CWJL Ma 25:3QW; CF0000062358 APPk‘AL @F {QR NEW ,_§___f_/J£Lv_—__~__H_ _ 29,777.)?” .........._ $a£hef§yxaum /&7é7Q/Z#/Q v‘ —‘ ..- ._.,~__________ m‘ 11¢ ;d9‘lcy-?WW E-G 575% ’—__HH*’—‘ _--"’ —0~ v) a SJ‘WC” ’“W'ix? pgc/“w if??? ?7"*C€TN w&%/J5 it is cxpim‘mé to thg prisnner that if ht Siam“ or wxshes t ; b6 reprcwm <1 bx a lPfaI practitimr the Appehw Covrt W111 not procud wtth the base fox <Lven Ans udma be cu (Lays he may no! b6 bcaxd dt a” If the pH uncx sum” that he dnc5 not wan m kgzli pm Lmmwr Appears N the le'w pmmuoncr (.om not z‘rpuu ml} mil c: renresemw HM bx. vbhged by larval tn give pwcnnoner a hc'u‘mg the to any court 16b may H pmmlmmr procuri at why once sham w; h [ha appédx. care and « I ) Datg of $ppiiéation for copy of Judgement ~—~——~w—«;---A—a~-——.~-—~~w 2 ‘ Dakr‘ of wmch wopy :ecawcd »~——~—-: 5—? f%—-~_n~ ._¥_~.__. ‘ ’ 3 fn Batu em whxah Appeal rent ——-—5§’é—a~>—» §?__m_.m-__.__~_- .g...m. ff“ Wilmhcr we gmsonei wxahc, m be reprcsmtcd or not ~ Yu /NQ w ~~--7§l§ -~~—~~—--—w~-— — —~w Name yrgiywgr W7? ‘ (QHEmUPU m";’?"6" 7‘"‘C/"‘7U——~ A ~jcm /%7W ‘;?f7 W? y korwwded to W“ CHI“? JLDIéCIAL MAGIK5IRAY}: 3%/ CyQj Z .i oi &97 /%z/rQ:7/7%8’ ’w m—- »-—'§&A—3~%- ——~ --daud 9g??? wt}. fw—qym F H a3 gmhw With a Copy uf Judggmcm or oulcx pasxed m the case hr taHou nammlsslou m 2m woper Appihmte Pom! 5 “(1 am ufrmim in c I M s om¢e~ 3Q $ '37 _ V aw 05‘ remeapt of 'ecnm m accomwny_......_g,~_u_r1:7____ “M Jvamma of Apxawa of the Appdxaw Court ”*3? fuw 3T\;V....GW Na uw-‘——~%w-«-~~—-~~——»~~Damd~w~E..~~.~.~~ ~l‘W ..———+\- .»»...~Q— ..‘‘..‘.. “WA wn adv: u 1mm ~~w~WWww D af wipw in Appliate C me ra w ’\ " -_ _ ” b ’ c L ‘ 1 x‘ D H \W , ‘ll ‘ Q” wu-ux. 1, ~Xl—HC-22 3a W, WWW faamg; WW WW ormw o2¢3 ®L%~ XX—HC»22 mmwm' . I_&’_‘ *qami—mvfm Tma‘fii’faézfhm $31fawamw eft f e scene of occurre_nce‘ and prepared Panchanama Ex.-P/2 of the de d body of Moonkaran Singh‘ The site plan Ex.-P/3 ofthe place of occurren e was also prepared. On production by the i'e axe was taken into possession by the poiice m the Poilce Chowky Bat ngi itself The clothes of the accused I e one Towel one undergarment (Cha dl) stained With blood and axe stained With biood were taken Into possess on under Ex.-P/5. The plain sori and blood stained soil was taken into pos ession under'Ex.-P/6. One sealed packet of clothes of the deceased was t ken into poSsession under Ex.-P/7. S.H.O'. Police Station Chandani reque ted the Assistant Surgeon, Primary Health Centre, Wadraf Nagar, Ex.-P/1 ‘ investigating officer ' accused the weapon of offenc as-to whether injuries which were‘found on the‘body of Moonkaran Singh ould be caused by the axe in question He replied that the Injuries which ere found on the body of Moonkaran singh could be caused by the axe m question His report Is Ex -P/13 The dead body of Moonkaran Smgh wa sent for postmortem examination to the Community Health Centre, Wa raf Nagar where Dr. Arvind Bhatt (PW-13) t conducted the postmortem an prepared postmortem report Ex -P/12 The seized articles were sent for ch ‘mical examination to the F S L Sagar fro where report Ex P/14 was recei ed After completion of the i vestigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant in the C rt of Judicial Magistrate, 1“ Class, Surajpur a who in turn committed the cas to the Sessions Judge, from where learned Additional Sessions Judge recei 'ed the case on transfer for trial The prosecution in oder to prove the charge against the accused/appellant examined 1 Witnesses. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 31 of the Cr.P.C. in‘which the accused denied the prosecution evidence appe ring against him and stated that: he was not at the piace of occurrence an he had gone to village Mudia. ln reply to Mattias l or h 1 , m On the other hand, }earnec ‘counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court. Having‘uheard learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the record. it is true that in the first infer nation report Ex.-P/1 given by brother of the deceased Ram Lal, it has not been mentioned that Jageshwar informed him that the accused has committed murder; rather this first information report Ex.-PI1 shews that mother of the accused informed Ramméim her XI—HC—ZZV «a ’ XI—Ecaz Emmet, mm, WEEK” 3W m WW: V W 2% anew rate am Warm ” mnematutt‘eetmn — mmmenn .3 ,4. a: are: we: question No.21“ that blood was present on the clothes of the accused, he stated that/when he was running, he fell down and on account of that his clothes were stained with blood. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing argument of Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused, convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment; We have heard learned coun sel for the parties. ll >The homicidal death of dece ased Moonkaran Singh is not in dispute. ’As far as involvementof the accused/appellant in committing murder of the deceased is concerned, learned ‘couns'el for the accused/appellant argued that in the first information report given by Ram Lal this fact has not beenrmentioned‘that he w'as‘infomlied by Jageshwar that the accused has committed murder of the deceaSed, whereas, PW-3.Jageshwar has stated that he saw the accused assaulting the deceased with axe. Had he saw the accused assaulting the deceased with axe, then in the natural course, he ought to have informed Ram Lal that the accused has committed murder of Moonkaran‘ Singh, therefore, presence of Jageshwar on the place of occurrence is doubtful. He further argued that in the site plan Ex.-P/3 presence of Jageshwar has not bee n indicated to the effect that from which ’place he witnessed the crime, therefore, there is no evidence that the accuSed was author of the crime in question. Xi-gC-zz 3a mag, ém 1% E 3,? r § t I r W 200 ‘ V V Ea 1a WWmmg§ Flt” WWmz‘QTTYW Lu PW‘-1 Ram Lal has stated in his evidence that JageshWar. infcrmed that his brother haé been murdered in Lohar Para When he [went alonq with his brother on the scene Of occurrence he saw the injuries on the neck of his brother, by that time, he was aiready dead The accused s wne and mother Were present there. ’On enqutry! mother of the accused inform ed him that her. son hae run away after attacking the deceased with axe on ch he lodged the report Perusal of the evrdence of W-3 Jageshwar shows that he had wrtnessed the cnme in question and h s stated that on the fateful day he was gorng’to collect flowers of Mahua tr e He saw that the accused and the deceased were sitting near the Mahu tree of R'atn Dayal I When he crossed the Mahua tree he heard ones “Oh other” of Moonkaran Singh on seeing backward he saw that the accused as assaulting the deceased With axe thereafter he went and informed the b other of the deceased But he has not stated that he informed the brother f the deceased that the accused had 4 assauited With axe This wxtness has ot been cross-examined to the aspect that whether he had informed PW-1 Lat about attacking, by the accused - to the deceased. Therefore, this o ission cannot be taken as material, particularty, iooking to the other circu stances that the accused himself went ‘ to the Police Chowky Balangi and 'pro uced the blood stained axe which was taken into possession under Ex.- Apart from that, one Towel and underwear stained with blood were also taken into possession-from the body to of the the accused F.S.L., Sagar under in Ex.-P/5 which and it has salleen e Were mentioned sent for that chemical the articles examination were found stained with blood. Having blood on the underwear and Towel has not been disputed by the accused in his statement recorded under Section 31‘3 of the Cr.P:C.. He has replied'that when he was running, he fell down and war stared t..th-bleed—.Mei=eevef——even matted amt%ivan€a L son has murdered Moonkaran Singlt. An annnunt- nf’l'lnat Han nlnthne w v‘. v. a an. v.v-.uvw \, m } m$ i m P . m :zmnm, m, W am m a !‘. ‘....,....‘ I .‘m may W ,m‘ mm$wfaa WW§W<€W «nwm d namely PW-4 Phool Basrya and PW» but even mother of the accused Phool has stated that she disclosed that her PW-4 Phool Basiya has stated that er son has murdered Moonkaran Singh.- was Patel of the» village Charohari has a at about 8 a.m. and informed him that t by the'accused. Therefore, within no re village that his brother has been im Dulare PW.6 has stated that Ram :used has murdered the deceased with / went to the place of occurrence and iead near the Mahua tree the accused ' 10 Lal Man brother of the deceased 3d that when they reached on the spot her son has murdered the deceased Bhatt (PW-13) there were 4 incrsed if injuries ‘occipital bone was found ere also found cut andthe deceased shock. Therefore, in View of the above ”gument advanced by learned counsel ,though mother and wife of thé accuse 5 Phodl Jhariya have turned hostile Basiya about whbm PW-1 Ram Lal son has murdered-Moonkaran Singh. éhe heard rumour in thé village that h‘ Apart from that PW-Z RamVSai who stated that Ram La! came to his hou51 Moonkaran Sihgh has been murdereg time Ram Lai informed ‘Pateir of ti murdered by the accused. Even Rz Dayalfcame and informed that the am axe On hearing this he immediate! saw that Moonkaran Singh was Iyingi and his Wife were present there. PV‘ ‘ who accompanied PW-1 has also stat mother of the accused disclosed that As per the evrdence of Dr Arvmd wounds on the neck as a result t fractured wmd pipe and food plpe Vl died on account of haemorrhage and cirCumstantial andoocular evidence, a for the appellant is devoid of any meriil. As far as presence of eyewitne ‘ the site plan is >C0ncerned,‘ this fa evidence; mere omission of’this fac prosecution case. i ln View of the above, we are ss Jageshwar (PW-3)has not shown in also‘in View of the clinching legal. in the site plan doesnot affect the of theyconsiderecl opinion thatfinding m u XI-Hmg mmw vW’WTG? W? Wm m i §u1$ ., fwga @i mm W ; ‘f e 1 Ban/e urjmier Section 302 of the I.P.C. is t :ased on the legél evidenée. We do not find any megality or infirmity'in the jL‘ A In the resu!t,’the appeal being devoid of merit, is‘liabi‘e to be dismissed and it is hereby disriiissed. exa Sd/- , L.C. BHADOO Judge k mmmqfg‘a ,w—@~ wwwi:mtfam €Eaafam 311% Hgment of the trial Court. A . Sdi- - f 3 DmENDRA MISImA g "‘"* Judge \‘r % r m " ‘