(w WM Eh) W (2) / XI! iZ') (13d) C I P‘ R IL‘JI t %ta ttmt f" Datc I‘f‘ t‘cmipt inw~w Officct ’ NHAVW WM " Ih’f ”Bette 0? rcccipt of ttcord to accompany the M mo nt‘ Appml to tht Anhellatc rnttr’ . yaw ugtmm‘mu ”mww “mm No Cw 72% ‘ m Datcd @F&L§ m, t /gm1tt ._M-- W‘QtQV/gzétyB +; Q 4 ’WI WWW Egrfwr ‘Jxc of raccipt m A4,; lute own / k / g: 3 it / " ’ APPEAL OF QMSONER ||W1L|£§l|l|ll5942q mnmmum "L: / 3 1;: L f ymg‘ *w - it: r 21 “L?“ §m %¢§ BenCh k f V /Dwmon BenCh QLI’Iminal) .k :i"0‘ ”L7; g3a‘ / ’Nxtnfzu. Wra Q/E r‘ wmww . ‘.,yath;.r’s naxm: m §§%¢€; ‘ N W W ‘ “W“? W wTQ as qwrrg/ Sentenccd to WQM WQ 7‘ W m@!0%§ Undcr Section $09 w? {Q ‘ Q” Sq 3”“ ka Qimg‘ i, i It Is cx lamtd to the prisoner that xf he stams he wxshes to b: represented by a Inga! ‘ Pvwm‘» “ “a WM“ m: ‘ mi ncx pm. a wan me cw: fo‘ swim diys unlch th‘ I I practxt one: appcms earIKer If the legal pracmloner dues not appear within seven days he may not heird a! all 1fthc states that he does not wxsh to bc pr'soner to reprc’ med by ‘egal practmoner t‘w cour; may proceed at one: wxth me case amt Wm not (W hgcd t0 §,Ivc a heurmg to any legal practmoncr who should 4pp¢ar %e ' / ({“m 1‘“ of Application for copy ofJudgcmcnt A‘ .,...a_...__# tc on wlm h cbpy rccclvcé ”wwwk , A y .q m ‘Dm‘c on whiéh Apma! stat 7;.7, 6 ‘ k 4 Whcthcr the prismtcr wishcsxto be rcprcacntcd or not-W gh { L, ‘ ‘ 1 f _. ”,7 ”,wm _ w" . w /// g’W @32— «w —«~w~«~~-~ ”’3“? %‘*‘%‘t@ / ‘r Com Nd m .,... W;..w~¢‘~3aii _~ WE— » Q6 '77 ~- saw 9W3 Q; (62473 ”9 'Fmwardedv to the ‘ ‘ za’m‘f W5W1§$ Qw;9&% §§?§73 _ - to gather \wth a copv of Judgcmcm or ardu- Fused m the case r vout 0f ( _ ” V“aw trammwsmn ytww to the proper gm .Appcllatc t t court. % y . 9% ‘ /k I ’ ‘\ h XI—HC-22 mmwm I Division Bench: - ’ ~ -- Mr N K Ctierlae cnuelf r th psiinf ha ns e apia Mr U N S Dec, Adnal ditio Pu llc Prsecter ou f0! the State/{espone dnt Ora nt dta a 0a . : judgme icted n Paq LG EhadW, s! his i d ctio 314 ) Cr?C pila s qtion eahty a c th ge ¢f cohiion and rer o éntenck 18‘” Decemb 5, pased by the -. essia‘n/ udge Raiai’h, in Ses ns ria! No6i, wreb Ieamed Sessions Ju helding th cusedlappeiiant guity for gnmicn offems undr ecian 32 .., senteric‘ him 0 nda imprisonme’ or f ni f iie he ase c ,prcsecun b tat Tuiam (P , age Kotwa Id e st Informa Report (E) Pohce ta Tamnar to the effecihat 4-8 94 t about 2 p deria ame t9 his heus d itifsred th as aks Bai ad reuse ts ide; c e an m a Lhmin h fd prov faod to him, he ha etied i urer ife Laksmi B by ~ attacking her with an axe on her n ck and aithe same time, the brother of Lakshmin Bai nameiy, Eshwar eiso ame to his house and inferme’d that the accused. has committed the murder f her sister by attacking her with an axe ~ on her neck, 'and she is tying dead n their house Therefore, he aiong with Eshwar, Manehar ~ Upéerpaneh, ararn - 3arpeheh, Peetembar - Ranch, Baidev Presad & ether tritiegers w to the house er sunderiai and saw that te [hw - By t appea uner Se (2 of the the accused] apent ha uesed ig nd carrectness f e udgmnt vct od f seda ed er, i99 s Ss J, g s a T‘ .2294 hey dge after e c i coiss e Si 0 0f t e iP.C ed t uerg Hon’bie Mr. L.C. Bhadoo and Honbie Mr; Dhirendra Mishra, JJ. 332008 T c f the tlo m rief is h ra W 2) \mi r adqe th Fir tl n XP3 m Stion t on 1- 9 a m. $unl Mishad s emmi h md of his‘w hn a: J y e. t XI—HC-22 Mmmm ‘._a‘s. * F 'V‘W man a} Is ymg ea m r o o eo d on the waEl aisc. The biood was 002m eut ef‘the imury on the neck. Sunderiai is mt m the heuse. ‘ ' Receiving this repert, the Station ouee Gfmer, Pcjice Statich: Tamnar, registered Crime No.32/9 under Section 302 cf the !.P.C. and ieft for the scene 'of occurrence. He into possession plain soii and bleed stained soil frem the place cf occ rrenee under Ex.P-5. After giving netice Ex.P~6 to the Panchas. he prepare the Panchnama (EXP-E of the body cf Lakshmin Bai‘ The Patwari prepa ed the she pian (EXP-1 0) of the piece of eccurrence. site pian EXP-12 prepared by the Investiating Officer. The axe was taken inte possessi n from the accused. The dead bedy of Lakshmin Bai was sent for pos marten: examination to Primary Heaith Centre, Tamnarywhere Dr. A.K. shra (PW-1.) conducted peet—mortem on the body of Lakshmin Bai and o ineci ‘that'the death was on account. of excessive haemorrhages leading t shock and the death ceuid be causeo by extensive injuries on the right eide f neck & face. The death is homicidai in nature. The recovered axe was sent to the rioctor for opinion and after examination the doctor opined th t the injuries sustained bv Lakshmin Bai cuuid be naused by the axe in a eetron Recovered ar‘icies were sent for examination by the Forensic Sci nee Laboratery, Rerpur from where the report x Pa17‘ was received E en as per the $eroiogasts report the axe in anestion was found starred with After compietion of investig tietx charge sheet was fiiediin’the Court or Judiciai Magistrate First Cie Gharghocia for commission of offence under Section 302 of the i P C a. arnst the accused who in turn commrtted the caee to the seesronsdude R grh U'nmr bia6d I weW ' H k s i s g e XI—HC-22 mm aw m GM—Wzé gig m » ' s The grosecutian in' larder ta Establish chargeagainst the accused examined as many as eight witn sea. 13tatement of the accused was he cr.P,C.' in which he 6en§ed~ihe at he rs innbcent and he has beerw ,d in Bai is not in dispute. . rccorded under Sewon 31a of prosecution evrdence and stated :mplrcated m a false case He ex mined two witnesses namely,‘ Bundram (DW-1) & Mukundram (DW-2) m de ace However reamed Sessrons Judae ‘ cmnvucted and sentenced the aw $ed as mentmned m para 1 of this u ldgmenf' We have heard ML'NK. Ch erjee, reamed couneei for the appelianzr and Mr. U.N,S, Dee, iearned Add‘it na! Pubiis’ Proeecutor on behaif efthe $iatefrespondent. The homicidei death of Laksh Ae far as mvoivement of t e aceueedlappeHant m committing the murder of Lakshmm Bar i3 concern d the case rests on the crmumstantrai evidence. m a case based en crrcu stentra! evrdence, before the Ceur! van. record ccnvicrion; it musteatiefy elf that circumstances from which an inference of gum could be drawn h ve been established by unimpeachabke evieence ieu‘ by the prosecution an ‘ thai all the circumstances gut together are not en$y of a conoiueive nature t aieo'compiete’ the chain so fuHy as to unerringty point ta the guiit of cused and' are‘hnot capabie of any explanation which 15 not consistep with the hypothesis cf the guilt of the aCCUSGd. The prosecution has tried to estabdsh crrne against the accuaed on/ ihe followmg crrcumetances - [111% éfee i" ‘ u c _ W m Em m 611%?! mam . 31m mm ma A ,_ 3 \ . 35m?W ff fa?!W $ am amt £§+ XI-HC-ZZ W , W m C»é\9%é . ’34; Vi 2w; mg WW WW' aaafimm ' . . by Eshwar (PW-3), when she. was alive; and 2‘ that, the accused made extra} dicia! confession before Tuiaram {PW- 2). First circumstance: - ‘Aé far as the first circumstan e is con‘cerne’d$ it is admitted pesition e that the accused on the date of'offen e was residing with his deceased wife Lakshmin Bat in his in-iaws house. shwar (PW«3) is brother-in-iaw’ of the amused whe has etated in his evid nce that on the fateful day at abeut 2 pm. he was sitting in the veranda of his house, the accused and the deceased we're aiso sitting with him nd his sister Lakshmin Bai went inside the house. thereafter. the accused aso {oilewed her. Atter some time, the accused came out ef the house and ‘ent running, therefore he went inside 3 i and saw that his sister £akshmin Bai was iying dead in the room, there were injuries on her neck and hand aiso broken. Therefore, he cailed Pitambar & Hariram. they saw the d ad body of LakshminiBai. Thereafter, Manohar, 'Baidev, Jayram — Sarpane etc. came and they aiso sew the dead body e‘i Lakshmin Bhi. Thereafter,‘ caiied'Kotwar Tuisram who Came to the place of eccurrence and iodged th report in the Peiice $taticn. in areas-examination ef this wi e33 {Eehwar (PW-3)}, defe’nee has not t been abie‘ to eiicit any circumstan e. which makes'the evidence’of this witness unreliabie er untrushmorthy. ing' brother-in-iaw of the accused his presence in the house at the fatefui ime is but naturai and he has stated in his evidence that gust before the c mmission of ofience the accused, the deceased (his sister) and he, aii the ' ree were sitting in the Varandeh oithe house, First the deceased left and ent inside the house, thereafter, the i i [Wihéfeh' s e . e XI»HC-22 nirg ou f hcuse and w ut of us Therefore he we u e nd aw tha ' er g d an ere wer wnes on neuk - & and ar o as 00g he u He ediateiy informed the lags hey gtere and Threafr, e Ka was. cal!ed and. the mte repte the P within a gap of wo haurs,'whereas, the dne is ab u 1 e pia and 9 "s e nam t ced ad te mner in which :he cu sked th ieas hef fomp Eoging cf the F S R _ h eta th fact that n saw e ausea and the 3 deceased tgetherd te ae Lsh B as fcund Within he time. 7 n te circusheee ths ai metace isdntiy ebnclueive of ‘ th proof that th aus was t a e the etim ustien. - As unsaw e Tu W 2) has stated is een t an t tefu! a eut - v. he was Sitting m is hose, at ta’time, he acu ame and sai tha he has cemmttteei th marder ef Lashmin Ba y at kihg her h on er neck and he. said tha he sheul accompany h t the eice Statih. th the mean time, Esr (Pw came to s hese nd informe abcu‘te eath of his sister en hi he t t the use ' war an w th deed batty of Laksh ai Axe. the weaon ence was ing nar te deer 0f the ro e the'be ef the e d s ti. -ie immeately went and le rport XP-3) in th Po tati. accuse c owe "r t o we en a tue hce mad a s t 1ia s: t was [y n ead d m e m n m mon w 2m out ft Injries Imm wier : ahd sa ete th ctwr aér was ud to o¥ic t istae of the Paiice Stat‘mn t 3 kms. frc-m th ee of aeeurrence ‘1 F i R *wd th e Af h acus n h an ’cSed asau e cceeu Treere, pt d funer sbnsnes e Is Witeas tn cc thew aWee oan h de b y or axmm a! w t h mne, i r un tnepende e e cced he a tht f e in ge 566915 Circumstanca ta; as the; uttctce i ueneemd taram (P in h wdce tha he ta d y t ab 1230 pm h u ht t cse ' c d t e k i b t c wtt axe h t d i o Fl e hwa W3) hi e d th d wch wen o ho t Eeh d sa e min B, p o Off ty e h om whre dy eieca e wa yng i di odgd the e (E e l‘ Sen l l l XI—HC—22 Cla 50F! ESSIOE, e OU !$ fequlred t0 were .re ymg an I e en ra ju ascemin thét :he extra judiciai con ssion must be vommary, prompt‘and true. From the evidence of this wit ess {Twaram (PW-2)} it is established that ihe extra jadieiai eonfession m e by the accused before this witness was vciuntary, twe anéi prompt be use, the {éport was lodged within nc ‘ time, by this witness and the FAR. fin s the‘daame of‘the acctised wherein the manner inwhich the accused assa Had Lakshmin Bai is also 'menticned. Moreover, as per the medica: report iso the injuries which were mentioned én the FJR. were round an neck & hand of the deceased and there is na 7 reasen far this witness to implicaie the accused in a faise case. Therefore, it » is estebiished‘ that ihe extra judiciei confession was made by the accused befe’re this witness. in'view of.‘t‘he above discueeion, the preseeution has‘been ebie ta ~ esiebiish the crime in , question against the accused based on' the circumstamiai evidence and from ihe above evidence it is estabiished fhat the accused was the author of the crime ih duestion. in the resuit there is “1o me it in this appeal, same is iiabie to be ersmisseo and it Is accordmgiy drsmr seed. mm’mw WW1§WW _ 6w aqaafa'qm SGma Sd/— Sdi L.C. BHADOO i ‘ DmNDRA MISHRAL i Liza g V Judge \h Judge a [‘ii%W r ‘ wwsiemwmwwmmmmmemi