^ 3 :->.. . .•'-'"' : "• •^."1;^^ :''h@^'S>,.-,''.^'. y"' &^"y' ^Ty^T^^^. -•-< •' 1'-. ^ R;,,;r'- . 3. 1V_-'1 ••'.'• .>> ¥^vi:'i^'tJ"i^£i-i-1i Faiher's name -y^^^ ^,y —-^ R!;!"dencs^fe'%^7^^^- S8nteneed,ioj^y^-^-^cT^^^o^---—^-^'g2-^.= UBder'scctioH — TW w'i^7^7?T^7 ir h expiamsd to the prisoner that if he sta-tes or 'A'ishes to be reprecented b? ;i Jei'^ii nmctitiOHsr the Ap^eJate Court wiii not orccee-j v.-'ith ,l.hc base for .sevej-i dayii urjtss ..*.t , . . • •- tfae ie^£! ' practiitoner appears. Jf t^e legai pract'niorier ckTes r,i--'t appf'ar u-sii'; In seven dsyi-i he may .not be hssrd st ail Tf Uie pri.soMer stai?p th,nt j-;e does not wish to be represeated by legal pracEitiORei' the court rnay proceed a;' once 'whh the rgise SKd wijl li-ot be obii^ed to givc a hearin^ to any legal pi'':ictiti0'is.-r who should appcar. 'Ds.ts of Appiication for copy of JudgeiTient Date of which CODV received Pate on which Appeai ?ent ——^-^^'-/-Cj-";^^——. ^ hetrjsr the prisoner wishes to be represented or no^ ~ Yes/No. ••-3- Centmued m- T^ame- J2^^.d_^ ^^^'----^^-^TcT^^'sy^-Wfo-tV^f^f '-€-lS-:Ti— -J."! 79^77-^7—Z3?7^%%^ -dalcd—~^'-/'T^/--e^£2——198—-q- Forwarded to tbc CHIBF JUD.'CiAL MAGJSTRATE —n-, ,(/-) t.t tG- ^ther wi£h s copy ofjud^emer;t or orcier pss.sed in fne.case iof'f^vb]^ oi' •iraasmissJOB to; the prpper AppjHiate Court. ti~a^sa3isg!on ?o: me pr^per App^aie t/oiin. ^^r-Wf^^ s.l-c^r^ SuperJnic ^£^^.^^ ^.r- "'A ^ ,Da oi'neeiot in C. J. M.'S Office— pateofieceiptofreco^dto accompany———^^^^^f^-^^c^-^^ —-.———^- ———-— ^ /j Meso of Appeal.of.tl'e Appeiiatc- Court. —y^c^.^—-^-gq. ^jy^-'—ek^-^-^V)-'-^''~Y°(^3^| f^v)^' -< . No.——~~^^^~_ — a—'~~——— Dated^.-&—^--~.^-i98—^f—.^-- '^4<^i-^(^t^^^.4<^^^-3^b^^v>-—_- H ^") •. / ^T's^'f^B \'v'-"'\ffe^- C.J.Maslsi^-^.-S^.'^^^ '°-T''* £li'^!... .,-. •-•B&U e'frecsi^t m App]iat®Courf- (P.T.Q.) /.i;^-:^;:^";c-;; -^w^m! I.HC-78 3^g 'OKOWO, tyriiwKa, Rnitf^K *ii*idia*TW"""""""""""""""^—^^2oo- 3n^?itra^(^gERE) 3n^wwft-< aan^SItWi* •;T*f.^t! ^.T^I;3|| "•"! ^ i;ESi B^niBR -Hlid 3TI^?I DIVISION BENCH: h|ON. SHRI L.C. BHADOO & hON. SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA.JJI CriminfeLABPeal No. 1383 of 1997 ApBttlant Respondent Shri S.K.Chandel,le ShriU.N.S.Deo, forthe State. Per L.G.Bhadoo. J By this appeal un^er Procedure the accused/4 correctness of the judgm^nt 04.08.1997 passed by Fi( S.T.No.366/96 whereby th< holding the accused/appeltint Sectiops 3,02 ofthe Indianl son Xannilal sentenced het' «ni«iF<"xIliiinV^' ls><tl '(Rl't^l't ^aiKl*iaii^ Satni Bai Vs StateofM.P. /• |imed counsel fcr th®appeUant. tearhed G.A. with Shri D.K.Gviah^, teamed Dy.G.A. <3RALJUDGMENT (21/03/2006) er Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal .ppellant has questioned the legatity and of convictlon and order of sentenee dated ^ AddWonal Sessions Judge, Ambikapur in tearned First Additional Sessions Judge after guitty for the commission of offence under Penal Code for commftting the murder of her to undergo imprisonment for life. 11*IC91 JSVSW ^^"yiqiw*!, u>Ti1tt*Ka, Roiny i^7..^:\...^..3.'2i^./.?.3... ^ ^Ft^O^ sninwR-ii* gfflsn^n^Ti® Stilf s'31 ^- 1 an^^T'CT? (^?^r®) g'KflW'dBd 9?lt?T 2. Gase of the prosecutio| report P-1 in the Poltce Statior^ (i, in brief, is that PW-1 Heera lodged the f- Sitapur to the effeet that he alwig with his elder brother Naihar Sai had ^one tothe forest in the morning tocoltoct wood and at about 1.00 p.m. sitting in his house. At that timi and the daughter of his young "aunt has murdered". On hear went towards the sFde from wt that Kannilal - son of Piyari w^s lying In the pool of btood in the courtyard of the house of Naihar Sai. T Kannilal and he was writhing it pain and at that place Satni Bai - the wffe ofPiyari was standing hotding died. On asklng by him hte \ handed overthe same to him. with axe on his neck. Receh Sitapur left for the scen^ af 01 Panchas he prepared the Par occurrence under P-7. He P-11 was prepared by the Pi postmortem examlnation to th P-13 where Dr. K.K.Dutta con and prepared t(ie postmortem| preparsd/the, site plan P-16. | ^<tle)i^HTT *tMciT^f f«*^^fuii^it ^ari^Tsn^tT they' returned to hls house and they were ^ he heard the cries of his daughter Sumitra \er brother Anita ^sd fhey Were saying that |ng the eries they came out ofths house and iere the sound of cries was heard and saw icre were injuries on the neck and head of bloodstained axe. Aftersometims Kannllal vife Balo snatched the axe from Satni and Satni had murdered Mfcson after assaulting ing this report, Station House Offlcer P.S.- scurrenceand after gn/ing notice P-5tothe chanama P-6 of thebodyof Kannilal. He took into possession the bloGc|stainedsoil and plain soil from the plaee of also took into possession the weapon of offence - axe on production l|y Heera under P-8. Sari of aceused Satni Bai stalned wtth btood was tak^n into possession under P-9. The site plan twari. The body of Kannilal was sent for s Community Health Centre, Sitapurunder ducted posfrnortem on the body of Kannilal report P-17. The investigatlng officer also The btoodstained articles vmre sent fop exatiainatfon to the Forensic Stience Laboratory, Sagar ft'om where report SP/FS/2005-20,000 s'*s^.^."^?^'*''wi«n^,.t^ •,'. '. ' ' ^iTOmws ...^.A.^8.^.^.... ^2oe- an^iqa^(^3qs) sn^nwlS-fi* -^iisn^sitwi* |i»:»gs;(. w^ B^niw'HlScfan^?I P-18 was recewed andaccordin^ ofthe accused and the weapon investigation charge sheet agairlst Judicial Magistrate First Class, to the Session Judge, Ambikap>|r Sessions Judge, Ambikapur to the report blood was found on the sari |af offence - axe. After completion ofthe the accused was fited In the Court of ^nbikapur who in tum committed the case from vrfiere theleamed First Additionai the cass on transferfortriat. rec^ved ord^r 3. The prosecytipn in accused/appellant examined e| statement of the accused was in whichshe denied the proseci(tion stated that she is innocentand She has fyrther stated that she| why she should connmit the mu( Sessions Judge after conelusior| respecth/e parttes convieted mentioned In paragraph -1 ofthi^ artd 4. We have heard Shri S.l behaif of the accused/appellant ^ D.K.Gwalre, leamed Dy.G.A. on 5. Homicidal deathof KanniW 6. As Tar as involvement committing the murder of he( ! .l1 / ;'->.-. : .- ._..'1' .- ..'I eyewitness Sumitra (PW-4) h^s '• / .. .. • • . prosecutioricase rests on thec( <ni«lCT«!11I*ICTT^"fa><9 '(tuitSlt ^BillKfMdllSCT to establish the eharge against the Ight witnesses. On the other hand, r4corded under Section 313 efthe Cr.P.C. evidence appearing against her and Jias been falsely implicated in the crime. is the mother of deceased Kannllal and tder of her own son. Leamed Additional of the trial, hearing the counsel Tor the sentenced the aeeused/appetlant as judgment. K|Chanctel, leamed Counsel appearing on ^ndShri U.N.S.Deo, leamed G.A. with Shri |?ehalf ofthe StateA^spondent. is not in dispute. of the aecused/appeltant Satni Bai in son Kannilal is concemed, the sole tumed hostile, therefore, the wrfiole rcumstantial evidence. In orderto base sp/FS/2005-20.oooJtnfi-eol'BUCDfll:lion me circumstantlai eviaence as per ine seniea law, the I-HC-78 <}-oq "yiqio)«,lyiIl'M<l<»,Rrtl'Hy't -;—<^y -A- 7383/9^ WTcCTtpmm "^•i an^n'BiR'ii* 3?nsii^i;itp^i<» :ts! i a 3fl^Tqgy(<jciigq<,) ft s^ngR'olSd SD^CT Court is required to aseertain must satisfy the following tests 1) 2) 35 circuitistances the guilt is s< and firmly those cir from vAich an inferenee of 4ught;to be drawn, must be cogently [estabtjshed; •fcumstances should be of a definite tendencylunerringly pointing towards guilt ofthe circuihstances, chbin 4) accused; the fbrm a from the| probabilit^ accused the the convif of explanj of the gu| should nojt accused •oiulot^i i]*inf^" fe'<sl •(IS|<(11 ^ari^Han^ai fran the circumstances that such evidence i, taken cumulatively, should so eomplete that there isno escape conclusion that within all human the crime was commltted by the ^nd none etse; and evidence in order to sustain ^tion must be complete ancf incapable Won of any other hypothesis that that tt of the accused and sueh evidence only be conslstent with the guilt ofthe but should be inconsistent with his circuijnstantial mnocenc^. 7. Nowwe shall proceed| whether the prosecution has accused in the crime in questi^n / 8. The/prosecutton has|tried to establish the crime against the accused/appellant on thefoll<4wing circumstanees; —^- ^ " " to examine the evidence in order to find out >een able to establish the involvement ofthe based on the circumstantlal evidence. XI-HC-78 *lllcil»ll^ \)va tiwicw, yrftwid, Rd y< „«&s..:.^..^y^.. •nn.....••..,..,........,^, 'B^SGO' 3II^?T?CTRH 5W?3n^?TjOTW Kff i^» ^'a 1) 2) That the accui occurrenee holcU near the dead also tried to run That the axe wh| by Balo Bai and| stained wth blooB circufristance 9. As far as the first none else than brother-in-law younger brother of father of th|s when he retumed from the fo| Sumitra and came out of the Sai and sawthat son ofSatni) injuries on. his neek and blo<j Satni was standing there hold|ng P-1. This witness has beej prosecution was allowed to ci] that the §talSni<3*Al^f'portion crying that the aunt has axe, the axe was snatched fr<jm white lodging the report P-3. the cross-examination he hai house of Naihar Sai who is t| scolded Sathi Bai on which st was sitting'bythe sideofher^ M.eorroboratec) by the evideo.l 'RiiIn'fl'i iitnTfffeifl i(fSl<^N ^oiKltsn^?! ^ed was seen at the ptaee of (ng Moodstained axe in her hand jody of deceased Kannilal and she (way from the place of oceurrence. lch was snatched from the accused Ithe sari of the aceused were Tound is concemed, PW-1 Heeralal who is ^fthe accused and uncle ofthedeceased i.e. (s deeeased has stated that on the fateful day [•est at about 2.00 p.m. he heard the crias of louse, wsnt towards the courtyard of Naihar |was lying dead in the courtyard. "niere were |d was oozing out of the injurfes. Accused axe in her hand and he lodged the report declared hostile by the proseeution. The loss-examine this witness on vrfiich he stated fA' to 'A' of the report P-3 that the girls wrere and Satni was running away with the lm her and she was tied, was informed by hfm The sari of Satni was statoed wtth blood. In stated that the place of occuirenee was the i^brother ofthis wtness. Hls wfe Balo Bai ie tried to run away butbefore that Satni Bai .on Kannital. The above evidenc®of Heerala) (rf PW-? Pal" Rai 'uho hq? ^?o stated that murtdered XI-HC-78 yoq '<ii<iin<<, t»^ti<i<o,finmy TFreSTWTRP .Sf...^.: \^ aii$?TW fS'ii* WiTan^awiw l3|tt!L »'Ki-i'lfi.l s^iwt^ri^aan^n qiiqlnlll tiinl'^ffe^ lRf<^N 1%I on hearing the serearh of Surjittra she came out and enquired tl"6m Sumitra as to what has happened on whereupon she saw that the oozing out. The accused Sat tortiich Sumitra asked her to look at other side son of Satni was lying dead and blood was il was there and she was holdhg the wooden portion ofthe axe in her hanc|\i^iereas the iron part ofthe axe was lylng on the ground. When Satni trie(l to mn away, her husband (Heeralal) asked her to catch Satni 6n which s(e caught hold of Satni and tookher inside the house and locked the house.l In the cross-examination she has stated that Sumilra and Anita had gone Kannilal was lying dead and| to fetch grass and on relum they saw that vrfien she w®ntthere Satni was sltting by the side of Kannilal and was sijeeping. In the eross-examinatton of these witnesses the defence has r|ot been able to elicit any circumstance whteh shows that the accused was|not present when Heera and Balo Bai went to the seene of occurrence, th4'efore, the presenceof Satni Bai at the place of occurrence near the deadjbody of her son Kannilal holding bloodstained axe in her hand is establi^hed. Thus from the evldence of these two wtnesses it hasalso been ettablished that accused Satni triecl to run away from the place ofoccurrence|and she was caught by Balo Bai. 10. So far as the second|circumstance is concerned, the bloodstained axe and btoodstained saif of accused Satni Bai were taken into possession by the investlgtting officer as has been mentioned in the seizure memo and the s examination from where thel |ime were sent to the F.S.L., Sagar for report P-18 was received in which it has been mentioned that both the arjicles sari and axe were found bloodstalned. Therpfore, as per the abov^ discussionit is estabtished that the aecused .j&ai^standing holding blood^tained axe in her hand near the dead body of XI-HG-78 vi-oq "ciiqinq, w^iltns, RriMy't *ll*l«l^Tftp •^?-—^—-/-^"——^-3— ^200^ sn^siwR'ii* t^iran^s^riw S Ml SH11 s^ sraKR'ulSd an^ai ahd acdused her son Kannilal, her sari ati( found bloodstainetf, the occurrsnce and ho expfana^ standmg near the dead bod'j Even in the cross-exammaNn the ctose relatives ofthe aecil forward any circumstance thi crime in question by any examination ofthe above tw<f on account of any animosity accused in such a heinoua Therefore, all the above crime in question was there is no possibillty that an^ merits andthe same is liable ^ST L.C-Bhixdoo jadge i>iolCT<ni iiini"^"l^i^l '(ISl't^N ^•aiRlian^r axe on examination by the F.S.L. were tried to run away from the plaee of jon has come foraard that when she was fof Kannilal howthe crime was happened. of the witnesses who are none else than |sed, the defence has not been able to bring it there was any possibility of committing the other person. Moreover, in the cross- witnesses nothing has been suggested that they have tried to falsety implisate the crime in which her son was murdered. are suggestive ofthe fe.ct that the by accused/appellant Satni Bai and 'third person has committedthe erime. circitmstances combiitted 11. In view of the forego|ig reasons, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of l|he tnal Court convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant under Setjtion 302 ofthe IPC. The appeal is devoid of o be dismissed. It is accordlngty dismissed. Sd/- DHBENDRA MISHRA Judge -. / / ^ ^•'-