uder Section 3.93 V . -f » by WW mm; «$1 1 R§I 3 \t ~1uq It 1s explained to the prisoner that 1f he states he wxshes to be represented by a legal practmoner the appellate Court Will not promed With the ca‘e foe shin days unlen the practitioner appears carher If the legal practltloner does not appear wnhm seven s he may not heard at all 1f the prisoner states that he does not w1sh to be repre- sented h legal practmoner the court may proceed a: once wnh the case and Will not be obllged to glve a hearmg to any legal pracutxoner who should appear “F .. Date of Arphcatton for copy ofJudgement .V _ 7 W > Date‘ore which copy reeelved . Date on winch Appeal sent V3 7 3 "Whether the prisoner wishes to be represented or aotwwg Noj‘ 39371 . Iame , Confined i’n u , ,. Jait‘ "%mr 3%rm . ‘x ”9% ' Ne Date orwarded to the, t iii 'g Eva! t rut. gren rm m. 5 ther with a‘ copy of gudgemem, or order passed m the ease for favour of QY‘ ‘w .i v.’ pen W x _. d s F e trans _ ission to the proper Appellate court. q Date if receiptt a Office Date of recetpt of record to accompany the Memo cf Appeal to the Appellate court up, H r or . 0‘{}\f§ated LL v 3% ow Ave w @’MW) gatw W E . Date of receipt m Appellnte court , Z U J / ..... > , % “IE Em? W . iv), fawagm C/Y A H3X93 my: WWJFA \ \ @9 31? WWW, W., f‘aFmg R EQEfWQTE’? ’ mm completien of the investigation c arge sheet was fHed 5n the Court of Jqdiciai Magistrate First Ciass, D aramjaigarh who in turn committed the caiee to ihe Sessions Judge, Rai arh from where the” learned Additional Seseions Judge received the case n transfer for triai. e. 4.1 The prosecution in order o establish the charge examined ’ii Wi’inesses. The statemem of the a cused‘was recorded under Section 313 ofi the Code of Criminal Proced re in which he denied the materiai appeaEing againsthim and stated .hat he is innocent and has been faiseiy impiicated in the crime. w e 5.; Learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing'the arguments of the Additiona! Public Prosecutor ar d the counsei for the accused/appeliant convicted and sentenced the appeliant as mentioned in paragraph—1 of this judgment. 6. We have heard Shri Abtay Tiwari, learned counsel for the accusedfappeilant and S‘hri UNS Deo, learned GA. with Shri Akhii Mishra learned P.L. appearing on behalf oithe $tate. Z. Homicidal death of deceased Shanichar is not in dispute. 8. Even the iearned counsel fcr the accused/appellant did not dispute the involvement of the accused in the crime in question; Apart from that,‘ Balram (P.W.l) and Ba‘truram (F.W.2) who witnessed the crime have - categoricaily stated that the accused requested Shanichar to allow him to construct the house on “Noutod” and of village-Tepudand but the same was refused by deceased Shanichar which was not iiked by the accused. s,..,_. [View , XI—Hc-zz “7 %4Ls f ma WWfIWWR mmatm -3, awfwma A E 3; The nature of death wa reported to be homicidal. After XE—HC-22 afi‘éfs afar? his stomach as a result of Whicl” fiemach, feH down on the ground in§uries. ’Shanichar died on the next 9‘ r The evidence of the eyewitn evidence of P.W.9 Dr. GK. Verma LeSeainined the dead body of Shanic bf stab wound on the right side of size of 4”, on opening the stomach were damagedhciotted blood was and the death was homicidal in nat death of the deceased, therefore, t crime in question is established evrdence. I ‘lO. Learned counsel for the accu attacked deceased only once in l refused to accede the request m: construct the house on "Noutod“ sect/appellant argued that the accused he heat of passion when deceased ade by the accused to aiicw him to accused to cause the death of the d iand. There was no intention of the 11. On the otherhand Mr. U.N.S the judgment of the trial Court. 12. ln order to appreciate the ar the appellant if we look into the evid ahd Jagturam in which they have Shanichar received injurtes on his and blood started oozing out of the day on account of the injuriee. sees is corroborated by the medical rho has stated that on 18.06.1992 he ar and found that there was an inj'ury stomach near umbiticue region in the 1e found the intestine and right kidney present, the injury was ante-mortem ure, the same was sufficient to cause he invoivement of'the accused in the in View of the ocular and medical eceased. . Deo ‘with Mr. Akhil Mishra supported $‘ a guments advanced by the counsei for ence of eyewitnesses nameiy Balram stated that on the fateful day the “assembled at the residence of E .Mir t. a ,. A y iaibhanj to ceiebrate the festival of [stew . mgw gm mm Werner emits a mmeara M, ’ Wamdfatm a: tram ants a He went to his house, brought a pckaxe and attacked the deceased on XI-HC-ZZ 7v? 3IWFW, ‘v3'FTR'N’w, QEWQE H§., lDhankuti, at that time Ghurou aekec mwliwmr WWW a l Shanichar to allow him to cometruct a ‘ mouse on “N9utod” ia‘nd of village §Shanichar and on refusa! accused i :a pick axe and at€acked the deceag damaged the mtestine ard kidney ' ‘on the next day m oyder to ascer tbe~1aw said down by the Apex Cot Vs Dhooi Smqh reported m AIR 2 of weapon the part of t%*e body w! With which the Imury was mfhcted present case t Is borr‘e out *rom th axe, a deadly weapon which is use and he assauited on a vital part Le. biow the intestine and kidney were i ofw ihe‘injury and the doctor has o cause death. 13. Thus from the evidence it is like the refusal by Shaniehar Le. n the house and he brought a deadly deceased on thevvital part, that m death of Shanichar, therefore, we arguments advanced by the learne counsel for the dopeiiant are devoid ' of merit and we do not find any ille ality or infirmity inthe judgment of the triai Court. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and the same is — r dismissed. , I Sd/- Dhlrendra Mlshra Judge .., Tepudand which was not accepted by hmediatety went to his house, brought 3d on the tight side of the stomach and le a result of which the deceased dted 1n the intention of the accused as’ber Irt m the matter of State of Ragsthan we 56W 24 it 1e to be seen the ku‘d Here the rmuryelvas Inflrcted, the force and if we look into the facts of the e record that the accused brought pick d for digging the hard surface of land stomach and as a resutt of that singfe tamaged and blood started oozing out Dined that the injUt ’was sufficient to established that the accused did not at permitting the accused to construct weapon i.e. pick axe and assaulted the es the intention of accused to cause re of the considered opinion that the 6' Sdl- L.C.BHADOO y i