XII-tS8/(Jail) . .^C.J.P.R.—5,000-9- 't^^.^)-': "• ' ' • "'••" •'• i'tll^-/; / No. Pather's "aae -^y-^g—^ a^f. w'i'iT^s>i'e:yi'i. s:. . .: BguCSpygB^t'**'.:;., ^y'N^.^.^I1 _^._wy'w^ Name ;-t—Ar»—^'-—-—•• Resideace^^-^!^^ ~^Tk^^:t^W^yr~' ^~^~WW~~^~ Underseetion ~<'!'~Q~*^'~~~^~~~~~~~1ey^'^S!l~~9fff -os-)^-^- -^O-^ *? ~° ft-i^f.^yvVIW- it is explained to the prisone!' ;J,cU if he states pr wishes to tie represented b'i H jegnl; practitiorier.tfte AppeJate Court will not proceed witli the;base for seven days inless the legaf practit^Qiier , appears. Jf the legal practiiioner does not appeur with in seven :day& h&^^yaipt be heard at all If th& prisoner.states that Be does not wisii to be represeated fey'legal praetitioner the court may proceed £it once with tfce c?'.se arid will aot be pbiiged to give a hearirig to ariy legal practitioner w.ho should appear. 1 Date of Appjfication for copy of Judgement S2.l£USl|C<n»t.^te: .',- y.,^^^.... '^•••^v'^^ .-^-^- 2 Date ofwhic.h copy received —^~s-^—±- ^ ^ ——-- 3 Date on which Appeal ?ent —^-7- 4 Whether the prisoner wislies to be represented or iipt- Yes/No. 'iWh No. .-2LS- •^l .1 V ij^^^^ 'l Vf.fti-^^>^ • •^ame—fff^-y^ --^tTs^-yttf^y-" Continued in— -—-^^..^-g^^S—^^—^-^-^g——- •).:': ———-——date -^-r^f^—198- Forwarded to the CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE j(—'S ol^T!~Ji~ to gatlier with a copy ofjudgement or order passed in tlie case^oli i'avour ef traBsmission to the proper Appilliate Court. . / | Superintejyie.Ql-C^tT^J <<sa W^ait.f- ^ w Date efreceiptinC.J.M.'SOffice——'---!-^!-sig'ai^:-:-- —— ^———•——•^^—^-•-l.',^:;'.'.: Date of.receipt of-feeord to •.aec<3mpariy~--—J~^-^^-^^-^^-~~;---~--^^ ••'•:^;; •':.{/•,f.7:I| .Meno of^AppeaI ^f.tlie AppeIiafecjUlt.-^^^.g:^^^^ No.—--—•——^-———-Datea———— — •— ———— u:-^: •"•':;,'. ^.:':'1 Fonvaided: to tlie' '§rs^»yT?=^^.(WtL<:'^iiS--- ^^®N@a- pate of reeeiptin Apptia'te GQurl——--' !r.;11 '-<>. ! e..I;M,<gisti'afe' -(f-t^- ••^.- •ts •.M '2t <s: '9: :^ : .1' .^S''N:.'l .T.©ggj^|gg|^ t\l-'^.!llfi^sl3l^iHIII:IIS§8l!il8BIKS^ »feSfi® Xt-HC-78 HWM WW^ ^ssf '-qi<4irt<i, y>T^I<(i<i<»,Rirti'(iy<( _,; ^^^ ^^ lfcl(-l^ sn^sTipiR-ii* (laiTsn^OT^ira? SiT^SI 'WP (ijclijcl^) g^Trw?{fer3Tii?T &B: HON'BLE SHRI U: Bhadjio. J. & HON'BLE SHRI VK Shri\lastava.J 09.12,2005 Shri RK Jain, counsel fo^ Shri UNS &eo, Additiorjal Agrawal, Ponel lawyer for the ^tate. Oral Judgment. 1) This appeat has been 12.08.1994, fiassed by -ttie &ist-Surguja in Sessions Triai] Sessions Jud9e after holding commission of offence under sentenced him to undergo im| 2) The case of the FIR - Ex.P/3 in the Police about 6 am Ball'i9ond came to -1. Singh /that Ramsai had been tiis son qave him the said in ''-»>. wenf to the house of Rttmaii <pi«In<Sli*(!*fw)"^"ls>d '(luitgn ^srf^ian^l the appellant. Public Prosecutor with Shri Ravindra directed a9ainst the judgment dated Ac|ditionat Sessions Judge Manendragarh, jNo.490/93, whereby ieamed Additional the accused / appellcnt guilty for the ISection 302 of the IPC, convicted and ipijisonment for tife. prose4ution in brief is that PW4 - Lalji gave 5t(ition Podi to the effect that to day at Ihis house and informed hisson - Amar nkurdered. When he came to his house, Formation. Therefore, immecijatety he dpd saw that body of Ramsai was lying on XI-HC-22 ?^ -i<l*ll<yl-il, afll'y'id, fadwy (_y.~ A . V^ is' \^\ HWVII sh*ii«i sii^r^n 'f^iRT 311^1 ^4l=h -Hf^ct an^r ^giw ^{?g -2- ^Tqf^i4S';{ T^^t ^ [^%l;-<f^T^K '^aPOTS.ii^i the cot iri •the courtyard of th^ house. There were injuries on the neck of the deceased, cdused b^ or axe. Villagers ttevisingh, Son enquired from the wife of the .murdered her husbomd; but she ^ some shcxrp edged weappnlike spacte i^ai, and Kalyan dlso came there. He deceased - Sonkuwar that who had id not disclose name of anybody. She told •t1iat, she along wlth her hus|>and went for sleep in the court yard ^oke up at 4 am, she saw the body of laidshe rated cries; upon which her They hdve sent him to lodge the after taking dinner. When she <4 hep husbond in a pool of blood son-in-law and daughter came. report. On recejvin9 this regorf, S-tation House.Qffieer left for the scene of occurrence qndprepar^cl Ranchanama - Ex.P/1 of the body. He took into possession, blQod stained soiland plain soil under Ex.P/2 from the place of occurFence. police custody, he gave d rnetnor^ndum - Ex.P/4about the piace where he kept the tabbal, the weapon information, SHO got reco^ ^Assistant Surgeon AAanindragorh He~ opined that, injuries on the weapon'arid deatfa was homicida 'hile dccused / appellant was in the »foffence. In pursuance of the sai'd 'e'red the tabbal under Ex.P/5. Postmortem of the body »aJp conducted -by Dr.Suresh Tiwari, ond he prepared the report- Ex.P/6. neck were caused by a sharp edged ih nature. After completi.on of the [1qf^ ^Ra^ XI-HC-22 -3-^'HITOgq, •®3h:[TI5,facll+iy tn*i?ff»Hi<<i . A :; Ibl^T 1°'A ""•M i an^i^T feiwsn^i ^•4^^^ •4il<4fcl'i1-) 'qiqsff 4 fest •(l^re^re ^? <HP<Tt[ Sf^V investigation, charge - sheet was Magistrate First Class, who in t^ Sessions Judge Surguja, who ma<pe Sessions Judge Moinindnigarh. filed jn the Court of Judicial m committed the case to the over the caSe to Additional 3) The pro^cution in order t( accused / appellant, examined eight accused / appellgnt was recorded un which he hasstated-that witness is character iady. Learned Additional argument of Additional Public Prosec convicted and sentenced the accusei judgment. 4) We have heard leamed couns and Shri UNS &eo, Additional Publ Agrowal, Panel lawyer for the State. 5) The facKof the homicidal ; ... : • . . • disputed b^ Isamed counsel for the prove the charge against the witnesses. The statement of the derSection 313 pf the Cr.P.C., in telling a lie because she is a bad iessions Judge, after hearing the utpr and counsel for ttie accused, Jas mentioned mpara - 1 of this el for ,the oppellant Shri RK Jain ic Prosecutor with Shri Ravindra ••'^- |na1ure of death has. not been appeilant. Apart from that, from [tft^ ^s^ XI-HC-22: A, an^f^i (<-ti* 311^1 ^*ii<=t) .^rii<i •g-^ ^qpii^iq, •sgtwre, Rfflwy 3n^?T 'T^t W*<W Sitfl* cv. ^,,,.A&i^ D ^ •-M 20° 3D^[ TOIIWHft?! "1 the eviderice of PW2 - Kausajya Ba) evidence of PW7 - Dr Suresh Tii|vari, in which he stated that he conducted thepostmortem and thei|'e was a cut injury on the neck in a length of 25 cm. Itwas in the centte of the neck,asa resultof which the skin, muscles and nerves of th rd ith tha+ injury, the 3 and 4 cervica| was caused by a shdrp edged wecpc^i ond the death was due to shock as a result of excessive bteeding of the injuries. In ordinary course of nalure, the ihjuries were sufficie^t to cause the death. Ther-efore, in view of the qbove eyidence of Dr^Suresh Tiwari, postmortem.report- Ex.P/6 and the evidence of PW2-" l^ausalya Bai, it is establiAed that WlferiM •RttRtf4 fe3>-rf5R?R ^SlPtPT^I^I , the eyewitness and from medical neck were cut and onaccount of bones were also cut. The injury the dedth-of Ramsai wdshomicidal ii| 6) Now, coming to the question appellont, the whole caseof the pt^osecution rests upon the solitary eyewitness namety Kausalya Bai—P1|V2, who is none el% than wife of the accused / o^pellant and .daugh ^question before the Court is as witness is s-herlflig worth and inspir^ the confidence of the Court-, so f ' , ..- as to b&s6 the conviction on the e' nature. of involvement of the accused / |ter of the deceosed. Now, the to whether the evidence of'this 1'idence of this witness. It is an ~"a- - [^^te^ g.,. . XI-HC-2-2 's^'^iraRT'T.'s'dly'ig, R«yii'a'i? ^ .^ .\<>irl'a)u\ 'WqWTg)l<(<*> sn^i^ii . ft-ti?b SI^T 'gi*lR7^ftt( admitted positipn that this wilne^ residing with the deceased, fcther that on the fateful night, her moth^: courtyard. She ahd her husband| sleeping in the pooms. In the nighl sitt-ing near the cot of her father; what he is doing, upon which he thereafter he came near to her fact to any one. Shewen+forsleep cries of her mother. The villageris not disclpse the fact of witnessing t^ to att-end the call of nature, shel Dadu al and Mangalsjrigh. asajuited anfcJ 7) Learned counsel for the accu^d / cppellarit vehemently argued that relionce cannot be placecl on th^ reason that when she witnessed the) * • * -• . • • , 'riie fact.to her mother or otherl circymstanqes, her evidence is un-n^ituraL l&iusalyo Bai hos stated thttt when only sheqrid her mothe ^Rrafepft'I l41M<-ff 4 fet?l' <f«l«sit i? srpOT an^i |s ulong with the accused were lof this witness. She has stated qnd fathe? were sleeping in the the accused / appelhnt were ', she aiw that the accused was when she osked from him as tp her father with an axe and asked her not to disctose this ^uid she woke up after hearing the had collected there, buf she did crime. When theaccuted went disclesed the fact tb vilta9ers ttte evidence of this witness for the crime, why she did hot disclose • . .'•..... persons. Therefore, in these "•"•^ .were there, at that time, she [Bt^^firt' tl'T XI-HC-22 '3^ •*ll'4ld'i<, afli'y'i®,!««>ii«i,< IUI WWti shTW«h ^l ^(^q5 \ OT.^'.'H^b^ --^ 200 sir^f^a ^•11.1*311^1 »i^i°iD•sfs'1 sii^[ •reiiwgfer . - fc apprised the factof witnessin9 the citirne to her. When-the accused / <^l<4[^Ffi'1 T^T^Tf ^tt^ "^R^R ^? aifiOT sn^i appeilant went to attend the cail of witnessing the incident to Dddulalond idture, she apprised the factof ^Aangai Singh; 8) NQW question remains whethe^r the explanation given by •riiis witness can be helieved or not. We hi trial Court. The explanation giyen by ^ive perused the judgment o.f the the witness^is plausible for the reason that this witness belongs to +()£tribal community and residing in rurol area, piarticukirly- in which the^ offerice was committed. It is a rare ^ight where false implications o^&noticed and ous men't-ioned by the trial Court that there was no implicate her husband in a false case. ond one cah hardiy believe this whe^l father of the bdy has been murdered then why'she should implico^e her hust>and ina false case in order to destroy the wholefdmilY be4ause he wos the bread eamec in the family. Therefore, theexplanati to be correct because the accused disclose this fact, being frightenedl father, she couldnot dare to disclos '/.'.'. wjfe of'tbfe deceased and mother of reasbn before tiiis witness to It is a very difficultsiluation on given bythiswitnessappears / appellant asked lier not to by seeing the murder of her |e this fact. PW1 - Sonkiwar, 1+ie witness has stated-That her [4^^w^ II11" XI-HC-22 311^1 ^r F^-fidi .311^1 ^^i^ yf^i 'S^ •<11<IICT1, (STtlyiS, ^W^tl »><lch i^. A . V.(''l's-t°>v7 -••-••^ 200 sn^i •^giw^ifsg ^ husband had osl<ed the aiceu%d during -rtie rainy season, upon ^ happy and he was keeping grudge ^o bring wood fpom the forest for use ^hich the accused / tippellant was not in his mind. 9) Learned counsel further c^ evidence has stocl-ed that on'thei there was no occasion for PWE However, she has cfearly stateif sitt-ing near the cot of.her fatli doing, upon which he attacked not to disclose this fact fo evidence, the quest'ion of identit^ 10) In this connection, if we I) has categorically stated that wi from the accused, he sai.d that time, PW2 - Kausdlya Bdi wife o the person'who has murdered hei til^i'l'iil'l HWcff 4 'ft^t <&i*4i< i?3riigiT3n^r ^ued thcrKPWS - ISausalya Bai in her Ifateful night, it was dark; therefore, P l&usalya Bai to see the accused. that when she saw the accused was ler, she asked him as to what he is fdther with -the axe and asked her [Biyone. Therefore, in viewof this cannot bedoubted. >ok into -Hie evidence of PW4 - Lalji hir who made the report to the poiif^ about the incident, in pqra - S, he ien ftoKce ca.me and started enquiry (le has not murdered Ramsai, at that i]f the accused had stated that he is ^ father, and she brought an axe, th^ weiip6nof offence and said that|»ythis weapon the accysed attocked -- [^•^slt ' ^^l"'r':;?; XI-HC-22 Tq'^iraiWl, 's^wre, fawi'yy ^- SiT^T Tra^;, '(^-- ^ -)vls WIIPtl »Web sn^i^i ft'li'* 3V^fl ^vH •flli^ padma her father. Thereafter police took the police station. Therefore,he is cross«xamination,nothing has been try to impticate the accused,/ dppejl above evidence pf this Witness shoulil ^he accused along .with the axe to ^xn independent witness and in the iticited ds to why thi^'witness will Itint in a false cose and why the <[1 be disbelieved. 11) For the foregoing reasons, v^s that the raaSoning fl^signed by the pririciple and the eyjdence of PW2 of'rtieCourt. firtd 12) In the result, we do not Therefore, itis liable to be dismisss<| Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge ? - «hl<lid'!il-1 HWrti.fl feizt<F»l-K(l< '^aiPgii an^r ^ are of the considered opinipn trial Court is based on the legal Kausalya bq.i inspires confidence nny substance in this appeal. dnd itjsjiereby dismjssed. • Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge '•»<^ [Tf^ ^p^'