w / /' , Lt. \ CF000006064'0 1 _ L L‘ V5 L W I, : ,gxll-139/(Jai1) c._J:PI._R.11/94lz,ooo ‘ ’ I, ~ ‘ ; _ ‘ r ,7 w : 3 CK§¥ v efwW 34%37 {53 ' _ @ ‘ \ ’ gr? / , I APPEAL OF PRISONER No. meg‘s x‘ a ~ ’ Name “%AL\\ m 4 / ‘ Father S I V I “Fm? “\‘m‘m5m W» w x cmg L w Resldence - .. " Age (\‘L kmw x .... Jk *q§(~ , ‘ QAXW§\&§\ V3) C ‘ V Sentenced t0 Wm'i«\_%m,§t\vx 5.. S. On .&\ C\\W " r ~ - W , (g \\ \r i ‘ Under sect1on :PK kg“ ${BVEQ C by %T m mm?“ “WVVVK It xs explalned to the prisoner that 1f he states or w1shes to be represented by legal "noner the Appellate Court Will not proceed wrth the base for seven days unless) :4 Vega] practmoner appears If the legal practmoner does nonappear w1th1n seven< ‘ days he may not heard at all lf the prrsoner states that he does not wrsh to be repre- ,, a a ‘ ‘sented by legal practltroner the court may proceed at once wuh the case and w1ll not be, r ‘ ‘ obliged to glve a hearlng to any l gal practltloner who should ’ ‘ 1r . appear l l l Date of Apphcatron for copy of Judgement V 4’ i 2 Date on wh1ch copyrecewed .. ' * r r-r‘f5‘i 3 Date on wh1ch Appeal sent C‘V V\* %’° ' 4 Whether the prtsoner w1shes to be represented OW Yes / No . V r l , " L L ‘ at kQ\6 Lx Q Namet§§¢§x QR,“ QW mg?» t, Confinedm tart “Nix“ Jarl wxkésx Kxxixx 3 ..‘..t.’ ,_ ‘_ §Jk\ ma} MLDated / to I994; . ' f r ? - . e warded to the£HIEEwJUBICIAL MAGISTRA$Ei Q§Qw “‘AQ ”gk: mwwx \ gather whtch a copy of Judgement or order passed m§1e case _ Ad‘ for\favour , Art of trarfs‘k\\’5\ _ _ I, mrsston to the proper Appellate Court. . I l " ;V u L i _ ’- hxx m we x; gr) mtg \z\~{\ —W§Q~ \\ g (\g \ §§r£e§§ \_ Date of receiptin ' offlce ’Date of record \V K recelpt to accompany the Memo ofAppeal to the Appellate court No l I x, A L 7 flioryqarde‘d to‘ the 'LDatc of recexpt 1n Appellate Cour XI—HC—78 @ Wm ..C..}.4;./:\.W...2r.3.3.7/gqé \ 200 WW(W) mam WWW WWIWW mmwm a; 31%;m DIVISION BENCH -: HON’BLE MR. LC. BHADOG, Ag. C.J. & HON’BLE MR. 30H“. KUMAR SINHA, J. 10.01.2007 Shri R.K.Jain, counsel tbr the appellant. Shn' U.N.S.Deo, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Heard. Per L.c. shadoo, Ag. c.J. This appeal is diiecte against the judgment of convicu'on and order of sentence dated 30.9.1996, passed by the Addih'onal Sessions Judge, Janjgir, Di —Bilaspur (CG) in Sessions Trial No. 298/ 1994, whereby, 1 d Additional Sessions Judge, aiim‘ guilty for commission of the od’ence 323 of I.P.C., sentenced him to , R.I. for 5 yeaxs & 6 months respectively. The sentences ele directed to be run concurrently. The case of the ecution, in brief, is that the accused] appellant-Sudha'ran. went to his inelaws house in village- Pachari 2-3 days prior to the date of incident. In the inteivening night of 6th &. 7“: July, 1994, accused and his deceased mother- in-laW — Budhawarin Bai were sleeping in the Veranda, all of a sudden at about 4.00 am., accused] appellant attacked with a crowbar on the head of the deceased -— Budhawarin Bai. 0n hearing screams of his mother PW-3 Mahadev woke up and went e holding the accused/app under Sections 302, 326 undergo imprisonment for P.T.O. s ' t t e 'e e p s XI—HC—78 @ WW,WW,W O<Ae€.,.2..i%?fz.’ q é W 200 WW(W> WWW WWW wmmm ~ 3"” naar the place of occunence. mmawgww %311'%W3T1%¥T snatéhed the said cmwbar of the assault made by accu the injmies instantaneously. Police Station-Shivari Narayan Pl7). After registering the crime for commission of oEence under Section 302 of I.P.C., the Investigating O$cer left for the scene of occunence and after giving notice (Ex.P/ 1) to the wimesses, plepared inquest (EXP/2) on 111e body of Budhawarin Bai. Blood stained soil and plain soil (Ex.P/3) was taken into possession. Weapon of oh‘ence crowbar was taken into possession [under EXP/4. A Lungi of accused stained with blood was also taken into possession (EXP-5). Body of deceased-Budhawarin Bai was sent for postmortem examination 1n Pn'maiy Health Centrek Shivan' Nalayan, whele Dr. R.K.Pandey (PW-9) conducted the postmortem and prepared the posmiortem cause of death was due to injm report (Ex.P/ 15). death was homicidal in nature. sustained injuries when he ! accused and his injun'es were and injuly report was pxepan sustained injuries. He was ex prepaxed injury report (EX.F He opined that y on the vital part ofthe brain and In the process Mahadev also Was snatching cmwbar mm the examined by the Doctor (Ex.P/ 18) :d. Jagjivan son of Maharlev also amined by Doctor and the Doctor [20). u Shakuntala daughter of P.T.O. When the accused was trying to make the second assault, Mahadev caught hold of crowbar and accused/appellant. On account , Budhawarin Bai succumbed to ahadev reported the matter to the on 6.6. 1994 at about 6.00 am (Ex. XI—HC-78 Wm . C}(Affa 2‘3z7./g_,f 200 @ WW,WHW,W mamm WWW mmmm ~~ 3 P WW%‘WW $WW Maharlev also sustained injuries, she was examined by Doctor and thE Doctor prepared injuxy 1e; After oompleh‘on of the filr-d in the Court of Judicial N tum commifted the case to investigation, the charge sheet was [agistrate First Class-Janjgir, who in the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur hom where, Additional Sessions Jiudge, Janjgir received the case on transfer. The prosecution in oxde‘ accused examined 12 wimes: Iecorded under Secu'on 313 material appearing against hi explained that he wanted to allowed to go to the village and he has been W137 implicated m this crime. The pmsecution family members assaulted the accused as a result of which, he sustained injuries on head and his head-bone was nactured and treated in the hospital of Shivari for those injuries, he was Narayan, Janjgir and Bilaspur. Learned Additional Sessions Judge aiier hearing ooun‘sel for the parties and perusal of record convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned. We have heard Shn' ELK. Jain, learned counsel for the accusedfappellant and Shri U \ mt (Ex.P—22). r to establish the charge against the ses. The statement of accused was 3f Cr.P.C., in which, he denied the m in the prosecution evidence and go to his village, but he was not witness-Mahadev (PW'3) and his .N.S.Deo, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record. P.T.O. WW(W) XI—HC—78 W 3am, Wm, .129 @ .32”... $3 Qi Mé 200 WW(W) WWW WWW MWWW ’4‘” Learned counsel for the accused] appellant has not disputed arin Bai. Apart mm that, mm the ev, PW-4 Jag'ivan as also medical ~9), it is established that the death WW§WWA QHWW the homicidal death of Budh ocuJar evidence of PW-3 M evidence of Dr.R.K.Pandey ( of Budhawarin Bai was homic idal in nature. As far as involvement of the accused/appellant in crime in question is concerned, PW-3 — Mahadev, an eye-witness and brother-in—law of accused, as bmther-in—lawwas staying in about 4.00 am, accused/ap crowbar and on hearing sore ams of his mother, he went to that place and saw that the accused was trying to make second assault, but he caught hold per his evidence, accused being his house and on the fateful night at ellant auacked his mother with a of crowbar and in the process of snatching crowbar, he sustained injuries. PW-4 Jagtvan, son of Mahadev, who was sleeping at the place of occurrence, has also corroboratad the above evidence. In the cross-examination of PW-3 Mahadev, it has come on record that after he reached to hold of crowbar, accused was further that after his reachin no assault was made by accused, but the fact remains that J the scene of occurrence and caught not able to assault his mother and 's witness heard screams of his mother and he went to the pot and saw that his mother was lying on the cot in an iuju condition, accused was holding cmwbar and was uying to m e second assault, therefom, it is \ u P.T.O. XI—HC—78 HW,W,W Wm .€£1;5§.g$..2y33.7./§Eé 200 WW(W) WWW WWW WWENW wwwm r'§ “ éawm established that on the evidence of PW-4 the accused was author of the assault or the injury inmctcd on the body of Bndhawarin Bai, as a result ofwhich, she died spontaneously . Learned counsel for accused/appellant argued that in the pmccss, the accused] ap 11am himself sustained injun'es and in fact, he was assaulted by ahadev and other family membels and that fact has not been explained by the prosecution and he has been implicated in a false: crime. counsel for the parties, we have Having heard learned perused the evidence of PW Mahadev. examination, this Witness categorically stated that the villageis came and accused as tied with the help of a rope on Which accused himself was h'ng his forehead on a stone, as a result ofwhich, he sustained juries. Therefore, how the accused In para 8 of the cross- been explained by this witness n. Moreover, Mahadev’s evidence has been corroborated by J ‘ivan, who was also present there when the accused assaulted udhawan'n Bai with a crowbar. Learned counsel for the accused] appellant submits that the trial Court has not given be edt of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. It is stated that the accused/a lant is in detention since 7.7.1994 till date, therefore, it is direct d that accused is entitled for set OE the detention period against s ntence imposed upon him. sustained injuries, has that too in the cross- P.T.O. - 't y 'o e p l glA XI—HC—78 HW,WW,W mm amiab- Cy§>§PPvo%§§7§g ézoo mm(m) WWW F WW§WW WWW matwm " Q %3n??mm In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court. In the result, the appeal. being devoid of merits is liable to be djs‘miseewisiaemby dis missed. v Sd/- i J ‘\ 7- Acting Chief Justice Sd/- Judge .\?_K:_’z \l £Lm‘bfit P.T.O.