g» I”HIHHIIIHIIIHHWNW!" ; cm U26 AP EAL OF PRISGNE R 000057508 . { i v Eggher’s mw“ ' 'Residegcwql ‘ Smtenced t “5i Under sectionL—f ‘ g ~ M k Wg ‘ l ’ } e \ b g w » ! I g 'ii is expigi1iegi tog (ix-e prxsémx that if he states or ishe'to bc £eprésc:med b} a ‘lcga z practitioner the Appeldte COL, t will not proceed Wlth the base for seven dunk, In the legal practltxoner appears It the legal ptactluoncr does not aypmx wxh ,0 m seVen days he may not be heard at all If the prxsoner states that he daes 1101 wrsh Iv e represented b3‘I legal practitioner the court ma proccsd at once w1th [he c‘ se and wrll not be obhged to ax-mg to any lega practmoner who should appear l l i Date of ALplioation for copy of Judgement ‘ 43’\Q\$ Date of wthich Eopy received‘ irtéw I 3 Date on ‘hich Appeal <ent Tt‘BK‘Z’J} 4 Whether t e pnsoner mshes to be represented or not - Y s/Nr W o . ‘Name~—Q l Contmued 1n~——%3fxj ‘ Jan ———gr?o1 No.”— dated ??) Forwarded o the CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE to gether W1th J a copy oh Judgement or order passed m the cas transmission to thevproper Appilliate Court. l v l l V m — ‘ §§ ‘ ; ¢_f_¢ 1 ‘3 01? e ‘ ’3 t 9 ? § .t Data ofrcceipt 1:11 C J M ’S Ofhce ‘ Date of receipt of record to accompany . ~ ? 3 Memo of Appeal of the Appehate Court “VAC—(10— amé 2 m\ A —‘T——_ 0 “VAC—(10— Wy M ' — Dated~§$~i;—Kl98—~ ~—— ~—————»~ No Forwarded to the VT?“ e g : l l . £9 \7 V {Dete'of Ieceiptin Appliate Court Pr > »;m u’ ,,-H_ ' / @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH‘AT BILASPUR aw No.11z9l 1993 ’ e Gulab @ Gulabi ‘ -Vcrsus— State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhamsgarh) JUD'GMENT p at HIGH COURT OF CHI-IAT'HSGARH AT IILASPUR CLApyeal [10.1129] 1993 GuJab @ Gulabi -Vcrsus- State of Madhya Pradesh (nmv Chhatiisgarh) wRAM: HON’BME SHRJ FAKHRUPPm. Hox’m smu DIM? mosamn Dxsamnm. .w Ms. Shannila Singhai with the accused appellant. ‘ - Shri Ravindra Agawal, P.L.. for the State. ‘ J U D G M E N T (Delivemd on 29.09.2005) The following 0181 judgnent of the Court was delivered by x Fakhruddin, J. Thie appeal is directed against the judgnent dated‘ 17.06.1993 passed by Shri R.P.’l‘ihaiya, Addl. Sessiogs dudge, Manendragarh, District Surguja in Sessions‘Trial No.241[1992 whereby the appellant-Gum!) @ Gulabi was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. for committing murder of Jeevan Singh on t 05.04.1992 at about) 6.00 P.M. and was sentenced to a imprisonment for life. 2. Briedy stated the pmsecuiionetory is that on 05.04. 1992 at about 6 ‘0’ clock in the evening deceased Jeevan Singh along with his wife Jai Kunwar (P.W.9) was returning nom the market and on the way accused assaulted Jeevan Singh on his neck by a Farsa as a result thereof he died 3. The prosecution story further unfolds that some days before the incident, the appellant had abused Jai Kunwar P.W.9 and \guttaged her modesty. 0n this, she had made complaint to her i\ ;a“ U .1. husband. On such complaint being made, the deceased had scolded the appellant. The appellant had the lmowledge that Jeevan Singh had been to market along with his wife and Will be back by evening. While the deceased was leturning, the appellant lay in wait and assaulted the deceased by Farsa, On Jai Kunwar’s cries, Naval Singh P,W.4, Ba'ijnath Singh and Sukhdev Singh rushed the spot and saw‘that the deceased was done to death and the dead body was lying on the gound. Dhaneswar Singh P.W.3, fatheg of the deceased, also mached the spot. Since it became dark night, the mport was lodged on the next day i.e. 06.04. 1992 at 8 ‘0’ clock and an oh'ence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. has been registexed as crime No. 22/ 1992. Themafter,- investigation commenced. Investigating O§cer Asst. Sub—Inspector Bechu Singh P.W.11 mashed the spot. Vide Ex.P.1 Panchanama was prepaled. He seized the anicles lying—on the gmund’md recovered Rs.10/— vide Ex.P.2. Bloodstained soil and plain soil vide Ex.P.3 was seized. Dead body was sent to the post‘mortem. 4. Dr. K. L. Banjate pP.W.10 who conducted the autopsy found an incised wound which was pmsent over hunt of, neck extending 3 cm. above the left sternal end of clavicle dwnwards medially to sternal end of tight and W rib spindle shape size 5" x 2.2” x 2" and also found muscles of hont of neck, arteriea, veins and trachea completely cut. ’I‘rachea injured at 3d nacheal ring size 1" in w1dth 4 V2” in length Ftactum of n'ght clavicle at sternal end and. blood clots were piesent. in his opinion, cause of death was shock due to excessive haemorrhage and the death was homicidal \m nature. The injuries were ante-mortem and could be caused‘by \\ C‘ \ a, @ F a hald and sham object. Duration of death was within 2 to 3 days. ‘ 5. After completibn of invesu‘gation, challan was m. Tlm prosecun'on examined as many as 11 wimesses. The evidence of P.W.9 has been corroborated by the testimony of Naval Sing]: P.W.4. In deposition he had stated that on being heald the scxeams of Jai Kunwar P.W.9 he rushed to the spot alongwith Bakljl‘l‘ath Singh and Sukhdev and saw‘ the dead body of Jeevan Singh lying on the gound and further stated that they ashd Jai Kunviar as to wohether she has xecoglized the assailant whereupon she told them that it was the appellant-Gulab who committed the munier of her husband. '* 6. The accused abjured the guilt, pleaded innocence and led no evidence in defence. The leaxned trial Judge relied on the testimony of the above witnesses and held the appellant ghilty and G convicted him as stated above. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that there is no legal and jeliable evidence on xecord to hold the appellant guilty. She has further contended ethat Jai Kunwar P.W.9 being the wife of the deceased was an inteiested Witness. She has also contended in the altemative that the chance, if any, committed by the appellant would not navel beyond Section 304 Part II ofthe IPCv Itis thefurthetcontenmn oftheleamed counsel for the appellant that J31 Kunwar P W 9 was not able to identify the accused-appellant Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that there is no intention to cause death \‘\Qnd the accused had give ' n onlY one blmv. 0n the other hand, 0 ‘m.. C! \ \_ " kamed counsel for the State has supportéd the judgment of the trial Court. G gm 8. We have gone through the evidence of Jai Kunwm‘ P.W.9 who had stated that prior to the incident she knew the appelbnt by face as well as name. On the fateful day, while they were returning h‘om the market and had crossed the Lohadiya river, all of sudden she‘saw the accused-appellant coming hom the hont wn‘h a Farsa. g As soon as he reached, her husband asked as to who he is and Without giving any response thereto he gave a blow by Farsa on hi5 neck and ran avvay leaving the Farsa at the place of occurrence. She has further deposed that one week before the occurrence when she had gone to ktch water horn the Naleh, the accused hai Ethily abused her upon which she has scolded him and had also made a complaint to her husband. She has also stated in the cmss—examinan'on that aher the incident ‘she shouted and thereafter she felt disgusted because of the incident. She described the same to her father-.in-law Dhaneswar Singh. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of Naval Singh 0 P.W.4 who rushed to the spot after hearing cries of Jai Kunwar along with Baijnath Singh and Sukhdev and saw a woman was crying and a dead body was lying on the ground. They asked as to who has killed whereupon she replw'd that the appellant-Gulab committed minder ofher husband. 9. Having scanned the evidence led by the pmsecution in its enu'rety and the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner \ _ in which the death of Jeevan Singh was caused by the accused by \e > \mihcung Fwsa blow on the neck cull' g the arterit$. Wins and \\\\ lR \ t5 uachea and also the muscles of &Dnt of mck of Jeevan Singh which instantaneously killing him, the mquisite intention ta cause the death of Jeevan Singh can safely be attributed to the appellant. We are therefore of the considered opinion that oh‘ence committed by the appellant squarely falls under Secu'on 302 I.P.C. 10. In the result, there is no substance in this appeal which fails and is accordingly dismissed 1 1. ‘ éefom parting, we appxeciate the assistance rendered by the s;a 0. learned counsel for the parties. Sdl- Sdl- Fakhruddin Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh r Judge ' Judge 29.9.2005 29.9.2005 Aidan!