iiu^ ^^^^\^ "'S^o^96" ' APPEAl. pmSONER ^ s-r. ^».64/9_g e"- BTo^ .'.T^ ^i- s Father's Name. Age __SS*-——. Sentenced to ^'^('"(.^' ~csbf<^ff on Name •.^T^WT ylvfsfon Be"A (Cr^a?} _Restdent'1P"T-^><AV^^T CB\Wii\ " ^ rfl | 3U ^.^ei-^e— Under Sectiou S0^.^. ^"o'T^T^.^y %T^-- %^- •^srow' ^'^r^rr' It is explained t6 'tbe ptisffaes tUat'ifiJhestates'orwistetoberepresented by a legal practitioner the Appellate Court willnot proceed'^withthe base for seven days unless the legalpracti*ionsr appears If the legal practitionci' does not appear within sevea days he_ may be heard at all if legal practitioner the court may proceed at once with tlje case and will notbe obljged to givea bearing to anx legal practitioner whosBould appeai". ;y '•. 1. 1 te of appli<s8tion for copy of Judgement:- AJ.o >ate of which copy received :- 1 3 • 1 ° • 9 ^ 3. Date on which appeal sent:- (^ • // • f 6 4. Whetlier the prisoner wished to be . represente<l QT n®t:- -^' —=£- ^esl^f^ No. 74o. Continuedia "f3+w_ Name —Uf^^\»(-. /^ T\. "J^OT ffTS^ (g Jail U-'^|C<(?T*?|"C No. 4 ^ 8 y sfS'^TB1/ Dated' —S-fllfet6 Forwarded to the CHIEF JUDICBUL MAGISTRATE ^ t^gether with a copy of Judg^ment or brder passed in the case for favour of smission-to the proper Applleate Court. 'w Date of raceipt in C. J. M. Office. IS'' li -9 ^ Date of receipt of record to accompany. ~ Memo of Appeal of the Appellate Court. _ No>. .../X?^........-dated :Z8.'//!^_' ^ Forwa^ed to the^^^.^^J^^ ^y^^M ^ ^'i!^. ^t'yjSub-iail. Ipu» ,(; fr- < / @. R. MAGtSTRATfi .0\ ite flf receipt iri Applieate €ouA ^ XI-HC-22 3^ -iiwifi'4, ^Tilytii, faoi'yy IITER'(T%N|ch .^.^..^o.4^ snt^i^iT 1^li??3t1^T w^\<^ •Q^f sn^i's^nwcrf?^ ctil'ii?^Tiiil ^i!*4^i^ f^^ <i^^R ^; srfig'ci 3II^?I Division Bencn:- ~ Hon'ble Shri L.C.Bhatfoo and Hon'ble Shri Dhir&ndra NTishra. UJ. 1-3-2006 Shri B. D. Badgaiyya, coun( Shri U.N.S. Deo, Additi&nii Bhatia, Panel Lawyerforthe State)/ Oral judgment dictated onlfais. >el;f8r the appellant. il Public Prosecutor with Shri frespondent. .P.3. Per L.C. Bhadoo J By this appeal under Secf appellant Chaituram has questior|e< judgment of conviction and orde^ passed by learned Additional Se^i whereby iearned Additional Sessifons appeliant guilty for commission I.P.C., sentencedliim to undergo i| pon 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. accused/ |ed the legality and correctness of the of sentence dated 8th October 1896 jsions Judge, Kanker in S.T. No.64/93 Judge after holding the accused/ j)f offence underSection 302 of the hiprisonment for life. ' Case of the prosecution, ir( co-brother of aGcused.Chaituraml the Police Chowky Amabada to th< mid day-his co-brother Chajturarti arranged by him. One hour Chaituram, came and after some Bai came. When Chaituram , Lachchanteen Bai was sitting in cpnsumed liquor before taldng to the rcpiy where Lachchanteen as a result of which she fell dowr) brief, is that PW-5 Lachchan Singh, gave a mergintimation (Ex.-P/6) to 1^ effectthat on 13-8-92 atabout 11-12 came to his house to attend feast ttlereafter, Lachchanteen Bai, wife of (ime his son-in-iaw and daughter Dukli tnd others were taking their meal, ^ separate room. Chaituram and he m3a Chaituram after taktrig.me?! went'^ ''^e^.^e^^ pai was Sitting and attaekedjwith{axe,^ on the ground and died. Chaituram ['1CTiT^^f^ . ~\ ^ XI-HC-22 STR^qiI K('li* 3^1 ^'\^ -Mlia ^^ ^TFTRT^, "®Tiltlll<f,i«K'll'M1< WIW11 ShHittl 200 sourtd ran away. Onhearing ftie that Lachchanteen Bai was lying| First Information Report Ex.-l Inyestigating OfRcer left for th^ possession iron axe; After gj Panchanama E-X.-P/10 ofthe The dead boay of the examination to the Primary Gunjana Pathariya conducted deceased and prepared .'the investigating Officer prepared bo)Jy dece^sed Heblth thelsite After completion of the againstthe accused in the Court Bhanuprat^ppur for commission I.P.C. whojn turn committed the from where leamed Additional caseon fransfer for trial. The prosecution in order) accused examined 7 witnesse< recorded under Section 313 bf| material appearing against him poltee station to inform that he| witnesses are liar and he is innoci 'bjlii't'il-l iffCRif'? lB<St <fa-t$l< ^; sifigi; sil^l i, they Wentinside the roomand saw dead. Based on this merg intimation was registered: Thereafter, the scene of occurrence and took into yiftg notice Ex.-P/S to the Panchas, of Lachchanteen Bai was. prepared. was sent for the postmortem Cehtre, Antagarh where Dr.Ms. :he postmori:em on the body of the postmortem report Ex.-P/1. The planEx.-P/2. Investigation, charge sheet was filed |of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, of offence under Section 302 of the |case to the Sessions Judge Jagdalpur ^essions Judge; Kanker received the to estabiish the charge against the ifc. Statement of the accused was the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the ^ind stated that he himself went to the has not committed the crime. The ;fent. Learned Additional Sessicfns Judge after hearing arguments of c<tnvicted and sentencedthe accused as tearned counsel for the parties, <• / - ' mentioned in para-1 of this judgm|ent 'N --^ [Tft^^^ XI-HC-22 f^ ^^'•^IPIRTq, WftWTS, Wdiuy WHWT aplticb Sil^iqit fa-ii.tb sn^i ?b^ic^ ^ia sn^i's^giwtto - 7 - •*iiici<ii-< tiprcif"? 'fe'st <r«i<$i< •^ 3(l°?ra an^i. We have heard leamed coijnsel for the parties; The homicidal de^th ofLacfichanteen Bai isnotin dispute. l-earned counsel for the case there is no eyewitness andt^efe is no Forensic Science Laboratory or Serologist's report that thef'ew^s a humah blood on the axe.weapon of offence. We have perused the pros^cution evidence. PW-5 Lachchan who lodged the report in the Police Ch|owky Amabada has stated that ori the fateful day there was feast at h thereafter he wastaking his me^ carrying axe went to the room ol with axe.on which Lachchanteen they went inside the room and hj from the accused but he ran awa^ deceased caused by axe. Lac] ccused/appellant argued that in this s residence. The accused, his wife Lachchanteen Bai, his daughter qukli Bai and son-in-law Murharamalso came to attend the feast The acctused is his co-brother. Lachchanteen Bai was sitting in a separate roor|i. The accused consumed liquor and Ail of a sudden, he stood up and Lachchanteen Bai and attacked her |Bai raisedscream "Oh Dai", onwhich fe wife Lachcho Bai snatched the axe ^. There was injury on the neck of the [ichariteen Bai was lying flat on the ground and blood was oozing ou{ of the injury. Thereaftsr, he went to the Potice Chowky Amabada anc|l lodged the report. PW-6 Dukli Bai, daughter of the accused, has cotoborated the above evidence. From the evidence of these 2 witne^ses it is established that these 2 witnesses, accused and the dece^sed, all were at one pface. When the accused attackedthe deceased vpith axe.theyimmediately reached on '7 ' • ^ . ' 1 . . '' . •' . '' ' the spot ^nd sawthat the deceas^d was lying in injured condition. Even ^hed by Lachcho Bai, wife ofLaclichan axe, weapon of offence, was Snati] '< / T\ [TN? ^fe^ XI-HC-22 ^ sii^t'?n Is-fi'* sn^T gitiN^rita Barve t-'A'w ^ ^•/ /^\r -s^ -^HM^, ^wd, t^gra^ MWWI WlWVtl fuitther an^ sister ofthe deceasedand their cross-examination, the def^i circumstance, which makes untrustworthy. Their evidence accused went to PW-2 Sangrai('i before him thathe has murdered has not been cross-examined. the medical evidence of PW-1 stated that on 17-8-92 she condubi deceased and noticed thatthere fr the occipital region. The injury x 3 %". Cervical vertebra in| underneath cewical cord was asphyxia due to cutting. of csrvj evidence, extra judicia! confes^i established that the accused manner in which with the deadl^ organ i.e. on the neck theaccuse|d cord was cut and the deceased intention of the accused to established. Iri the result, we do not| judgmentofthetrial court. The to be dismissed and it is hereby c|ismissed SdA L.G.^Bhndoo Judge ^)I^^PJH ^iwv^^ l^st' Tf^R^R ^ srfigii sii^t (>lood was oozing outpf the injury. In snce has not beert-able to elicit any. Ihe evidence of these witnesses corrQborated from the factthatthe ^nd made exfra judicial confession |his wife and to that aspect, this witnsss fThis evidence further corroborated by |Dr.Ms. Gunjana Pathariya who has ijsted the postmortem on the body ofthe frasa stabwound on the neck3" below in oval shape in the size of 2 %"x 2" between 1st and 2 vertebra with t. The deceased died on account of |cal cord. Therefore, from the ocular (ion and the medical evidence, it is author of crime in question. The weapon like axe, that too on the vital attacked, asa result ofwhich cervical (lied as a resulfof asphyxia.therefore, death of the deceased is also w&s Clllt w&s cause find any illegality or infirmity in the being devoid of any merit is liable a|3peal Sd/- DHIBENDRA MBHRA Judge [«^figi '^