^ /• ^l //^KII-189/(Jail) %^.J.P.R. 11/94/2,000 "^';/" ';'•-•', • ,': '^".•' :^;'-."?^'^ ^a^^-'"'"'^''"^ -/..•--1 APPEXL^CW-'PR'TSONE^^fc^^ri^ s - No..^":^^^ to.l.^ ^....<.»............Naine.^^^ Father'sriame^^^^^^^...^^^^^^^^ Resideiice,^^^^ ^.g^^.^.^^ Age .......^.^^,^^....,.....-......—.., ....>. ISeirtencedto^^^.^.^^.^Y'^j'" •••"•••On... .^-^^^^^^ ^.. .......... ...... .-^: /^. - ',•; " / . . ^. r/' .'•' ": ' ". ' '. . - -• .r^, , -;:.;... " '.- Undersecticm ..^^^.^ ^^^;.......... by._£^^^^ ' - \ .(^^^ It is explairied to the prisoner that if he states or wishes to fce represenfed by legal: practitiooer the Appellate Court will not proceed wifh the base for steveri^a^s unless the legal practitipner appears If the legal practition^^^ appear within seven days he may not heard at all Iflhe prisoner stafes that he does not^^^^^^^^^ repre- sented by legal pra^ proceed at once with the case and will iiot be iiged to giye a hearing to any legal practitioner who should appear . / Date of^pplication^fbr copy of Judgement .. • —^•3. \^3y\^ fy ,Date on whk^h cQpyreceived ......—.....,....... -. -'^L^'\^\^'^ Date on which Appeal sent •••... .. .<..... —............:..:..••^•^4?' • Whether the priscmer wishes to be represent^d or B-et - Yes / No 2 3 4 .. ..^Name ^^.^.^.p^^^.^^^.^.................. No....3»Jfc^:4.^;l...;.............. in ••••••••—^&^•^^•^-?y"«*•••••••••Jaii<»^i»&^»x^««j>«4ML*.-<-»»»«»«'^»^»«» •• •••••»<«rf»—«.» ••• No...^.g^.... ..... j.LA.^( ^ Dated .. .....1.......^ ^ 199^.....^^) ^.[.<^fc... „.... Torwarded to the GHIEP JublCIALMAGISrRATE^Pr^^^%3^?:^^ ^- "• , ' .-.••. -/.;: ..-, ^ "... • '• '.; .~-^.cv-^-^? '; :/'-"-: 11- togatherwhiGh a copy oT judgement br order passed inthe cais^for favGMr'o^tFanS- ^^jgissipn to the proper Appellate Cburt. ,- ..p..-.^.- -.,^J^_^..,. ^c^^^''.. V<?T°\^ -^H2T^t<4' ' ; ^ ^^S' V\^\-2>^T |rLl^Su^^d^if :.te'^W,.^gA-.....^ ^' '- . Daleofreceiptin.•....,..-. ... ^<.......;.^. . ofYice •••— Date of receipt record to accompany ,tlie ... ..^;... ; .....i.... ..........te2^."^^4A?pt Memo ofAppeal to ihe Appellate court ^\.^../.. ^../,.....^...'.^^.^^^^^^^^^ ISo .... Forwarded ta the ... .... ^. Date of receipt in Appellate'Cl Dated ..........:..:»....199. i^iw5^ ti|aJ^N- :^hjAeA»-PU»';1.! 1?1:::'^" urt .^AA1 Wis &»».»< -.N--J -t^'1 ^»<6^.'c*tcrlE^ ^^l^Cy?t^^|N|g^|| i^/P^i€^^ ^^••^.v .--.'y.-..."" ^. •.^.. l^:::-s_w^.^^%^^-^;;^t:^ ^IB"?l'""'Fr'?::'%^t;^ XI-HC-22 ^T ^I^KTt^, ^Tl1<i^<o, iGI<v11^l4< 3T^?T ^f^K ^-r'^ N1*1^1 9b*<(cb 200 'f^^T: STT^T^T 1^iw^ni?T 9h-Hich <if^a p STT^r'^fT^ ^rf^T 31VISION BENCH: •ION'BLE MR. L.C. BHADOO AND •IQN'BLE MR. V.K. SHRIVASTAVA. JJ iO-12-2005 <^i^f<n<i1Ti "WT^if ^ Fs<<il <F3i<^i< ^ ^?P<TH ^TT^T Mr. Surya Kant Mishra, counsel f4 Mr. Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate Heard both the counsel. Oral jydgment. By this appeal ?through tfie Si^ accused Faguwa @ Fagnuram Gond udgment <rf conviction and sentence daf 4 Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, i| earned Additional SessjonS Judge after] ^r the appellant. >r the State/respondent. iperintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, has questjoned the legality of the :ed 22nd March, 1996, passed bythe 1 Sessions Trial No.112/95, whereby holding the accused/appellant guilty ;or the cbmmissibn of offence under Se<ttion 302 of the I.P.C. sentenced him ^ undergo imprisonment for life. The prosecution case, in brief, is| ^aving any son, therefore his daughterl ^aguwa, husband of Dukhiyarin Ba't, accused was pressurizing the deceas^d, his father-in-law, to transfer the land either in his nartie or in the name refused to oblige the accused. In thee\ Dukhiyarin Bai returned from the mark^t, accused started saying that he is sarning after doing hard labour, and th^ hiearing the accused, the deceased sai<| he will deal with the land in whateveil that, as deceased Bansingh was not Dukhiyarin Baj along with accused were residing with Bansingh. The of Dykhiyarjh Bai, but the deceased ^ening of 6-2-1995, the accused and deceased is consumjng liquor. Qn that sinoe the land beJongs to him, way he wants. ThJs enraged the accused, he all of a sudden took out th|e buming wood from the hearth and assaulted with the same on the head ar|id body of deceased Bansingh. The 'accysed after threwing the bumJng wdoci went to the threshing fie^.^Qi r^^n^f XI-HC-22 -^oE[ ^||4ld<LI, ^^^''Ko, facni^y. STT^T^T f<rli<=b 3Tl|!^T ? ^FRW^Rf^T ^^ HINCrll ^Hlcb 31T^T xp^ _..^^&^i2^ 206— •^^T 'sn^r ^^Tw^rfi^ -rS' mortem -mort^n account of the injuries sustained b^ injuries. Treatment was gh^en to in the mornjng, Umrit Bai infQrmed| tjme, Bansjngh succuGnbed to th| lodged th^ report jn Police Station: | After registering the case, and prepared the Panchnama of Bansingh was sent for post-r Centre, Mainpur, where post-morte^ 12) and he prepared the post-mpij the body Ex.P-9was prepared. Th| was taken into possession under were taken into possession unde^ Ex.P-6 was prepared. After completjon of investig^ accused Sn theCourt of Judicial turn commjtted the case to the Additional Sessions Judge recejvec) The prosecutjon in order to examined 13 witnesses. Statem< Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in whjc^ stated that he is innocent and fs Addttjonal Sessions Judge after h^ Pleader and counsel for the as mehtioned in para 1 The fact of homicidal natul chM(d^lr1 'HTR^ff'? feT^r <F3l^'< '^3?Tf^R,a^T Bansingh, blood started oozingout of the ^ansingh at the residence jn the night and 1 the village Patel Anruram and after some injuries susteined by him. Umrit Bai [Mainpur on 7-2-95 af about 5.15 p.m. - ?oJice rushed to the scene of occurrence the body of Bansingh. The body of examinatjon to the Primary Heafth was conducted by Dr. Sunit Singh (PW- tem report Ex.P-11. The Panchnama of Th|e weapon bf offence i.e. theburning wood px.P-2. Plain soil and blood stained soil Exs.P-4 & P-5, respectively. Site plan {nvestig^tJQn.charge sheet was filed against the M^gistrate.First Class, Gariyaband, whoin Se^sions Judge,Raipur;fromwherethe 4th the case on transfer. ^stablish the charge against the accused, ^nt of the accused was recorded under he denied the prosecution evidence and (Jsely implicated in the crime. Learned ^aring the arguments of Addjtional Govt. accus^d, convJcted and sentenced the accused ofth}sjudgr(ient. |-e of death of Bansingh has not been fiiFiptiffirl by learnecf counsel for tHe appellant. Apart frQm that^ Umrit Bai 'Tft^ ^Psi^ (PW-1) has stated in her evldence that the accused assaulted with the XI-HC-22 ^^t ^NKrt^, ^•al^^i^, f®i<ni^y ^IHC1T9b^[|cb 3T[i^T xra^? ^ ^....&?..:A:4.s.^':^ "t^^T' "2ee~~- STT^T^FT r<-li°b 3T[|?T <» 5b^i^ <l[^q :.^-^ -STT^T-'^TT^H: Trf^r -s burning wood on the parietal region of| aiso corroborated the evidence of Um| conducted the post-mortem has sta\ Bansingh and found that there was <=hl<4fd4tv1 'RTR^if "^ 'ftT^t if^l^K ^T ^rf;<FT 3iT^T the deceased. Dukhiyariri Bai (PW-8) ^it Bai. Dr. Sunil Singh (PW-12) who |ed that he examjned the body of a crush injury on the head of the deceased, there was a sign of burnjng betow the left eye, there was a lacerated wound on the right eyebrow), and there was a wound on the ieft shoulder & right shoulder. AII the j(ijuries wete ante-mortem in nature, Bansingh died due to shock on accoun| a fracture of the left parietal bone. Hi^ of the above evidence of the eyewitn^sses and the medicat evidence, it is established that the death of Bansingh As far as the jnvolvement of Bansingh is concerned, same has noi [ of brain haemorrRage and there was report: is Ex.P-11. Therefore,. in view twas homicidal in nature. , |the accysed/appeilant in assaulting |been; disputed by leamed counsel for the accused/appellant. Apart from thajt, Umrit Bai (PW-1) & Dukhiyarin Bai (FW-^are eyewjtnesses to the incide^t, They have stated thatthe accused assaulted the deceased with the bu|ming wood, on account of that he ^s been corroborated by the medical I'ho noticed six ihjurieson the body of received the injuries and the same h<j evidencfe of Dr. Sunjl Singh (PW-12) v<| the deceased. Therefore, the jnvolve|ment pf the accused in the crime in question is established. Learned counsei for the aceusetJ/appellant argued that the deceased was in the habit of consuming Hquor liquor he was selling the land, therefon the land in hjs name or in the name of property. Deceased Bansihgh replied wiil deaf with the-land in whatever way and for purchase and consuming of >, the accused advisedhim totrahsfer lis daughter and shoutd not waste the that since the land belongs to him, he ie wants,which enragedthe accused, and all of a sudden, he picked up t|ie burning wood and assaulted the deceased without any intentipn to cause the death of his fat^^^^v. XI-HC-22 ^[ '^^FIT^T, ^^ l(o, 'f^iray ^:s..^.^^ WH^TWW^ •I^^ST' 3TT^T'^T 4^ ^Tli<=b 3T7^T 5t)^ict) ^tf^a ~^. ' ' •'-^^' 31T^T ^^ITW^TT ^ Therefore, the offence against the acc^sed/appellant does not travel beyond Section 304 Part-11 of the I.P.C. On the other band, Mr. AlokB^kshi, learned Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent sypported the judgm^nt bfthe tria! Court. !n order to appreciate the argjument Mishra, learned counsel for the appell^int, Umrit Bai (RA/-1) & Dukhiyarin Bai (R|V-8) Bai hasstated in her evidence that wh|er with the property jn whateyer way he \| the accused picked up the burning w<|>< the parietal regjon. Her husband was | dispute between the accused and the law assaulted her husband and the 4< After receiving the injuries, the deceas^d oozirtg out ofthe injuries. This evidence suggests that deceased and the accused. As the liquor and for that purpose, he used on the fateful day asked the deceasec| the land. The deceased replfedthat will deal with theland in whatever w£|y drunken condition as he consumed liqi|or, all of a sudden picked up the burniny the deceased. This indicate? that quarrel, the accused pjckedupthe bur^ing law in a heat of passion. The deceas4d themoming,hedied. <=M<lt<n<flrl TTTR^f"? fe^ <Rl^l< '^^ri^FT^TT^r advanced by Mr. Surya Kant l:,we have perused the ewdence of and the medical evidence. Umrit m the deceased said that he will deal Ivants, as the property belongs to him, ^od from the hearth and assauJted on |ln a drunken condition. .There was no Ideceased, all of a sudden, her son-in- jccused left the scene of occurrence. ^d fell on the ground and blood started (:here was no animosity among the d^ceased was in the habit of consuming sellthe Jand.therefore, the accused to transfer the landand not to waste |he land belongs to him, therefore, he he wants. The deceased was in a |or, same enraged the accused and he wood fro.m the hearth and'kassau!ted |here was no pre-plan, in a sudden wood and assaulted his father-in- was nottakento the hospital and in [Tit^ ^P^^ XI-HC-22 ^T^T'^T ^ f^ti^FW^T -^ 5(7^i^<if^a ,v Soma, '^ r/ ^Si ^|<4H14^ ^Tll^t^Ko, ^^l^y 3T^T "q^? ..^.&:.^3j36 HW^t 9h*<(<=h ^200- ^^ST' 3^T'^H^R ^rf^TT ':^ /^" Secllion Therefore, the above facts accused to cause the dfeath of his| the act of the accused is covered Therefore, the. offence under against the accused. In the result, the appeai is| conviction and sentence under convicted under Section 304 Part-| R.l. for ten years. The accused isj which ha? not been disputed by Therefore, the accused hais liberty forthwith, if not required in a^ ^uggest that there was no intention'of the Ifather-in-Jaw. We are ofthe opinion that fcty Exception .4 of Section 300 of the I.P.C. 304 Part-11 of the I.P.C. |s made out partly allowed. While setting asid^ the SMon 302 of the I.P.C., the accused is of the I.P.C. andsentenced to undergo jsaid to be in the custody since 8-2-1995, l^arned counsel for the State/respondent. out the sentence. He be set at |iy other case. C atreacty served Sd/.. L.C, Bhadoo Judge cbl^t^t^Tll 'HTR^ff ^ f^^t ff^T^R ^ 3Tf^FT 3TT^T Sd/- V.K. Shrivatava Judge [Tft^ ^Rsi^l