B:d.',IIIE; lin ./ ffi-..^ —<i No. ^A^T'l'!. 5;iiS.;tiit:i^^^ ^•R^^*^i"fr:^;si^¥i^:^l':.^^'^i.^^^Li^if'—^i.'^ ®;^ftl^ "%WS"S;;;¥ta"f8aB?3i*S;'/f'ia iSsSsvww-'s^ Father's flame '^"^-^' ^^{^^ ^^^ Residence ifN_.::- '?\.. : . '•'.^ • .; Age: on 1-^t-iY -^^'t-s.^. Sentenced to ."•.;.'. -^iL3li-i^''SS,i<V<y)«<^^ Under Seetion _ .. ^ i ' •~;''~: ^o.a.,, :°|.V.e-^ f^ »s^ ^ •<"' Ivp^^,.^ ' sruo L^:<\'*7'1_,, :. t>y-^\.i^' .:&-vuy^ .^:T[ u^'t?,..<4<:>yt\ t" '5B?alsV9i< teaa'l It is esiplain^ to fhe pEisoner tUat if hestates he wis&es to be represented by a tega'l ipractittoaer tbe appsllate C^art will ^ 1 l^jstpractitioner appears eariter. If the legal pracfitioner does not appear witfam seven ] days he igay not heard at all.; ifthe" prisoner states ttiatlie does not wish tn.^ Tepr?- SCTtedbylegatpracrtittonerthecourtmayproc.eedat once with thecase anffwill not Se oMigedtQ give^licwiagto any legal practitioner wlioshouldappear- Date of Application for copy ofjudgement &\Ve^1 j^. DatefOawhiehcopy receivecl ^ Vy oV^l |3? liQa^ouMicUAppealSc»^^^^^^^^^^ 4^ Whether llieyrisoaer wishes^to^te^^ :.No.. ^-tt% "ffi^Bnfine^JBSs w ^imsi ••'& :cs 11111 iHE>3CWaTded^<3l>:tltie\'!r i^t:,:i^^:^vi'a^..^ iauagiM%s.^%,.^^ .--———- jg|l^l|||B|g||iffi^^ wtis_js, K^.;:.?:^%'^:-ftfe-%'g^l^'S:K?'*<;"--&;'.S?..^ ^S&^^ 'ff^f '^;^;u^^^^<<n^Jit^^..^-^^^ t:ct<:>1;1} ~-A^%:ICJIiM(^ ©1:^ r'witB';:a^'<^py?^bPJ:Hd^em^:^6T:^ord^ ' case 'for' fa\'QtlF'-o h 1 |(ra»smissioa to tlie prbperAppeyate court Nlt^^®,(%%) ~T~ • ^ ^^99--sy»-;'^~ "?^»^"'«^ HI6H COURT OF'CHHATnS6ARH : BILASPUR CRIMINAL APPGAL N0, 1589 OF 1994 Vifnaram Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhatfi^arh) JUD6MENT (bated 18th Ocf-ober. 2005) •lt^- y HI6H COURT OF CHHATHS6ARH : BILASPU'R CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. 1589 OF 1994 Vifnaram Vs. The'State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh) Coram :- Hon'ble Shri Fakhruddin. Ag.C.J & Hon'ble Shri t)ilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J Present :- Smt. Kiran Jain, counsel for the appeliant. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer for the State. Per Fakhruddin. AQ.C.J. JUD&MENT (Dated 18th October. 2005) Heard. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6-10-1994 deiivered in Sessions Trial No.42/93 by the Second Additionai Sessions Judge, Ambikapur whereby the appeilant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penat Code for committin9 murder of Jheemanram Korva on 30-6-1992 at 6'0 Clock in the eyening in village Bansajal, Police Station Batoti ond was ^entenced to undergo imprisonment for life. '•l^i- 3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 30-6-1992 at 6'0 Clock in the evening Jheemanram Korva returned from the field and was sitting near haystack (Pirof) 'm front of his house. He asked his first wife (Badi Pa-tni) to bring water. Meanwhile, appellont Vifndram came to the house of Jheemanram and assoulted on his back, neck, head and other placesdue to which he received injuries and died. After assaulting the deceased, the appeliant fled away from the spot. Asadi Bai (P.W.10) who is the former wife of the deceased and Kisni (P.W.ll) another wife of the deceased were also present at the scene of occurrence. The motiye behind committ'ing murder is that Vifnaram was eariier adopted by Jheemanram omd after the marriage, he was separated, therefore, he had enmity os to why after adoption he wos left. First Information fteport (Ex.P/ll) was lodged by Senath (P.W.9). On report being lodged, the investigation started. The body was sent for post-mortem. The Post-mortem was conducted by t>r. B.K. Mishra (P.W.7). The post-mortem report is Ex.P/7. Tangia was seized on the memorandum of the accused. The seizure memo is Ex.P/3. Spot map was prepared .vide Ex.P/6. On being charged, the cgse was conimitted to the concerned./Court. The statement of the accused was recorded / • •under Section 313 of tiie ^ode of Criminal Procedure. The accused denied the prosecution evidence and stated that he is innocent ond he has been folseiy implicated in the crime. After relying on jlllil |]'ir»: the evidence of eyewitnesses namely Asadi Bai (P.W.10) and Kisni (P.W.ll), the Court below convicted the accused in the manner mentioned above. 4. Smt. Jain, learned counsel oppearing for the appellant contended that the evidence of-eyewitnesses namely, Asadi Bai (P.W.10) and Kisni (P.W.ll) is not reliable. 5. We have gone through the evidence of eyewitness Asadi Bai (P.W.10). She has clearly stated in her evidence that in -the evening she was sitting in the house. Deceased Jheemanram came from the field and was sitting near hoystack (Pirof) m front of his house. He dsked his first wife to bring wa-ter. The accused came with Tangki and started assaulting Jheemcinram. As a result of which the deceased received injuries on the head, shoulder etc. On this P.W.10 started raising the cries, and after hearing her cries the villagers assembled. Jheemanram died and the appellant fled away from the spot.In the cross-examination, Asadi Bai .^P.W.IO) has said that they were iiving in the same area. In para-4 of the cross-examination, she has stated that the appellant fied 'away from the spot after assaulting Jheemanram and she had seen the accused on the spot. In para-5 of the cross-examination ..she has stated that the deceased was sitting towards north. The appellant came from south. She stated that Pirot \s visible from her house. It is incorrect to say that she had not seen the appeilant when he assaulted the deceased. She further stated that there wos no quarrel between the accused and the deceased. She also stated that the accused came stealthily and assaulted. In para-6 pf her evidence she stated that the appeilaait assaulted the deceased on his right shoulder, ieft shoulder and head, and thereafter, he fledaway from the scene of occurrence. 6. We hme also gone through the evidence of P.W.ll Kisni. In her evidence she has stated that she was sitt-ing in her house. l-1er husband came and was sitting on the Pirot The appellant came there and assaulted the deceased. In para-2 of her evidence she stated that both had gone to work and come together to the house. She also stated that at the time of the incident none else was in their house except both of them. She stated that when the accused assaulted the deceased, he died instantaneously. In pards-3 and 4 of the cross-examination, she bas verified that P/rotwas in front of the.house. The distance between thecourtyard and the Pfrot'is 20-25 feet. Her husband / wns sitting and she had gQne for taking water. As soon as she 7~<entered the house, she heard the cries of her husbond ond on hearing the cries she came there and saw that the body of her husbond was drenched with blood. 7. The eyidence of Asadi Bai (P.W.10) and Kisni (P.W.ll) stands corroborated by the evidence of P.W.7 Dr. B.K. Mishra. The injuries sustained by the deceased are quoted below : i) Incised wound on occipital region of scalp 6 cms. x lcm. x bony deep. On palpation bony crepitation was felt. Wound was oval in shape botfi ends having narrow ends. Margin was clean cut. Blood clots were firmiy adhered to the margins of the wound. Margins were bruised. ii), Incised wound on right scapular region, size 6x i x 1 cm. Blood clots firmly adhered to the margins. Margins we.re red in colour. Margins were bruised. iii) Incised wound on neck region over trapezine muscle, size 6 x ix i cms. Mar9ins red, cieon cut, btood ~clots adhered to the mwyns. Margins were red. 8. In the case of^Shridiai/ Nagedii Pare vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1985 SC 866 the Apex Court has -'held thct conviction can be based on evidence of a truthful eye witness. Hwing given our thoughtful consideration we do not find any material by which it can be said that the evidence of eyewitnesses Asadi Bai (P.W.10) and Kisni (P.W.ll) are not trustworthy. So far as offence is concerned, there are three multiple injuries found on the person of the deceased dnd the case is such which does not fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part-I or Part-r[ of the Indian Penal Code. It is a case of murder. 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, material on record as discussed herein above,there is no merit in this appeal. Accordin9ly, -Hie appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 10. Before parting, we appreciate the valuabie assistance rendered by iearne^l counsel for both the parties^ Sd/- Acting Chief Justice .* 18-10-2005 Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge &own '•'^-