NIH/("INIIIHHIIIIIMHII c‘vm (1m) m-ZLMQ 6 $3 m$ «MW wrt a A“) gQrMmwmew aweam ‘M me aega1 practmmer (Mes mot appear Wilma seven ; Em my mam mam at an £§ me @msmmf §1a1es that he does wax m‘h m be creme— ,A / smmi Ev kgajvl wmmmmr me await may pracwd i mace wah the mase and W111 1m: ha @imgeE‘m gmm a Mammg m amy kga% pmctmcmer Wm 3mm 3d apwax my v w.” levy m «mam: wMcim WW 53f warm pmed m ma msa mt $‘awom @f mammlsslon w the W" 10mm $ppemam (w » Swimrmiendmt 7' . ’ imgwcw.a.i 3N1“ W ‘ l x x Em: a)? mmum m C E. M 3 03mm Mama Dram 0f a§ mupt &m3mk wemml of mE m AmpeEaagc awompany cconurt . U 7 / Na ‘ ' ‘ " 1 ‘ I Datad l E8 E?mmr&c& m Em I :rx C. J1. Magistrate .‘ E;:1,§:3€§ ( P. T. 0° 3 mm gr Eecépwm‘§2§:§§eiiate=~€om 3 £1 .x J 'vs k ”22 wE wcu/ wcmi u’; a; % A 2 7 r 7 Um; 77 ~ ‘ ’afww (3/ kY/ v «m. 9 7 N93 v if ‘x Mada? i szmwm a}! ill Ciwj Bug iv "‘ P a g wig j Eb 1 ~%i » d/y/ ‘jjCr‘l/ é; ‘(/y&?74}f3¥3 dy 0 w)/~ r E i V k. yaw: “0/ QMQ) ‘b0‘i/92 v ‘ exp‘l amm§l w my miscmer mat §f he states m wishw m b6 Temewnted by legai MW $3 Appdia’w {Mart Wm mm pmce§& mm me base fox seven days lunlsss l Bate of AypJiMiiaéx far mm wf Jm’xgemmx J “I: my? ‘ ‘ 2 i Eawcxf’wwa‘hlrswy wem§w§ ‘ iii ~ *7 4533 ' § mm: an whidg &@§m§ saw * m F WW ‘ $ ' wkmmm me mismier mmm m be: repremmted m-r' imx — .Yss ¢<§9¢ x /k § Nam a); JIIEJ ' Jam £5i f v "J ateér' E CI 97% ‘ “E IQ? V7 m the» C £1? J mmcm£ )GIwRM : i"f XI—HC—22 (q°%%ii§%) Q XI—HC—22 WW,W,W Wm ' QMA Mg. woo 33 accused/appellant and her sister Surajbai were sleeping on separate cots in front of thkeir house after taking dinner. In the midnight, the accused/appe i her head with a lathi. “He V ‘ the accused/appellant was attacking his mother and thereafter leaving the scene of occurr nee. Surajbai éalleti 'Manrakhan and :others and apprised them bout the incident. The villagers were also collected at the scene f occurrenceg Rambai succumbed to the injuries. At about 3.00 A.M,, Rekhmal reported the matter in the Police Station Berla, w ere Sub-Inspector S‘K.A.Naqavi, P‘W: 1 1 registcred the F.I.R., Ex. to Village Sankara, the place panchanama of the dead b dy of Rambai under EXP—9 and sent the dead body for post m rtem examination to the Government Hospital, Durg. He also‘too into possession the blood stained soil and the plain soil from the lace of pair of chappal, a bamboo 111b, a wooden cot under EXP-2. t came and attacked her mother on 'lgth e noise, Surajbai woke-up, saw 6. After registering the case, he went of incident and prepared occurrence un‘der EXP—1, and a piece of wood, towel, saree and hile the accused/appellant was in the waded) ' WW WI 200 W : mama Waite §3muBHi%H mmwaita WWfimwa‘ay ewm XI-HC-22 alévm mm mmmtw WW#&Q%(W& . V $qi7£¥rl%a $3If$mm Police custody, he gave tbs memorandum EXP—3, and the lathi was recovemd at the instéx} ce of the accused] appellant which was lying beneath the culvert. The seizure memo EXP—4 of the lathi ‘ yas prepared. The lathi was stained with blood. The Investigating i i Ofticer‘ also took into possession the blood stained lungi and half ‘ shirt of the accnsed/appelhant under EXP:5 ‘E‘He also took into possession the clothes of 1he deceased under EXP-11. The site plan of the scene of occurrence was got prepared by the Patwari i under EX.P- 13. After completion of the investigation, the charge- ‘ sheet was filed against the accused/appellant in the Court of ‘Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara, who, in turn, ‘ committed the case to the Sessions Court, Durg, Wherefrom Illrd Additional Sessions Judge iieceived the case for trial. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove me charges against 6‘ the accused] appellant, examined 12 Witnesses. Statement of the accused] appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which he has stated that, he has been. (didtf‘ea) 7 XI¥HC~22 EW,W,W Wm .Qn‘:.é¥:&9é.:!lfm 93 WWW “4... W. 200 WWW kQhWTI $Wm G \ falsely implicated in the crime on account of the animosity and he is innocent. Learned Add: argument of leamed Publi accused] appellant, c( ; ‘a'écused/ appellant as m judgment. 4. Coming to the in nature, leaxned coum dispute this fact, P.W.—12, mortem on the body of Ra was posted as Assistant S1 that date he had condu< Rambai and he had notic lacerated wound in fronm' inches deep upto bone, the p wound was in the front s inches deep upto bone, the L .tional Sessions Judge, after hearing the 3 Prosecutor and learned counsel for the unvicted and entioned in the earlier part of the sentenced the question of death of Rambai, homicidal lel for the accused/appellant did not Dr. V.S.Baghel, who conducted the post mbai, has stated that, on 11-6- 1992, he 1rgeon at. District Hospital, Durg and on :ted the post mortem on the body of ed as many as 8 injuries. There was t region of the head in the size of 3 X 1 bone was depressega. Another lacerated tide of the head in the size of 11/2 X 1 : bone was depressed. Lacerated wound (@W) XI—HC-22 wa$ below the injmy No.£ 3 in the size of 1 X 1 inchesdeep upto bone. There was bruise 01 1 the right side of the head in the size of 6 X 11/2 inches Blood had. clotted blood was present E‘ere was a fracture from ‘ skull. The muscle of th e right temporal region was ruptured. There was fracture inside was ’also fractured. RW. EX.P- 17A. He opined tha t the injuries, which were found on the body of the deceased Ram bai, could be caused by the lathi which was Iecovered bv the Polic e. Rambai died on account of the head injuries. Therefore, in vir 2w of the above medical evidence, it is of Rambai was homicidal in nature. established that, the death nvolvement of the accused] appellant in 5. ' As far as the : the crime in question is accused] appellant submit ted that, the whole case rests on the evidence of so called eve—w itness namely Surajbai, P.W.—5, who has oozed out of both the ears and dried. A in the palietal reg‘on of the head and right eye extending upto rear part of the. the skull also, The right mandible-bone ~12, Dr.V.S.Baghel prepared the report concerned, learned counsel for the G‘ f3 _.{,\ ‘ ($W) XI—HC-22 WWMEQW‘aRJI 3;3I%1Isn%¥l‘ Learned counsel for the accuscd/ a] of the avidence of this Wim after the accused/appella as's’a‘ulting and as per the accused] appellant from bz ito identify the person who assaulted possible for thls witness Rambai. Learned counsel ohly'on account of some q and. the accusedjappella implicated in the crime. advanced by learned coun perused the evidence of P.‘ the fateful night, after tak l Witness, being sisters, were At about 12 O’clock in the : cries of Rambai and s he saw that the accused] appellant Gangadhar was attacking Rambai with a lathi and thereafter the stated that, she was sleeping by the side of Rambai. )pellant further submitted that, para 8 ess shows that, she had woken up only nt l left the scene of occurrence after evidenee of this witness, she saw the V iick, therefore, being night, it was not further developed his argument that, uarrel took place between the deceased at, the accused] appellant has been In order to appreciate the argument sel for the accused] appellant, we have N.~5, Surajbai, who has stated that, in ing the dinner, the deceased and this sleeping on separate cots side by side. nidm'ght, she woke-up “after hearing the a arm (ddél‘at) XI—HC-22 @mz WWW%‘ WIWTI $Wm G accused] appellant ran awe Ly. She called Rekhmal and apprised him about the incidcnt. T1 as a msult of which, she c at the scene of occurrence. They were and Jivrakhan also arrived m§o apprised about the inc ‘ had come to stay with Ram aai 15 'days’ back. one day prior to the 3 incident, Rat‘nbai had scolded the accused/appellant that as to why he has donated’ the ca If. On this, the accused/appellant had replied that, since the calfwas of his father, therefore, he has night the accused] appellant assaulted donated it, and in the same Rambai. P.W.-6, JiVIakhaI _ has stated that, in the night, he heard the cries of Surajbai sayin§ ; that the accused] appellant has killed ' Rambai. Upon hearing this , he went to the house of Rambai, there lim that the accused/appellant has ran p Surajbai, P.W.—5 informed l away after assaulting Ramt of P.W.-4, Manrakhan, wh< Rambai, where Surajbai, the sister of on which he went towanis ‘ Rambai was and she sleeping [ere was injury on the head of Rambai, Lied. Along with Rekhmal, Manrakhan ident. She has funher stated that, she ai with a lathi. Similar is the evidence ) has stated that, Rekhmal called him, 6‘ informed him that the Maw} Xl—HC-22 !“y? " WW§WEIWK aamm g accused] appdlant has r2 saw that there was mjm oozing out of it, on whic and Patel Balmukund. ‘ “élidonce of P.W.—5, Suraj’ him and informed him th Rambai and he saw th unconscious condition. ’] that cot, Surajbai’s cot wa evidence of P.W.-2, Rekhlr and P,W.—6, Jivrakhan reV at the scene of occurrence these other two witnesse: Rambai in an injured condition and Surajbai, P.W.—5 disclosed to them that the accused/appellant Gangadhar has ran away after lathi on her head and these witnesses attacking Rambai with a §* m away after attacking Rambai and he r on the head of Rambai and blood was h; they called Kotwar Agardas, Ferudas P.W.—2, Rekhmal has corroborated me 3ai and has stated that, Surajbai called at the accused/appellant has assaulted at Rambai was lying on the cot. in ‘here was injuxy on the head and near s lying. Therefore, a close scrutiny of The ral, P.W.-4, Manrakhan, P.W.-5, Surajbai reals that, Surajbai, P.W.-5 was present , and on her cries, Rekhmal, P.W.-2 and s reached on the spot, where they saw i saw the injury on the head of Rambai. The evidence of these witnesses shows that Surajbai, P.W.-5 immediately disclosed the r l §== (dished) XI—HC—22 @wn‘r ; mm ‘ WWW' name of the accused/appellant that he has assaultsd Rambai. Had Surajbai not seen the accused] appellant Gangadhar attacking Rambai, then there was r40 occasion for Surajbai to immediately disclose the name of the accused/appellant Gangadhar as the ; a‘u‘fhor of the injuly. In the examination—in—chief, Surajbai, P.W.-5 - has categon'cally stated that, She saw the 'accused/ appellant Gangadhar assaulting Rambai and that injury stands corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the evidence of other witnesses, who had reached on the soene of occunence. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the argument advanced by learned counsel i for the accused/ appellant that, in View of the evidence of Surajbai; P.W.—5, there was no occasion to identify Gangadhar. In this connection, if we look at the conduct of the accused/appellant ‘ Gangadhar, there was a mason to attack Rambai by him that on 3the previous day, a quarrel took place between Rambai and Gangadhar on the ground that Gangadhar had donated the calf of 6‘ a cow in Bhagwat which was not liked by Rambai and she had scolded the accused/appellant and on this he had caught and (diatfs‘m XI—HC-22 W 313W, m, m C;%AM® H50 93 WW 200 WW§WRWK %af?:wan%¥r y pressed the neck of Ramlbai which was witnessed by Surajbai, P.W.—5. The conduct of th6 incident also supports the. after commission of such a K come to the house of the c‘ leceased. Had anybody else assaulted, r Rambai other than Gangad‘ t scene of occurrence being s Village. 6. the considered opinion accused] appellant in committing the murder of his mother Rambai is established beyond reasolnable doubt and the nnding of the trial Court to that extent is baStLd on the clinching and legal evidence, therefore, the same does Court. accused] appellant Gangadhar after the evidence of Surajbai, P.W.‘5 that even heinous crime why Gangadhar did not . har, then he ought to have come to the ‘fon of Rambai as he was present in the Therefore, in Vitew of the above discussion, we are of that, the involvement of the not require any interference by this G‘ a . (tannin) " XI—HC—22 wimw WW wi’uHW' mmiffgQhWw agwm 7. themfore, thfs appeal is dismissed. appealbeing devoid of merit In the result, v 76 do not fmd any substamce in his Sdl— L.C.BHADOO Sdl- V,K. Shrivastava Judge t