t? ^•^•- • '^\ • . ~ - XIJ-189/(Jay) C.J.P.R.11/94/2,000 w^ ft.^^^ ".: ::-^t^-31^: <- . • ' \- ^- - ',• • . 'f . • ' '•••' •.-..-•S^^ .':'''.^a's/^..-"'\' "•••"^r w^ ^:-' CF0000059737 »• APPEAL OF PRISONE^ ^^•:;^^.^^--^^^^ ^.^ ^^;,^^ No..J.86S...—.......^ ••.••.•••.•••••••.... Name .•.T.ii.jr.^T^T^..... Fatfew*5 name .Tta-^^.T^. .??T"^...f^,ar^:...5F[-S={.g<?-^t?;"qT?ni-'-?fft?f®'r3T Residence; ...•f^5)T'^n^;^T^TT.g;..^£^o$"Age .5^. .^-......... ........... y • ..•.'• • . '•. — Se^rtenced to .'SST^'^ JST^T-^'^-'^Q^OOi-/—OQ-25/-QQ/9Q" •' :- y Under section .5Q2..WQ3©fgo...............by ^?^fr^.^y.^.^^^ET^^..^^^g^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ••_ " ' ' • • . ' ' .__:_^^_JIH'.yo i :—>: It is explained to the prisoner that ifhe states or wishes to be representedby legal ^practitioner thq Appellate Court will not proceed with the^base for seven days unless the legal practitioner appears^ If the legal practitioner does not appear within seven days he may.not heard at all . Ifiihe prisoner states that hedoes not'wish to be rfepre- sented by legal practitiooer the court may proceed at once with thecase and will not be obUged to give a hearing tq any lcgal practitioner who should appear . ;'a. ?l'^;, ' ~- - I —-—^• _ ^ ^ • - -I I Date of Application for copy ofJudgement ^ - ^ .. r 2 Date on which copy received >. 3 DateonwhichAppealseot.^.5/!.9'/98 -irvi 1 ^ r[^w 4 Whether the prisoner wishes to be represented or not - Yes / No .<,.^-' No.... j.86.8-- .....".................. ... .. Namerqr.?Ur^.(f^...?|^?mp}..fFg. Confined in ...... ..........^:^t:?l............. Jail .^T.JWT—i'^.QfO--^—.'-••• ••••-•• <^No.......^-. %^^ ^f3f^9L8Dated.........^^./0^1998...........;....^^ '"^1 ^•-..^ ^: Forwarded to the, (^ep^^©ieiAfcMA©IS'ERa^S_^T^zy..yfHf?^^..q^^..^-^ ..\ .„ „.. _ ^T^^^j^ TErrzH^? ^og-^sr^Fi togather which a copy of judgement or order passed^in the case foi favouf'b? tra'n^' mission to the.proper Appellate ^ourt. " \ m3I?Lr ?T5f 3'^^T ^T^i-61/98 ^" ?ffB?TTRm g'fh i / ^)P^Y , ....c%raJ.:!?jaiMRUr'.<M.?.l Date of-receipl.in.·. .......<... ................ o^fice ^ ' s~- Date of yeceipt rex;ord to accoinpany the Memo of Appeal to the Appeilaie court. {,^\."] No Dated ...............'.....199. FQr^varded to the .. Date of receipt in Appellate Gourt ( P. T. 0. ) /'.<: m-' XI-HC-78 I. k Vivq »<|iqiw«,y^1^1<&, PlriM^ IWrtl **li4> -•••••<^A-<s(»--2s^9ii^oor 3n^9rq3q?(<3^fg^) 3n^^T^Tftvlicb ^ww^^TaRN •^c ^- 2. DiVISION BENCH: HON. HON }HRI V.K.SHRIVASTAVA & ISHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRAJJ Criminal Ap lealNo. 2575 of 1998 Aooellant h/s Respondent Ms. Minu Banerjee, learne<| Shri Ravindra Agrawal, leafned ORAL (2 Per Dhirendra Mishra. J prefe^red The accused/appellant has the Cr.P.C. as she stands convitsted sentenced to undergo imprisonmt in default of payment of fine to| learned Additional Sessions J( 25.08.1998 passed in S.T. No. 61|; Case ofthe prosecution, in briefj one Bhukau of village Banhardi Bagh. Rajnandgaon to the effect that day both the wh/es of his| weeding Kodau. In ttie afternoon| to his house and infiormed that vi<ilw4i»i<ii<ic^B^'fecQ'^^N Pyari Bai StateofM.P. 1 " eounsel for the appellant. P.L.fortheState. UDGMENT 1/03/2006) thls appeal under Sectton 374(2) <rf under Section 302 of the IPC and ^nt for life and pay fine of Rs. 500/- and further undergo Rl for 15 days by the Adge, Rajnandgaon vide order dated /98. is that on 10.01.98 at abou! 18.00 hrs. gjave information in the police station Laal that in the moming at about 10 O'clock of son Sukhlat had gone tothe field for |at about 3.30 p.m. Kanwaar Gond came Ihis (laught^r in (aw Sharit|_@^i hanged .1 ® XI-HC-78 »fmc5T^*rT^ ^Sf »«iqiw<i,U>TIII«<I®,(qnmy •^BBBBBBBB S^rt'B B | l| U B B^| •i^«• B iftTlrtl • 3n^$T<ra^ (yit<sq<s) 3n^5t^rRviicb WyT3TT^fT«»niq» ^.. ^<- B^TTWCTfl^ 3TT^CT -J2— icv herself in the field whereupon thej vitlagers gathered and they saw rope in a nearby Babool tree daughter in law Pyari Bai was enquiry she did not state anythi^ Dehati Nalishj was registered intimation and Dehati Nalishi, 11.01.98 vfcfe Ex.P-11. On proceeded for investigation and of deceased Shanti Bai in the Ex.P.-S. The hair present on Ex.P.-4, the broken bangles the hair was also seized from n< 7. TMVO sickles lying on the Ex.P-8. One pair of Chappa/lyinl Ex.P-9. The dead body examination to Government Dr. V.P.Maheshwar (P.W.-11) i deceased Shanti Bai and after conducting the post morterr| FlR wer^ pla|;e of decealsed submjtted H. there werj portionof <PJ<<Tw<S1l 411<10M"^"&^1 ^Rl^N ^llTl*t^IR^T went towards the fietd where number of ^hanti Bai hanging with the hetp of nylon IsStuated on the bund and his second spting on the road weeping. However on |ig. After registering the merg intlmatfon, |vide Ex.P-10. On ttie basis of merg (Crime No. 5/98) was Tegistered on rec^iving the informatjon, the police officer c|onducted the inquest over the dead body ofv^tnesses. The inquest report is the Mouse of the deceased were seized vide taken into possession vide Ex.P-5 and w the dead body vide Ex.P.-6 and EX.P- of occurrence were also seized vide on the place 6f incident was seized vide Shanti Bai was sent for post mortem Ho^pital, Rajnandgaon vide Ex.P-12 where ccjnducted the postmortem over the body of his reportvide Ex.P-47. The doctor noticedthat: the tongu^ of the deceased was protruded and bitte|i between teeth and multjpte abrasions bresent in the left side of the chest and injury t>etween 9th and 11' rib. superficial abrasjons in the upper |he left hand, right knee. XI-HC-78 *ll*1C»lfl»*fT^ ^o^ T<ii«i««, U>T?I<I<I<»,(^riH^ .G..^.^..2.sn^ MQ^ 3TI^$Tqafep (^f^^) 3n^i<rwRTii<b ?CT 3n$^T SFTO? 't^-- e^aiW xiRa OT^F^T -3+ iii. Oblique lig^ture neck whichj wasnotvisl iv. Ligature corresponcfl and the the rope. rr(ark was slightiy depressed and to the wrclth of the rope % cm. was the same as the width of witlth V. VI. dissectlon On between th] He also f<i The trachel in small quj vii. The right were also viji. The left ch|amber right charr|ber food was p|resent He opined that the cause of deal death occurred withln 24 to 36 examination. He further opined though no definite opinion could the body of deceased ShantS Bai <pi<<tw*S1i <ii*iwf^'fe^sriS?^R t(T3n^^T mark was present over the |was broken on the back side and Ible. he found ligature mark present ^roid cartilage and chin. und fracture of cervical vertebra. congested and froth was present antity. a|id teft lungs and Parion Paracsium 1|3undcongested. of the heart was empty and was futl of blood. Undigested in the stomach. of Shanti Bai was strangulatton and the [hours from the time of the post mortem that the death was homicidal in nature be given and that all the injuries found on were ante-mortem In nafeire. XI-HC-78 ^W^iW^l^ ^wcj ^|^||c6^1, tp^i1<i<i<»,fdCTi^y ..G<;.^.alp.:..^^ ^oo-^ 3n^^T^?TRnicp ?rai 317^^1 w*iici> K... 8 3TI^$Tq5^ (<iq^61<8) B^ffW^Hl^T Wt^T -4~ The photographs cf the The accused was arrested or| Sample of the hair of completing the investigation was field in the Court of Judicia|l in tum committed the case to same was received by the for frjal. The trial Court againstthe accused. deceafeed were taken vide Ex.P.32 to €x.P.-44. 12.01.98 vide arrest memo of Ex.P-14. accusjed was also taken vide Ex.P-15. After c^arge sheet under Section 3Q2 of ttie }PC Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon who 1(ie Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon and the learfied Additional Sessions Judge on fransfer framed|the charges under Section 302 ofthe (PC The accu^ed/appellant abjured her guilt. The prosecution in orderto est|ibllsh in all. Statement of the accus^ The appellant denied tiie cir^i prosecution case and steted case. The Court below after hearirjg convicted and sentenced the a4< consideration Homiddal death of the dece< otherwise taking into V.P.Maheshwar who perfornr<ed deceased and found injuries cause of death was due to homicidal death of the deceasefct Learned counsel for the accu^ed/appdlant witness to the inddent and q»l<<fo41w1<11Hol'^ffa^l ^^l^ ^3rf^tT3n^fT ite case examined thirteen witnesses ^d/appellant was also recorded thereafter. [umstances appearing against her in the she has been falsely imptieated in the tihat ttie wunsel for the respective parties cused/appellant as mentioned afaove. ased Shanti Bai is not in dispute. Even the statement of P.W.-11 Dr. ttie autopsy over the body of the described above and has opined that the isphyxla on acGount of strangulation, ttie js estabHshed. submtts that there Is no eye the case of ttie prosecution hinges on i !l! XI-HC-78 *ti*ioi^m^ ^^ 'F<ii«iCT«,yTi^l^<l<i, Plriro^ »»»»»»»» ^Jtv»\\»^e\l»U^i »B^nftl al^ j 3H^^TtRW (^¥g?R[) 3n^iT^rR^icb wiran^CT^qra? 8. 9. 10. \Y 5;RffW^?r 3TT^CT ~s4 furthfer appellant altegedly c^nfessed the guitt circumstantial evidence. She placed its reliance heavily on th< alleged extra judicial confession m^ & 6. However she points out thal witnesses the of circumstances which are ignorep .that it was not humanly possibie f^ of her equal age and this aspect hs On the other hand tearned counsel the trial Court. We have heard tearned counsel fo It is not in dispute thatthere is no of the pr<»eGutionrests on circum^tantiat order to convict the accused on prosecution is required to estat>l following teste:- i. circums^nces the guilt is and flrmly e sougpit K. ttiose tendency ur the accused ^jl^io<ili ^i*iCTli"^feMrl ^fSy^R llT3n^^T contends that the Court below has circumstences of the last scer and |ide by the appetlant before P.W.-2,3.5 [though in the statement of the above but there are number by thetrial Court. It is further argued |r the appellant to strangulate a woman |s also been ignored by ttie frial Court. for th@ State supports the judgment of the parties. sye witness to the ineident and the case evjdence. It is setUed law that in ie basis of ctrcumstantjal evidence the slish that such evidence satisfy the from whlch an inference of to be drawn, must be cogently Itablished; circurtistances should be of a definite erringly pointing fowards guitt of (^) XI-HC-78 »tPic5Ta»*riq» ^s^^wm^, y^l^H^d, f^rtl^H^ »»»«»» »B^A-O .t^ S-B o U»Ua»- ai&SkH 311^91q^?(^3^) W^^T^T^FTN? WTT 3Tl^$TSFFTT9? •e^ 11. ^ iij. the circumst^inces, taken cumutatively, should form a chaih so complete that there is no escape fronf the conclusion that within all human prob^ibility the crime was eommitted by the accused |and none etse; and IV. the drcumsttintial the convidl incapable hypothesis tl| and such consistent v| should be in< In the instant case, the againstthe accused may be sumrr i) H) IV) motive; the cir< appella procee* thedat the cor Extraji before To establish the flrst cirGurtistance examined P.W.-1 Bhukau father cpk<<I%4l»l*ii*K^"^ffe^lSlfSl^H fR'3n^5T evidenee in order to sustatn ion must be comptete and >f explanation of any other lan that of the guilt ofthe accused evidence should not only be ith the guSM: of the accused but sonsistent with his innocence. circumslances relied upon by the proseGution larized as under: sumstanees of the last scene as the •rt and the deceased Shantj Bai led to the field atabout 10.00 a.m. on of incident; duct of the appetlant and dicial confession made bythe appellant witnessesP.W.-2,3.5 &6. j.e. motive,the prosecution has n law of the deceased who has stated XI-HC-78 *IPIC5T fl»*11<» ^^ 'F<<1*1109<1, »^1<d<l<a,RlWI^I^ »oaa»»»»9»» BV^»n»ea\ S^»»»» S^^»\ 37I^^Tq^?(^3^) 3n^^T^TRiiq» ?TaiT3l1^?T(PHW •^ 12. 13. ?^rrwr^rfepr OT^IT -=3=j <PI<4llo4(<1 +iMCI)l'^'fell^l ^RD^K ><H1 ttiat his son Sukhial has Iwo wiv^ and both of tiiem used to quarret. He further stated that because of sictajiess Shanti Bai was not able to perform agricultural work and therefore his| son married P>yari Bai. Shanti Bai and Pyari Bai used to quarrel in the na|ne of work and they had quarreled two days prior to the date of incident al( P.W.-6 Sukhlal, husband of the d there were differences between ttl the room of the deceased, Pyari B{ considered opinion these circumstances strong motive to commit theoffenc^ ^ceased has also stated thatat times |e two wives and whenever he slept in ^i used to raise disput®.However inour may not be considered to be a of murder. The second circumstance is ths|t of th®last seen. To establish this circumstance the prosecution relyi|ig upon the statement of P.W.-1 Bhikau who has stated that on the date of Jnddent the deceased and the |at 10.00 a.m. and used to return in ttie 11 has not been disputed In the cross appellant went to the field to work evening. This stetement of P.W.- examination. On the confrary in ^er statement under Section 313 of flie Cr.P.C., in reply to question four t|iat she went with Shanti Bai to the field <?ident she replied - in affirmative and |Bai was found at about 3.30 p.m. in the |)ehalf of the accused to ttie witnesses at 10.00a.m. on the date of in< thereafter the dead body of Shanti field. There is no suggestion on that after proceeding with deceas^d Shanti Bai she left her company and thereis no evidence availabte o|i record ftat after departing for work Shanti Bai was seen with any ot|ier person than the accused and thus from the evidence available on r^ cord we are of the considered opinion ^ XI-HC-78 *tl*l«l»*11<l» ^wcl ^MM^, y>T^ii<i<»,Rom^ .(A^.-.(SA....2^l^^.jQQ^ 3TI^9TtR^? (yj^cicg) OT^r^rR^icb Wff3{1^^Tw*i|cp i^e1 PNN^ 14. 15. ?;^!TWr^T^T 3TJ^fT -&- that the prosecution has ^'been "ft^ lable to estabtish ttie cireumstence of that the accused was last scene with the deceased white she was alh/e. The third drcumstance is that of | Bhikau Ram has stated that on th^ laws went to the field. However at Pyari Bai returned alone and start|ed P.W.-2 Meghraj Sahu, Sarpanch Pyari Bai on the way. However wllen she pleaded ignorance and slate<| plucking vegetables. When they a^k® she tried to explain that it fell. Simil and P.W.-4 Yograj @ Joga. In the opinion that the aforesaid conducjt circumstance. Similar is the statement of P.W.-3 four of his statement that accus^d/appellant Shanti Bai by pressing her neck.l appellant before P.W.-5 Bhuki Bai| not been able to elicit anything inj version unreliable or untrustworthy|and therefore opinion that the appellant immedi^tely guilt before the above witnessejs circumstance, the material clrGunhstance immediately after the incident, on cpi^Io^i *ii*toi"^ffe^ ^RKt^l^ ?T3n^ST |the conduct of the appeltant. P.W.-1 date of jncident both his daughter in afcout 3.00 p.m. his daughter in law weeping and did not tell anything. the village has stated that they met they asked as to how it happened that she was in the other fietd and |ked her about the ptucked vegetables w is the statement of P.W.-3 Loku Das ;ircumstance, we are of the censidered of the appellant is an inGriminating -oku Das who has stated Sn paragraph confessed that she killed 1 The confession is also made by ttie land P.W.-6 Sukhlal. The defence has Itheir cross examination to make their we are of the censidered after the inddent confessed her voluntarily. Apart from the above against the appellant is that jbeing asked by P.W.-2 Meghraj Sahu XI-HC-78 *tl*IWim<TT^ ^TPq '^liq^q, ttTcTl^l<l®,Rltc61^t^ BB«8BBBBBBIBI»ulb»tf(i4n||BBaiBllKln• N<«fl < B' ^ sni^rq^ (^tg?^) 3n^wwRiviicb wyTsn^^rgwra? 16. •^, 17. »£ K. 4c" y-^ .A ¥^f B^ITWttISd 3TT^^T <pi<Blo41wi*tiic^'^r'fe^ ^ISsi^H ^^rf^TOT^^T she stated that she has committedl mistake and she has murdered Shantt Bai. On the basis of the aforesaid analyjsis and as per the setUed law we are of the considered opinion that thepr4secution has been abte to establish alt the circumstances relied upon accused/appellant in the instant committed any illegality or infirma Section 302 of the IPC and senten< In view of ttieabove.the appeal deserves to be djsmissed and is a^ Sd/- V.K. Shrivatava Judge for establishing the guUt of the lcase and th^ Court below has not ^ in holding the appellant guilty ynder ^ing her w'rth life imprisonment. lis devoid of sub^ance and the same lcordingly dismjssed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge l-1 11 ! ^ i !