KK^ ^ issa sasat ss^- XH-lSSN.faH) S ^ ®.P.It«1l794/2,OOb •^p^ 't.? ^s^ &^ ..A^. t^ APPEAL OF" PRIS <!/\^.,_.: c ""fl^T<%5T?T" Father'sname-<^^pf--"-y^-^--3VS^T R^ Reskience^.^^^^^^^.. <^^p .^^^..^S^ &nch.^«mina!) Sentencedto ^...^^..^^^.^,^^. On......-.-..... .... ............... .......... Under section,.^^.^^^...... by^^-..^^.^.^,^py.^,^^^^ It is explained to the prisoner that if he states or wishes to be represented by legal r>Tactitioner the Appellate <~ourt will not proceed with the base for seven days unless the legal practitioner appears . If the legal practitioner does not appear within seven days he may not heard at aTI . If (he prisoaer states that he does not wish to be repre- seated by legal practitiocer tbe court may pruceed at once with the case and will not be obliged to give a hearing to anylegal practitioner who should appear. I Date of Application for copy of Judgement 2 Date on ,which copyreceived 3 Date on which Appeal sent 4 Whether-the prisoner wishes to be represented or not - Yes / No ^a rt y? ?.. •--. No.... .............;,"..;..;:......................... Name f^,y^n.y..gy. *.r*-* B * * •'**'•y^*"*^*?"'^? >J ^ c;-'' -'^e-'^y^f.yi F^ Confined in ...... .....^.^.^..,,.y.............. Jail .... NO..../2.J'...........,/As'ir,feyDated......^g.. ^tSV^"':^-^ H/...}99^. c\ Forwarded to the GHffiF^B-0I€IAl7M»3ISTRA^%;i^...^^T?.:S/...?^.?ZCT .'"gather which a copy of judgement or order passed in the case for favour of trans- mission to the proper Appellate Court. ~!^p^s^;^-'^3, 1^?5P ieS7:'"^ Li 87/'?s'1 'v'.';-^) ^~:/\'—i ..L ;^ , '•^.ysTHshr 'S?QFT s7^r?<7n:r'' (3- -iTZ"T-<°:^ ---^^f ^ST -^^ ^ L^Sl,^eyiyen38n?/T> 6 n ;, ^^'yj'sfysrrKs.'fsvX^'iW.i: .1 ........ .........Jail- .........—...... Date of receipt ia... ........ ................... office ...-'..'.». Date of receipt record to accompany the .............'.1.t... ss. ^ Menr8 ofAppeal to ihe Appellate court ...............;... f.a.''. .J tV "•'> \ No . ...... ...... Forwarded to the Dated ................. ^.{99t '•^. •,.y v... Date ofreceipt in Appellate Court fP; T. O. ) XI-HC-22 -g%[ ^iqicT'i), ®Tji'yiis,latCTi'ay . 0^:....-^.:....9.2.S/99.-2W— 3'RSI^?' feippa^?; ^'qT^'^ft^ sn^i's'rarw:-Hftg DIVISION BENCH: HON'BL.S & HON'BliE CRIftWNALAPPfiAL N0. 9750F 1997 Appellant Respondent Ma^iglu Ram Vs.i Stafe of Madhya Praderii Shri H.P.Agrawat, Advocate wjth Shri Rajendra Ku. Soni, Advocate appearing on behatfofthe Shri D.K.Gwalre, leamed Pane| accused/aj)pellant ORALJUDGlMENT (10.03.201(6) Per L.C.BHADOO. J By this appeal undar Sectiorl Code the accused/appellant has quejstioned of the impugned judgment dated Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar in Addttional Sessions Judge after hol<ping commission ofthe o'ffence under sentenced him to undergo imprisc|nmeht Rs.1,000/-, in default thereofto furthe|r undergo 2. Case ofthe prosecution, in b]i intimation P-14 in the Police Stationj 'lil<<Icl<i]-l V^ ^ fSW ^R?R ^ 3lP?II 3ilt?I SHRI L.6.BHADOO SHRI DHIRBIDRA MISHRA, Lawyer for the respondent/State. 374(2) ef the Criminal Procedure the lagallty and correetness 31.10.1996 passed by Additional T. No.487/95 whereby the learned the accused/af^ellant guilty for stion 302 of the Indian Penal Code ftar life and pay a fine of R.t. ftr one year. Sl.T rief, is that Badku Ram gave merg - Kasdol on 23rd October 1995 at Xi-HC.22 TS( '•^fPVvR, ~s€\WTS,w»wy. aTii^^f is'iwsrs^i iPTWgfel o.C' c^-^.3^^m w^i?CTwgf?g 2-. about 2.00 p.m. to the effect that| aecused Manglu Ram and his wifej assautted Unnila Bal by a carpenterfs died. Receiving thismerg tntimatton| registered the Flrst Infwmation occurrence. After giving notice Panchanama P-4 of the dead bocy custocfy the accused gave he had kept the earpenter's axe - was recovered at the instance oif the and plain soil was taken into under P-5. The body of Unnila Bai to Primary Health Centre, Kasdol conducted postmortem and prepare^l doctor noticed as many as four inju^ opined that the eause of death is e} inclsed injuries caused by sharp nature. After completion of the ir|v< against the accused/appellant in Class, -Baloda Bazar who in tum Judge, Raipur from where the learne^ the case on transferfortrial. Re|jort memoranldum trie possejsston \#as 3. Prosecutton in order to accused/appenant examined 13 of the accused was reeorded under deniedthe ehisumstances appearing ^rate'fr'i 'EtR?S '& fstzt 'rfsnsre '^sif^man^t there was some quaiirel between Urmila Bai, on which Manglu has axe as a resutt of which she has Statim House Offteer, P,S. Kasdol P-13 and left fbr Uie a;ene of P-3 to the Panchas he prepared 1 of Urmila Bai. During the police P-6 regarding the place where weapon of offence and the same faccused under P-7. Bloodstained soil from the place of occuirence sent for postmortem «amination wfiere Dr. ^hok Mohan Das (PW-3) the postmortem report P-8. The j|-ies on the bocty of Ltrmlla Bai and [cessive hemontiage on aceount of and the death was homlcidial In ir|vestigation charge sheet was filed Court of Judicial Magistrate First cbmmitted the ca.se to the Sessions Additional Sessions Judge received weslpon thfe ^stablish the chai^e against the witn^sses. On the other hand, statement $ection 313 ofthe CF.P.C in which he [against him in the prosecution case pt^^na^ i-HC-22 ^er'^ipira^, riTil'yl!!o, i^tRTy 'si Q^^.:..:S3^CQ. 5H^?I'^T ftB'WSTil?! gTtIW^II?? 311^1 •B'RIIW-dtef 3,. 4. We have heard Shri H.P.Agra^al, Advoeate with Shri Rajendra Soni, Advocate appearing on behalf <^f the accused/appeltant and Shri D.K.Gwalre, leamed Panel Lawyeron biehaffoftheState/respondent. and pleaded that he is innocentftind crime. After hearing leamed eounsel Additional Sessions Judge corlvteted accused/appellant as menttoned in par^graph ^plfeqn Wi^ff ^ fs^ tF»R?R: ^3)1^311^1 fias been falsety jmpli<ated in the for the respecttve parties, toamed and sentenced the -1 ofthisjudgment. Homicidal death of Urmila Bai is |iot in dispute. 6. As far as invoh/ement of the ad murder of Urmila Bai is concemed, al] cusecl/appeflart in cCTnmitting the the witnesses in ttiis case have tumed hostile. Even PW-1 Phoolesw^ri Bal - daughter ofthe accused |and the deceased, who was in the h^use at the time of incklent, has stated that she had not wftnessed th^ Ihostile the prosecution has not b^en al^te to elieit any circumstance from jthis witness in order to prove the compl|city ofthe crime tn question. PW- j2 Kriparam has also turned hostile ar|d has stated that police has not asking of the police. PW-4 Roop Sin^h has also turned hostite and he nvestigated anything iri his presence has not stated that he witnessed the iSingh and PW-12 Rai Singh have also| Inas stated that Rai Singh informed him ^nurdered. Therefore, there is no oeuteti crime. Even after cteelaring her |ind he siyied the papere on the crime. Similariy PW-5 Bhagwan turned hostite. PW-11 Sharadlal that wifeofthe accu^d has been evidence fn thls case to prove the nvoh/ement ofthe accused in committfng the murder of his wife Urmila •AA«^1' Xi-HC-2; SIT^I^iT ft;IR?3)^! ^^O'^'^fi^T ,-1^ ^S[ i, ®7itOTs,•f^way 9 -2. sii^r's^tiwgtei -4' 7. The only circumstances pressep the State/respondent is that the offence was recovered at the instande though the recovery wBnesses have officer has stated that the accuse<jl pursuanee ofthat ftasufe in question v«as 8. In the first instance, the Investi^ating to what kind of infonnation was gwen no evidence on record to show that human blood and that too of the therefore, the recovery of basula at connect the accused wth the crimel evidence on record which connects th< 9. For ffie foregoing reasons, w® judgment of the trial Court acGUsed/appellant under Section 302 the saine cannot be sustained. 10. tn the result, the appeal suc|ceeds and the same is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed up^n the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC are set aside and the app forthwith, ifnotrequired in any othere^se. •sfiNwft^wpraf •?ft^ • '?? aiS;?n aii^; Into service by teamed counsel for ffe (carpenter's axe) - waapon of of aceused Manglu Ram. Even urned hostile but the investigating gave memorandum P-6 and in recovered under P-7. officerhas not proved that as |ay the accused, Moreover, there is the blood found en the basuta was group of deceased Urmila Bai, Ithe tnstance of aceused does not in question as there is no other aceused with the above cffenes. btelod are of the consldered opinion that ^onvtctmg and sentencing the {>fthe IPCsuffere from inflrmlty and ^Bant is direded to be stf at Hberty Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge [^tRg^