai is P.T.O. XI-HC-78 '^)T^TW W^T^TToF ^1< *ll^cil sb*lich T^ ^NId^, ^T(1^4l<o, fsl^tl<rt^< ^^.w^^.w ^ 200 311^1 ^5|cb (yit^^l) ?^TT^R:^f?<T3TI^T 13. In the result, we do not find trial Court which requires interfference appeal being devoid of substanc^ dismissed. Sd/- L.C, Bhadoo Judge __!___ ^l^f^l^i^ ^IH^T^te^iRl^K ^^lKi^^TT^T any iiiegaiity or infirmity in the judgment of from this Court. Accordingiy, the is liab!e to be dismissed. )t is accordingiy Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^ •'N k.