m “ @ {"f? 33 Ye <5 Am: CFooooosssee w/J (m3) $v-‘T2Ne \?>:3]§3?,L ‘ \ APPEAL PRlsONER : No. g§\ ‘ r: Nam: V Father’s Name TV ‘e v Resident $“5 *§;T94i2{ %);q gggq mm ‘- wtavqgaug Age aQ Q$5§K ”Rm” ’ 9H mwLMon mgwy-W UnderSection 9mg) 33?.c. by \§%WEV mmwn Mavk ‘QaMQ lt is explained to the prisoner that if he States or wxshes to be repmsented by a legal practitioner the'AppeHate Court willn’ot proceed with the base for seven days unless the legal practi ioner appears If the legal plactmoner does not appear w1thm seven days he may be heard at alllf legal practltloner the court may proceed? at once w1th the case and Will not be obhged to gxvea bearmg to 6m legal practitioner who should appear. Date of application for copy of Judgement :- 1 \ . e‘ 5 8 2. Date of which copy received :- 3$: 3e 3. Date on Which appeal sent :- - 4} Whether the prisoner Wished to be l N33“; fewee/ e Dated W) e 3%“ Forwarded to the CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGIsrRATE \‘e‘a‘em‘tif g Qedg )QM) tegether With a copv f Judgement or order passed 1n the c for favour of transmissxon to the proper Applleate Court .r) '/ §E a $ / ef’ee‘u u Su perintendentSGentah t; ub Jail Date of receipt in C. J. M.‘ Omce. gig' C r e? Date of receipt of record to accompany. Memo of Appeal of the Appellate Court. No if dated aéw Gees; Forwarded to the 4f d d jg 4‘ ii IZ l C?if?! 337W CVW gwéK G. R. MAGISTRA bate 6f receipt in Appiieate‘ Court. - new“ W u w represented or not :— 5“ Yes / N0. No. ‘ Eu] q $3 Name age “Se Continued in gt 3Q Jail \mateemza“ wga{ gun 9) XI-HCv22 mmsmw BENCH: - H9N’BLE'MR. L.C. BHADOO AME. 1-12-20c5 ’ Mt. Abhay Tiwari, counse! fmr the appeHant. m‘ HON’BLE MR: \1,K. SHRNA$TAV?, JJ: I Mr. U.N.S.*Deo, Additicna Public Prosecutor wnh Mr; Aknn Mishra, Pane: Lawyer for the Sfate/respohd em. ' Oraljudgment. ‘ ‘ By ihis appeal through Superintendent Central Jail, Jagdalpur, accused/appeliani Ludru has due iiohed the iegamy of judgment ofrconviction and seniencé dated 23-4—1998 a ardéd by the Speciavi‘ Judge, Jagdaipur,‘in Sessions Trial No.139/97, where y Ieamed $pecial Judge after holding the accused/appellant guilty for lhe-co mission of offence under Sec‘iion 302 of the l.P.C. for commiiting the murder of his brother Raiiram, sentenced him to The case of the, prosecuti n, in hrief, is that the wife, of Ratiram gave. .merg intimation (EXP-2) to Police tation: Frazerpur on 27-2-1997 to the effect that yesterday (Wednesday) this brother-in-law Ludru with the intention to s neck with an axe as a resuit of which he undergo imprisonment for life. i murder her husband attacked on died on the spot. On receiving his merg intimation, Station House Officer. Poiioe Station: Frazerpur AK. N regietered the F.l..R‘ Ex,P=’l and prepared . the site pier) EXP-£2. After giving notice to thePanchas, he also prepared the Panchnama of the body of Retire. Ex.P-12 and sent the body for post-medem examination vide EXP-13. Durin the poiioe custody. the amused/appellant gave information under Section 2 of the Evidence Act, Ex.P-3. regerdingthe place where the weapon of offe ce axe was kept by him and in pursuance. thereof he got the axe recovered nder Ex.P-4. The investigating Officer also took into possession the hiood s ined soil as wet! as the plain soil from the L W1 V I [new } XI—HC-22 mama-um 7 W 200 m WW mam ’ ‘mmmw ' ' WWW 1=$$W WW 7% awawm piace nf occurrence and sent the body for postmortem examinaiionlio Maharani Hosoitai, Jagdalpur, w ere Dr. Vijay Thakur conducted postmortem 2 on the body of Ratirém. He pre ared the post-modem report EXP-7 in which“ he noticed three incised wounds one on the left side of the neck in the size of 5 x 2 1/2“ x 2" second incised w und m the size of 1" center of forehead _ and third incised wound was o iiquely placed on posterior aspect oithe iefl shoulder in ihe size of 2 1/2“ x 1‘ " x 1" muscle deep, bones were exposed. ln of death was haemorrhage and shock. The the opinion of the doctor, oau . doctor-also gaVe opinion EXP-5 hat the injuries which were found on the body _ -the axe recovered at the» instance {of‘ the- of Ratiram could be caused accused. The clolhes of the ac used were taken into pcssessionunderExP- 11. After completion of inves‘ gation. charge sheet was filed in the Cour! of dditionai Chief Judicial Magislr le Jagdaipur who in turn committed lhe case to the oessmns Judge Jagdalp r from wnere learned 3'“ Additionai Sessions Judge Jagdalpur received the The prosecution in 0rd r to prove the offence against the accused! appellant examined 10 witnes Statement of the accused was recorded by learned Special Judge in which the accused denied the prosecution evidence and stated that the witnesses have stated against him on account of the animosrty heisinnocentand fat elyimpticated inthe crime After hearing the argum tits of learned counsel for the parties, teamed Special Judgeoonwoted and s ritenoed the accused/appellant in the manner mentioned in the earlierpart oft is judgment We have heard Mr. Ab ay Tiwari. learned counset for theraccusedl appeitant and Mr. U.N.S. Dec; teamed Additional Public Prosecutor with Mr. se on transfer [View . A s . XI-HC-22 Akhil Mishra, learned Panel Law/er an behalf of the Statel respondent We have pefused ihe evidénce and the judgment of the trial Court ‘ Learned counsel for the accusediappellant did not dlspute the nature cf death cf Ratiram. Apad fr m than as per the eVldence of eyewnnesses Nadl‘ (PW—2) & Budru (PW-3) w o witnessed the crime, also as. per the evidence of Dr. Vijay Thakur (PW-6) ‘ho conducted the post-mortefn and noticed three incised wounds on the vital an of the hedy and stated that the death of Rattram was homicidal in nature in iew of the ocular evidence and medicat evidence, it s established that the deat of Rat-ram was homicidal In nature New coming to the nvotvement of the accusedlappeltant in committing the murder of is b'other R tiram even though Nohar Dei (PW 1D), who is the _ daughter et the accuaed, a ’ha‘use of Ludru far consurr rBuclru (PW-3) have stated‘ deceased Raitram by the a the accusediappellant argu have depos’ed, against th substance in this argument witnesses nothing has bee; of any animosity these wit evidence stands corroborz informed by Bisu (PW-8) at and very next day mnrning Potice Station. The eviden corroborated by the medic: there were threeincised Vt he has further stated than d Kamlu (PW-5)rwho took deceased Ratiram to the ing Sutphi. have turned hostile. but Nadi (PW-2) & that they had witnessed the crime and assaulting ccusediappeliant with the axe” Learned counsel for ed that on account of animosity, these two witnesses e accused/appellant. But, we do not 't'ind any for the reason thatin cross-examination of these two 1 brought on record which indicates that on account ' nesses havevdeposed against the appellant. Their [ted by the evidence of Aasmati (PW-1) who was ad to whom Nadi (PW-2i informed about the incident Aasmati (PW-1) lodged the report (ELF—2) at the 3e of these witnesses (PW-2 & PW-3) has aisobeen at evidence wherein Dr. Vijay Thakur has stated that ounds on the neck & shoulder of the deceased and hese injuries co‘uid be caused by the axe which was [Hie dad V i XI-HC-22 recre at e innce’ t use T volvement of the ecusdlappella i h cri queshon is furthe stabshed by ‘the fact thaf th ax h eapo f ofenc a recovere h stance of the accused In pun ormao e ccu/ppellant As per the Foren Sn aboror E - blod was fond on the axe and cltes f ccuse heref the umula l he above factors v the n f eyewnes e e ad recovery of weapon leaves n room r oub py f th aused in the crime in ques oved th sia of fe accd he fact of In aem n te me In r ek e e te wn o fe ws d at te in rsuace of the mfhn Ex. -5 gfvn by the aseda sic ciece Laty s r port x P15 o u oh o the ad To e ctive 3&9! of al t ie ewdece o ds mdmai evidenc n o fo dtmg t e comlicit o e cc g tion No c qs of offenc omted he accused the manner h th accus/ enant ttacked ced on the Vita! part of ody neck tha oo ' a ea apo th axe indicates the ntenn at he an c urde nd he ma three blows one after nther h axe tht sufn h rnary course of nature to ca th death f deceased ra t ha be oe by the doctor that N wh wa fnd on e neck was suffxnt th rdinary course of e cuse dh n Vie h ae disc ssion we f e pinio ria t coVIcting e cusd ur Stio 302 e in whlc e eda p a the dease the b ie t t ith ddty wen, e itio th wted to o mit his mr a de ao w1th te a s fctet tn te odi use e o attm t s en pind injury o 1 hic s ou h cre m e o natur to a eat I i w of te bov are o th on that the finding of the tl Cour n th ce nde ecn of the IPC for committing the murder of Ra ram is based on legal ewdence and sound. V reasoning, and does not require any interference by this Court ing devout of merit same is liable to be i Sd/- Sd/— L.C. BHADOO '4 Judge " yer ‘7 V.K. Shrivastava Judge Therefore, the appeal dismissed and his hereby dism ssed. ' So [new w oming the ueti n e cmit by t mr