(W a?” \tw zmramr _ ’ / 1 ' Father’s nams N‘ ,\ # w I (x rx A 45/ A L / OAW—egao amN-gwyi‘i. g7a7$ IQW /30A;7W72~/g? ( 9/19?) 7 il(t t _ A ' ge ’ 0w h ‘ §iTczataK5rb I ‘1” 057‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ “0 on’ ”7— g an V'& I V ! . I / ‘ _ gays cbfo ézgéi la) Q30 yETr n N a under swim r *'\-‘ V i M ‘93’ @2""a¢7_rLkayak? (rim 7 " ‘ ; - ifOKWH ' ‘n mwqm‘ , . . ‘ E 15} ’FJffW‘g/IUT Wdrm‘r/w/W Mmgd ' Hwy 1 It 'is (expiainjcd to the prisoner that 1f he states he wishes to be represented by a legal practitioner the appe‘liate Court will not proceed with‘ the case for seVen days unless the legal practitiorier appears earlier. If the legal practitioner does not appear within seven days he may not heard at all if the Prisoner states that he does not wish to be repre- ed by legal practitioner the court may proceed at once with the case and will not bliged to give a hearing to my legal practitioner who should appear. ‘ 10 Residence A U Se ntenced to i Date of Application for copy of Judgement i’ y , t - ut‘ , *é‘ikQTQUf/ tDate on which copy received " , ~ > N ’\ t J t a it Date on which Appeal sent? ?‘ Whether‘the pi'isoner wishes to be repreSented or not i :2 ‘ i _ _ ‘ 3/ t , ' . \ I __‘Name‘;\ > ‘ ,‘ \- r Jail 4 <mg2¢(z/r,£?,v :rr/Wmf wéT7En/r p W/q’gf Ova/10%;“) ‘ No. I Dated '30 e $1 ‘ 199$ Forwarded‘to the \ A L A ‘ A\’ J _ a \eOQ/‘xrg /.( "Jr/“E mnf/Ti‘jZjci/f #71717 e/lfrfG“ (gag-7' (VQEEQg‘J/‘j toxg’ether with a copy ’of judgement or order passed in’ the 'daSe Cfor favour of transmi- ‘ S rt ‘ ‘ k ssion to the proper Ap ellate court. , ;:;»:‘e:»:5 Ht 3T.°<h1t{ , . §h h§$miBMENi2 g’a-e §€ Waia“. ‘ ptalEWgW (§¢ E6) @EIL an- t wuga p . guwAqt-A - um n: g“tat-FE t i Jail Date of receipt in Office p L ‘Laliii? r ’ Date of receipt of record to accompany the t ' i Memo‘of Appeal to the Appellate court , _ . _ ! NO ’%WDated N ‘ _ 199 Forwarded to the ' {r} Date of receipt in Appellate court XI~HC~22 WW,W,W amagrna M..§4 @9200 mmmm mw§wm I %Wm fDiv§5§on Beiqch: Haw-hie war. LC. Bhadge am gHGa’me ML V.K. Shrivastava. JJ. 1 . f3 $34933 f Mrs riarmda Slddxqae, coun‘Le! for \‘he appeuam. ‘vir D K Gwalre, Dwdfy (“0%. Advocaie for The Sfafe/respondent f ‘ ‘ Ora! Qrder dictaied on Dels‘ iPe: Lefg‘nadoa, J: - A This app§a£ is directed agamsi ihe §Lagwmvi cf Ponvm nn aw are” @2‘ se.ie co daiad mm Jammy “3 , ya Hyiha 1 A {iiiianal Sesskms vqdgu, maamr m Sesswns a :5.110 8 Ahereay barned Addu£na ’2‘ s m. Jddge af‘ic emnwih‘, usedfapgeLanéguhtyfemammssian a meme under Seciicn 302 m“ LPG. for commiiiing ihe murijer of Ghuiana’as. $enienced him i0 und ,r_ o im risonmem for me and to 9a a i fine 0f ms.1DOf—, §n defauii of pay Qf fine to fun‘her undergo R1. for one mmfn . Hcwever, so-accused Pho lsai was acquitéed and ihird accu$eci Dhansai dEed during; triai‘ iherefore, ase against him was abated. Case 0f ihe prosecu’rion, iri b iei, is ihai there was a dispute between ascu5e§ Dhansai {since cieceased: ané Ghurandas in comedian with a paid? 6f iand ad measuring 5 d cimai. At ihe reguest 0f Eeceased mmmnr’as meeima 0x Panchaye was cowaned on 1411 19G? bv Sargancn Java? (PW-7), in me sa Pancnayai, ii was ciecided mat crop ”nauid be ds‘iiibuied in equai s are amongst Dhamai & Deceased The saini patch of land was in passewian cf D’nansai. in ine nigh? 9i 21ft & 22m Nmember, 199?, at abnui 1i p.m., when and his wife Pheoibai V PEJ~4\1 were siee inna wiih iheir 'iwc 9 . 9 m u m i i i HW,WW,W mm mm‘ “u“..uum. m. HE 200 XI—HC—22 WWW “7Q_ WW§WW I awganm ame with e snapper (Gendasa) and sa en his neck, as a result 0f which, he mteneeusw. The cr§me was witnessed veaeed, she s€aned raising screamsi ¢a. dewhfeys asgused Samar Sai {:g 1i . ed huravar‘as With *ha’! Sande s‘us amed {a a! injmies and died insie P a; (9W4) WI e cf me de the scream5, neighboua’es’E d uresh Kumar (PW-1i) came eut of his house i0 whom Phool Bai (PW-4) EnfOImed about me incident in ium, he IrIQrmed‘Fanci‘amaas (PW-a) mower of ihe deceased aboui fne incident wm In mm gave merg imamauon hxP-‘i in Poiice Staiien: Pasan ai 8 a‘m. 3’1 2L4 MagL Hearing i He a1so lodgea first informatisn reyori EXP—2 'm i‘ne said Pdicg Siaiicn‘ . ‘afier :egisiering Crime Ne.6?/97 fer n 302 of éhe LP.C., and after gh/Eng actice ExP—3 is Panshnama (EXP-4) sf The dead b dy cf Ghuraedas. Accused Somar Sa? whiie in poiice custody gave mem rar‘dum EXP-'5 regardirlg the choppef and 5n pursuaece ef that, he got recovered the said ehepper frem the residence Qf Phooisai una’er EXP—6 Cbihes of ihe accused Le. bush shiri & Lungi were taken inte ’pessessie under EXP-7 which were siained xgmh biood The mvest'geiing Qffcer i0 k into passession piain 30%} and bieed eiemed sci! frem ihe psace of occu rewce under ex P 8 The compromise deed EXP-14, was taken ink: possessien under EXP— §. One map and stamp paper wer aisc taken into possession under EXP- 1Q. Revenue records ExsP—i’i & 12 regarding the dienuied iend were also Taken into nessession. sue nien izv 1o or the piar‘e oi n econ. re was prepared a Thg Statign ccmm§ss§en cf effence under Sec left fer scene of ihe Panchas, prepared the Hausa Qféiser a whmh was emer into between Dnansa: & deceased G grandee m wont o! t‘ae Panchav i i J (dis W) ex ? e a ‘ T u XI—HC—22 EW,W,W mm mm‘...".‘.."‘....‘...w 200 mm WW WW mmmm mmawm *3“ v ‘ %mm The clead bady m’ §eceased Ghurandas was sent for p05t~martem examinaticn 1c Primaw Hgai'lh Cent e Pasan under Ex 9-29 hare “r. KS. Fendro canducied past-mariem 0% we dead bf‘dy of we daceaseJ am. woos: ed Osv-mor‘iem repm‘ EV 9315 in which he opmed thai cease er 3d tr was svncope due to heemojriiage as a resuii of incised wounds. The [docior zound :0Lovvmg Injuries. - a 1‘ incised . wounm . .m $29 . 0‘ . 4 V2 I x 2 ., x whde muscuiar and ' mucus €a‘yer 0f cheek cui ai fram angle 9f righi mouih, muscies, vesseis am} men/e cui at the parts of injury §ransversed in direction, (ii) incised wound in ihe isize of 7V2” x 4” x up to middie oi 4:“ side. ii extendesj from ieft side below the angie ‘mandibie to the posierior angie oi neck fight side Skin Piaiysma, muse! s! vesseis, carotid, superior veriaceva nerve: oesophagus, m ndible at center. Hyeid bones were cm ihrough out side of in and verebrai column seen and cioiied biood was presen‘i in m sciee, vessels trachea. anti oesophagus trans/arsed m aireci‘or‘, and smflcseni to cause ci death gii) incised wo'cnd in the si e of 4" x ’ii/z" x ioined With iniury Noiii), irensversedx upoer pa of thyroid, epigioiiis was cui and cioiied blood was found. Aii these injuries were cave o‘ by sharp coii “3 objeci and same were ame-moriem in naiure. in recovered amcies we e sent for chemicai examnation to tie Forensic Science, Laboraiory‘, S‘gar, fromwhere repori tX.-PJ29 was received arid ae per ihe repori, bi od was found on iiie ciiooper, weaoon of offence. is; cewicai vertebrae of rig /r ray» a:c e .zs.‘ i XI—HC—ZZ HW,W§,W Wm W 200 .uunu................H..... .. ......... . ...... ........... mmmm _4 H gun e? Jud cial Magistrate, Firs: C M. essions Judge received {he case on transfer for iriai. v i The prosecuiien in order io esdabiish the charge against ihe accu ed pegfgris examined 12 Minesses. 0#4“ A Afier comgieiion of ihe investigeiion, charge sheei wee filed in the éass, Katghera, who in mm, cemmmed case ie the Sessions Judge, B iaspur from where ieamed Addiiionai I e C044; Dr: ihe other hand, siatemems 5f the accused perscms were :ecorded unce'r Sectian 313 of me Cr‘P.C.. Accused Samar Sai siated ihai he is innoceni and ha5 been faiseiy‘ impiicated in i‘ne Grimas The iriaLCourt convicted ihe accused/’appeliam as meniieneti in para—1 of i’nis judgment whereas, acquiiied co—accused Phool Sai. We have heard 1earned counsel for the pariies. The homicidai deaih of deaeased G'nurandas has moi been dispuied by ieamee’ counsei fer the accusedappeiiant. Apan I’mm thai, from ihe evidence of PW-S Dr. KS. Pendro, who has staied ihat he canducted ihe cosmortem on 224-87 on the dead body of the deceased and he found tha‘i there were 3 incised wounds,- wind pipe was found out ciohed wand was present in the Wind pipe; fend wipe was also feund cui and cause of death wee shock and heemmrhege as a reeuit 0f inoieed womde and it was homicidal in nawre. Therefoye‘ n view of the ebeve evidence, ii is esiebiished that the death of the dec eased was homicidai in namre. As far as invoivemeni of ihe: accused/appeiiant in commission of crime is concerned, the prosecuiion in order to establish charge ageinsi the accused adduced foiiowing evidence: - (die we) 'r iherefore, there was motive behind 'khe commissions cf crime, (2) Wife 0f me deceasec PW-4 Phooi Bai witnessed accused Samar Sai whHe attac (ing Ghurandas with a chapper, ‘ {3) Weapon of affeflce Lé. Ehopper was recovereu at ihe msiame 0f ihe accused, (4) PW—1i Suresh Kuma' saw the accused running away with a éhopper in his hand from the house 0f the deceased, A (5) OQ 20m November 1997 deceased Ghurandas informed the viiiage Kotwar PW—3 Dhaguva Das ihai Dhansai has bmught same persons in ihe viiiage to commit his murder, iherefore, entry 9f those perscns be made in the register. As far as first point is cancemed, viliage Sarpanc'n PW-7 Jeval has en Dhensai and Ghurendas regarding staied ’(hat “there was dispute hem agriculiurei iend. Bhagwant $in h gave his iend i9 Ghurendee afier appeiniing him as pewer cfeiiome heider. On MAJ-Q1 at the requesi of Ghurandas a Panchayet was conv ned, he was present in ihe Pancheyai. ised beiween deceased Ghurandas and Dhansai i0 ihe eiiect ihei crop s i be distributed amengsi ihem in equal snare The compromise deed ( x.-Pi’14)~was executed and same was taken into possession by the potic during the invesitgation under Ex.—P/§. This wiiness has not been cross- xamined on this aspect. Ex.-P/9 shows that the documen‘i Ex.-?i’t4 was aken into possession from this witness namely Javai. Perusai of Ex.—P/14 hows that compromise was entered into between the accused and the dec ased and same was signed by Panchas, ‘W-7davaL Sarpanch and PW—‘E Phaguva Das, Kotwar. Revenue record \¥\ (thew) Penchayai go‘i ihe matier compm h i 'r\ e XI—HC-22 MW,W§,W 3mm mm a 200 . nu m man 1 K ’_ WW i a“ E 3 a¥ (1) Them was animg$§'y between accused Dhansai and deseased Ghuramias in cannsciion with § decimal WW,WW,W Wm mm..uunnuuu HE 200 WW WW I $WW mmmw “.6“ Ex.-PI12 {B (1) Kiswbandi Khamnil and site pYan 0f ihe said land Ex.~P/11. igave aiso ham terderad mm ewderace wh‘m shsw *hat *h and was in the V‘Eame of Bhagwam Singh. PWg4 P? oo! gal, Wife of the deceased, has aise gagegumaiiy siaxed that tL1ere we dispme between her husband and D‘wawsaa reg dmg me “and and D‘mnsai used tG threaien her husbaad. uhereme 1t as estabnsf‘ed that th re was ‘ispuie between Dhansai and neceaeeu unurandas. as tne rnd was m possession of Dhaiwsal Ghufai‘xdas u was cia§mmg ihe pose ssim‘i as wei: as snare m me mop, {hen iwas not itked by Ehansai, thereto e, there was ciear and strong motive fbehigd the crime in question. ‘ As zer as second pom is concerned, PW-4 Phoot Bet has oategertceity stated that m the fate? l night she along wéth her husband and we daughters were sleeping tn heir house, in the mid night, accused Samar Sat committed murder of er husband by attacking with chopper wanuasa) a a resutt of which h r hushaho received .hj"*res on tue new arid cheek, en which she raise‘ screams that her husoano‘ has been murdered, on which neighbourer uresh came, Somar Sai was wearing Lungi and Kurta, Suresh and oihe s informed her brother-in—iaw Panoham and Naindas, they went and iodge the report Learned counsei for the ac used/appeiiant argued that this witness has not stated in her evidence iha as to how she was knowing the name of the accused, therefore, regarding identity of the accused, the prosecution has not been abie to adduce clear cut evidence. But, we are not convinced with the argument advanced by iearned ccunsei for the accnsed/appeiiant for the reason that when this witness has Paiegoncati s —in-chief that. $omar Sai was the person (dis W) vv- d in examinahc XI-HC-22 XI-HC-22 3am,m,%amgt Wm WW ..... . ...... In 200 .............‘...W‘uu........................ WW mm WW mmmma WW WW ”an, . éawm whe aiiacked he: husbaad, it was the dmy in? the defense to QmS$-examine bler on that as;:—es ihat haw she was knewing the name 9f semar Sai 9r she Was nei knawmg the name of Soma’ Sai at a”. Apar: from that, in the poke sliaiement (Ex-DB), she has caieg sricaHy siated that Samar Sai a€tacked hja' husband with a chapper and.the First mfcrmatian Repori given hy ?ancham Das, broiher—in-Iaw of this witness, 0n the informaiian given by thié witneSs, aise disaioses the faci hai Samar Sai was ihe aijihar of aiiack wiih a che'ppei‘ on ihe deceased. erefere, we d0 no? fi'rxd any infirmiiy m the evidence of i’nis witness, her esence in t’ne heuse in the mid nighi eannei be doubted, being a wife, he presence in ihe house in the mid night Was bui natural. m ihe cross—exam‘naiion of this wiiness! defence has not heen able to elicii any circumsianc which makes evidence of this witness untrustworthy or unreliabie. The vidence of this wiiness inspire fuii confidence of ihe Court ihai she wit essed the accused while ehacking he? husband with a chonper. As far as third pcini is can erned, investigeiing Qfficer, Baht: Jen in the pelice eueiedy, amused Samar Sai, on 23-i1«97, gave memeiandnm {Ex-Pia ihai he has kepi chepper, weapon sf cffen e, in ihe heuse co‘accused Pheei Sai and he can get recovered ihe‘ same. Based on th t, the accused get recovered chooper under Ex.-P/$. The evidence of ih i Khan (PW-12) hes stated that. whi i wiinesshas heen corroborated by the evidence of W41 Suresh, who ha siaied iha’i memorandum Ex.-P15 was giveh by Somar S-ai which bears sighaiures aiso and ihere-aueg, in his presence, i'ne accused brought ch pper from ihe house of Phooi Sai and same was taken into possession nder Ex.-P/B. in para~’i5 of his cross— examinaiion, he has stated fhai' came to know about the name of accused Somar Sai oniy after disc! sing by the poiice and prior to that he (9% W) ts..- t i'n r e e‘ i his e XI—HC-22 XI—HC—22 WW§1¥$W éamm s i0 b9 improvement in thg Lnportiye decumem Le. rehisier Vidence is m? warm reEance. Therefore, based cm the ev eceased, whc w§tnessed the aé ‘T‘ Ci “was §ound siained w§ih biocd a Q) Dr. KS. Pendm aiso examined ihe biaoq and has sEai‘ed ihai ii was w: which were found on the body 0f i:'h m ' mm#ug‘m AA £1. ()4 g; pper, same was weave-red a: :h - evidence sf ibis wiiness and feievam has nei been produced, ihersfare‘ his ence 0f P‘J‘Ju4 Phaai Bai, wife cf the :used aitacking the deceased wiih a e §i1stance Gf ihe accused under EX.-P/ s per ihe F.S.L. repari (Ex.-P/2§), PW—8 said chopper, found same stainea' wiih ssibie i0 cause injuries by this shoppe; e deceased. Witness Sures’n aiso saw *EW,W§,W Wm Wm“..u.uuu.uuu. H 200 r