lil 11111111 rC^-^ 9- XII-189 (Jail) C J;P.R-(9^4 !!:i!i"]')"i"]ili^^ A^^e.fi^ OP PRIBON ER •@) ^' <y No ^^yS^Q^^ -itfuiun Bciich (^fJi'ErffTa' Name ~S,H!QfW. ' '" " ^'••••""-" Father's name (^SKW Residence^- T^&^T, ^.^.T Sentenced to tt'TT^S fQ^'' Age__ao. -(- Under Section {?(9^ -W6 -2,'D ^.-& by _-vr- A -"D•J. ^. S" P . It is explained tQ ttie prisoner fhat if he states he wishes to be represented by a legaL -^- practitio,ner the appell?te Cburt will hot proceed withthe case for seven days iviless the legal practitioner appears earlier. Tfthe legal practitioner does not appear within seven days bpmay not heard at a 11 if the PrisoBer states that he does not wish to be repre- -y sented fey legal practitioner the court may proceed at once with the caseand will not be obliged to give a hearing to my legal prabtitioner who should appear. Date of Application for copy of Judgement _ ^_; ; • . , _ 3 Date on which Appeal sent /V6 - 2-13 4 Whether the prisbner wishes to be represented or cot; N6 e^T«^i3R--f69£»fe?r Name &ate ofTeceipt in Forwarded, to the on >£'. / Date on which eopy received ^-6- ^- 31& .^ '^SStQ 7^0,'r •: Jail Dated Forwaffled to the ^^^^vS-c^^JW^ ^M ^i^Q^^'] tO^gether with a copy ofjudgement OT order passed m the case fbr favour of transmi- ssionto the proper Appellate court. , Superintepdent Office Date'efreGeipt ofrecordtoaecotnpaay the Memo QfAppeal to th^/Appellate cpurt '. ' r Da A 199 Datej^1 t'eeeipt^itt AppeUat& oourt lt'll . .^ y:. "y •.T.O.) S.HC-22 '3^ "i|l'i|l<'f<l<,®ialu<is,'fN^IRiy WWITWlirai °)0. sn^?!'^; Ki-ii.'b sn^i aiHl<^ y^ ^iilf^l^l'l Tn?^tf ^ 'fe^ Tf^R^R ^'arfSgiT.-iii^s % DiVlSIONBENCH;- •V HON'BLE SHRI L.C. 8HADOO /<ND HCN'BLE SHRI DHtRENDRA MlSHRA, JJ 15^-2006 Smt. Savrta Tiwari.'couns^l Shri U.N.S. Deo, AdcHti<tir Shatia, Panei Lavwer forthe StatN Orat judginent diotated on[ PERI..C.BHADOOJ fortheappellant. nat Public Prosscutor with Shri M.P.S. respondent. Dais. The appellant has preferr^t Cr.P.C. questioning the Jegati1|y conviction and order"of sentent Additionai Sessions Aidge, in Sessions Judge after holaing th^ of offence under Section 302 imprisonment for life. ^ ^d thjs appeal under Section 374 (2)0f the and correctness of the Judgment of t:e dated 26-8-96 passed by leamed ^ ?,T. No.93/96 whereby iearned Additionai accused/ appellant guilty for commission t>f the I.P.C., sentenced him to undergo The oaee ofthe proeeout on ie that in the nightof 21-1-96 when the acoused/appellant demanded focjd from his wife Bela Bai (sinoe deoeased), on wKich Bela Bai could not pr<>vide food, therefore, the accused atarted assauiting Beta Bai with a wood^n c!ub,a5 a resuttofwhich she received 7 injuries. The right tefflporal bon^ was fcund fractured in number of pieces. There was aiso fracture in the iep temporai bone, as a resuit ofwhich brain membrane was aiso fbund ruptuited on account of fracturein the skuil bone. Therewasexsradural haemafom^. Tiie matter was reported tayOmPrakash Pandey(PW-5) to the poitee st^tion Pendra on which F.I.R. Ex.-P/7 was regist^red. The investigating offif ^ ^^;' ;er took up investigatiQn, ieft for thescene [^ ^HsT^t ljii.£i IBfl XI-HC-22 's^ •^w\v\^. ri^il'y'iri, faciiyy Sli^F^T R-li'* SD^ST. sn^icft yf^) WfRITgrqra-i of occurrence, after giving Panchianama Ex.-P/4 of the dead Ex.-P/2 was prepared by Patwari[ taken into possession from the[ offence i.e, wooden ciub was als<t investigating officer pnepared th^ Sai was sent for postmortem Gaureliawhere Dr. L.N. Patel dead body of deceased Be!a Bai| P/18. ndicfi Ex.-PG to the Panchas,. prepared bodyofdeceased Be!a Bai. Thssite plan The blood stained soil and plain soil was \p\aoe of occurrenGe as also weapon of ><|itaken into possession ynder Ex.-P/S. The site plan Ex.-P/S. Th®dead body of Bela to this Community Health Centre, (PW-8) conducted thn postmortem on the 1 ancf prepared the postmortem report Ex.- exalnination After completlon of investi^ation accussd/appellant In^the Court Roac!, who in turn codinrtitted-lhe where leamed 6 Additional Ses^ions ord^r The prosecutiori in accused/appetlant examined 8 recorded under Seclion 313 prosecutjon evidehce. Afier h^ couhsel for the accused, l8arne<f accused/appellant as mentioned We have heard Smt. accused/appellantand Shrr U.N. Shri lyi.P.S; Bhatia, Panel The homioidal death ofd othetwise,13W-8 Dr. L.N. Patel, '. / ^- -i: ' body pf deceased Bela Bai, has <=bl^Il!l41-) H11C11 ^ tS^t •tFi|t$ll '^arfigiTan^i i,charge sheet was flted agalnst the |of Judicia! Magistrate, 1** Class, Pendra fpase to the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur from Judgereceive(lthecaseontransfer. .to establish the.charge against the vtitnesses. Statement of the accused was the Cr.P.C. in -w'nich he denied the h^aring Additional Public Proseoutor and trial Court convicted and sentenced the |n para-1 ofthisiudgment. ipavita Tiwari, tearned oounsel for the .p. Deo, Additional Public Prosecutor with Lawyer|forthe State/respondent. i^ceased Belafiai ia not in dispute. Evsn w<ho conducted the postmortem on the dead Istated that on 23-1-96 he oonductedthe [4^-'^^ XI-HC-22 -S^ '^ffqRPt, ^Tflti'lfi, ^<'"'a1< wieir shKii* 311^1^)1 R-ii'* 311^1 ^rqWfflCT ^piferatt wraf'? fe'zt tfsre^n: ^sffigH 311^1 postmortem and fpund as ma^ deceased. Both right and left t^ The brain membrane was r»4>tur{ Bai died as a result ofcoma an4 was homicidal in natwe. Inviewl death of the deceased was homi As far as involvement oftl ly as 7 injuries on various parts of ihe imporal bonas were fractured into pieces. id. There was extradural haematoma. Beia .asphyxia due to head injuiy and the death oftheaboveevidence, it is estabtished that sidal jn nature. is accused/appellant in crime in question i& cbncerned, PW-7 Keshav is an elyewitness to the inoident and he has stated that at 7 p.m. when he W< accused/appeliant was assaultir'1 The iathl was a burnlng wpod; a^ snt to bring potato, he saw Ihat the te his wife with a Lathi ontemporai reglon. a resultofwhichsheTell down uponwhich hs informed his employer Om Pi|ai@sh Pandey; on which Om Prakash said that as to why he is assuiriting examination which makes the fiis wife. Nothing has come in the cross- evidence of this witness unreliabte or untrustworthy, Apartfromthat. cbnfession befdre PW-2 Ratiranl per the medicai svidence cprres the deceased, ttysfefore, from extra iudicial confsssion made medioal svidenca, it is establisht the crime in question. Learned oounsel for the deceased did not provide food t< without any intention, all of a si ]|n enquiry, the accused made extrajudiciat I, PW-3 Ram Sai and PW-4 Balaram. As ^onding injuries were found on the head of |ie ocuiar evidence of PW-7 Keshav, the Itefore the above witnesses bassd on the ^ fhat the acoused/appeltent was author of laocuaed/appellant argued tftat when the |the accused which enraged the.accused, jjden, ths accused pick84 up the bumirig wood and assauHed his wife witi|ilhe same.therefore, the offence against the adcused does not travel beyoi|id Section 304-11 ofthe i.P.C.. >,- 7 --> [Tft^'iR3^ XI-HC-22 Sn^T?!! h^ aiRSl ^qN? ^iii^i Barve ^^ -HiTqRPI, ^cfrHTR, -fSRIRiy 111CTI g»t|l<*i ail^i ?T3TW?lf|3 •^- On the uthw hand, Shrii wfth Shri M.P.S.. Bhatia, Pahet U U.N.S, Deo, Additional F'ublic Proseciitor L^iwyersupportad the trial Court judgment. appreciatc ihetargument Inorderto the appe'lant, ifwe took into the| of PW-S Dr. L.N. Pate!, as many| ofthe deceased i.e. head andf4i Both right and iefttempora! • brain membrahe was rupitur^ Therefore, looking tothe nature •wliere ihjuries were inflicted, assauited the deceased merciiet and he eaused asTnany as 7 ir( piece®,therefore, the accused sams diesntitles him for the I.P.C. Therefore, vw do not fmd| thetrialCouct. !n the result, the appei dismissed and it is herebydismi v.^/ • Consequentiy, M.(Gr.) Nos.805/2001 and 3430C002 al' -§ar L.C-Bhadoo Jadge // T / /- ^ST ^OTfepfrr wiaf'? fe'at'rfSR^K •^srfigtia^t advanced by leamed counsel for postmortem report Ex.-P/16 and evidence |as 7 injuries were infliciecf on the vital parts f^ce as'a resultof assauit by burningwood. bone^ were fractured into pieces and resultantly, td. There was extradural haematoma. tif injuries, weapon of offenceand the place |it is evident that the accused/appellant 'rciie^sly. He did not stop after assautting once tiuries. Even skuil bone was fractured into |ias acted in a cruBl and unusuat manner, ^bc|nefit OfExcSption 4 to Section 300 of the |any iilegality or infirmity inthe judgment of 1 being devoid of merit, 'ia liabte to be NOS.-17S8/2001, 1948/2002, !.A. p stand disposed cf. _^—- Sd/-; '•% DhirendraMishra , Judge [1[fr^ ^fQ^ 1