3 WMWGIM'QW 7] QWQ. gig cgcsby/J‘ ‘i.’AlsiéisALsblz—tisRrsoNER * , @ a érgv; 'N‘ain‘er V l SivisiGn 3mm-{Cririiinal) ' Father’s rfame , 0 . _ O 1 ’‘tb’N/éWW/w ' ‘ .7 lgwtwwtow im“,h, on; ‘ 21n- ,_ {m 9; W3W .- UnderSectionf‘ " > %%w I 8O» f . ‘ by 3/7771”°W>7‘¢‘~\4/77> :":{'*~" V iii s9 0am c“ 133.1994 Residence I , / .l p s i b i 1f is’e’xplaine ‘ to‘th6 prisoner that if he statesjhefWshes‘to be‘re ‘ practit'ibnér‘the' ‘ppellate ‘Cburt Will not prOCeed With the ’c'ase f0} seVeh days unless the ‘ legal practitioner appears earllief. If the legal practitioner does not ,ap‘p‘e’ar ‘wit‘hin seven ‘ days ‘emg‘xgty he ‘rnay‘not legal practitioner heard at all the if court the Prissner ina’y‘prooe-e‘d states that at once he does with. not: 'the'cas'e Wish and to be Will repre- not i, . ’ ' " § , e obliged to give a Ihearing ‘to my legal practitioner whoshouldappear. engd by a le : Date-of Ap‘plic‘ati‘on foricopy of Judgement * ‘ _ ‘ I r Datelon Which eoioy received . I Date on which Appeal sent‘ . *2? grip. 9? Whether the prisoner wishes to. be represented or not :No. is Confine >in’ “a“ 53: , p . , , . , . ‘Noi E ‘ ’ . ‘ Date'd r s I . 1‘99 {Forwarded to the i i ' i V t V . v. . _ L , ( It of judgement or order passed in the case xfor favour_ of transmi—J t é r i i i , h £ with. a clom'; §‘;ssio l 9 i, the:”ra ro l i A ellt ’ x V \ , I r ‘ 1 i ‘ U . nDate-of receipt inl' Office g ~ - 3 3‘ Date‘of receipt 0t record to accompany the V V . z 7 t Memo of Appeal itoi'tli‘e Appellate court; ‘ N : ' P a ' {_, i . N9 . ,7 .D 7 1 a i a ‘ v> ' a forwardedW toQthe! , . , it .,.~,~~~ fam- L J f a _ mekiif i it i *WZQW LD‘Vateifioqfi’fe‘ceipt"iii Appellate court i s, r 7 ”‘ m 7 ’ ' ‘ i l r t i I *”0~~_ u- k ova... 4 j " tW 3 w . r I V. “V I R ‘E 2Er¢""" ' V ( g j : , ’ o Q ( @ " 1 u. w n v‘ W i ' .v A a “d : 99 ‘ $M.--~; M XI—HC—78 1’? EW,W,W WW ~ wwzgm 7 200 WW(W) WW(W) ‘ XI—HC—78 mmm WWW mmwm ‘ I” mmnwm égmm a TB1}1an'n Bai and presssd her neck as also assaulted Tehan'n Bai 1 to intervene, but his son ran after merg intimation, the S‘H.O. Police Information Report (EX.P/ 1) for Section 302 of IPC, left for scene of to the Panchas‘, piepared inquest rin Bai. The site plan of place of ared and body of Tehaxin Bai was sent for postmortem examination t0 m6 Public Health Centm, A R.D.Gupta conducted the ne cause of death was asphyxia due bore antemortem in nature. The ed (EXPI 17). After completion of the filed against the accused in th Class, Sakh', who in turn Ct Judge, Bilaspur, from whole, withl hands and fists. He tria hin‘ialso. On meeiving this Station mgistared a First commission of oii‘ence under \ occ‘un‘ence and after notica (EXIR/4) on the body of Tells occutTauce (EX.‘P/5) was pm}: The prosecution in orde] accused examined 15 Witness recorded under Section 313 c material appearing against hit to say anything. Malkharoda (Exfj/ 16), wheie Dr. postmortem and opined that t‘ to throtth‘ng and injuries v postmortem report was prepart investigation, a charge sheet was .e Court of Judicial Magistrate First )mmitted the case to the Session learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti received the case on tranisfer for trial. P.T.O. WW,M,W mlgt 200 m aorta; ’ to establish the charge against the res. The statement of accused was If Cr.P.C., in which, he denied the :1 and stated that he does not want XI-HC—78 WW, Wang,W ~ C9<~ Aw. ‘ %3.§9.{g; ..oooo.. Wm<W> WWW wmm WWWW " $’ L kl. ‘ , ‘ ;‘ Learned Additional Sess 1'01?" respectivs partiss and sent€11ced the accused as afort k Wt: have heand Shri Ab acbused/ appellant and Shri Advgqate for 1:116 State and per The homicidal death of by learned cougsel for the z (PW- 10), has sfated. that on 2 conducted postmortem 011 the as many as 20 injuries on v; that the deceased was carrying pregnancy and injuries were found rated wounds on the right side. On se on thyroid cartilage in the size of Lere was a bruise on front side of the the size of 2 V2” x 3j4". There were A- 3‘ extending h‘om mastoid muscles to 4 bruises on each side of the neck, f the neck and he opined that the sed on account of throttling; the report is EX.P]7. Therefore, i1 View of the medical evidence. of Dr. R . D. Gupta, death. of Teharin ions Judge after hearing the counsel perusal of record convicted and :mentioned. hay 'l‘iwari, learned counsel for the D . K. Gwalre, Deputy Government used the record. Teharin Bai has not been disputed locused/ appellant. Dr. R.D.Gupta 6.11.1996 at about 11.00 a.1n., he body of Teharin Bai and he noticed nious parts of her body. He stated on her neck also. He saw lace mastoid bone there. was a bra: 2 1/2" x 3/4” brown in colour. Tl' neck near thymid caxtilage in 4 other bruises on the neck cervical vertebra behind neck, 2 bruises on the n‘ont side c death of Teharin Bai was c As far as involvement o the accused] appellant in crime in question is concerned, eye- itnesses namely- Nankidau(PW—1), P.T.O. i”v ‘was homicidal in nature. minim waif a feta?WK aWW . 'g XI—HC-78 W 3a W, Wm, . (MAW. 3.??? o »WW mm(W) {Q7 ‘W 200 mmwm wbr WW§W®W aamm ‘g faither of accused, who liodged ' aclcused and Mangubal (PW-( (PW- 1), stated that he saw bod acicused and called the villag€ 1 1, Nankidau stated that it is assaulted his wife-Teharin Bai to‘ i‘fn‘ervene, his son ran aftc informed Manguhai, Rambai : that i§ is concctn to say that t1: and eyes of Teharin Bai and cross-cxamination by the dcfc has not given police statement report (EX.P/ 1) and he afflx pressure. of police. He has e: therefore, he is interested in 11 one place, he has stated that deceased, when he tried to int As per the site plan— EXP/5, p: dead body of Teharin Bai was Bai and the accused used to i injuries on various parts of he and face and as per the med account of throttling. This fact for the accused] appellant but homicidal death in the house sustained by her. Even though ‘ x -\ the report, Rambai(PW-3), mother of i) have turned hostile. Nankidau y of 'l‘eharin Bai in the house of the rs. On cross-examination in para correct to say that his son-Narayan with hands and fists, when he tried r him, therefore, he ran away and and Bheshram. He further stated .ere were injuries on the neck, ears blood was also there, But, in the Lice counsel, he has stated that he (EXP/6) and he has not lodged the ed thumb on the report on the (plained that Narayau, is his son, :lease of his sou at the earliest. At he saw. the accused attacking the eivene, the accused. ran after him. repared hy the Investigating Ofticer, ‘ lying in the room, Where Teharin side. There were as many as 20 body, mainly on nose, eyes, neck cal evidence, Tehan'n Bai died on has not been disputed by counsel fact remains that 'l‘ehariu Bai died of accused on account of injuries his father has resiled, but later on P.T.O. ’k .- @}a XI-HC-78 WW,W,W W mm 200 WW() W Wmm WW§ WW atwm w-S' f§um 'E sid hat the accused/appaaxlt asaulted his wife. In his a t N s nd 3 a s he was at the time of commission f offence because the accused and Tliaiiii Bai used to reside ii ’a room, Where {he dd body of Tharhi Bai wS found, therefe, Lulder these circumstaes, as pf‘tlie Provisions of Section 1 of the Evince Act, the acced i was required to exiilain te ciumstance, unr whic, 'I‘eharin Bai sustained homicidal injurie, which has not been explained by the accused, even he has not sted that Where he was at the t of commission of ofenc, therere, he has failed to discharge the rden which was o him undr Section V106 of the Evidence Act. The ain ingredients of th otfence that Teharin Bai ied homicidal death in the house. acced has been established by the prosecution, therefore, there was burden on the accusedfanpellant to explain tt in what circumstances, Teharin Ba sustaine those injuries. Bt, no explanation has been etred. by im nor the defence has ben able to bting on record in the crossexamination of the osution witnesses to show tha the aused was not at his residce at the ime of commission of crime or there was possibility oany other person to commit death séatemént uer Section 31 Cr.P.C., he has not explined ajliything that 110W Tahariu Bai ustained those. injuries, Wre he of Teharin Bai. On the foregoing reasons; we are of the considered opinion that conviction of the accused] appellant does not suifer from any indrmity or illegality. P.T.O. ”1.x ’ ? t u m WW W m §m f o e i ea e a or nc e (16 de us h rc de h s ta ime fe fo bu n e m e d oif us ha i d u ne h e prec t cc en t l‘ XI—HC—78 1mm ma; 3a W, WgW Li go o.o.o....H7 a1 200 WW(W) WWW WWW maraf%a3n%m ,_ Q,— WW§WW $W3Tr¥1 'a Learned counssl for the looki11g to the nature of injuries bane in the neck was fractured other part of body of the dec intention cannot be attributed to the accused] appenant that he tentjon to cause her death. But arguments advanced by learned nt for the reason that the Doctor Le death of Teharin Bai was on of throttling and the number of of the neck were noticed by the rottled the deceased, she died. :ention of the accused] appellant attacked the deceased with an i1 we &‘e not convinced with the counsel for the accused] appella has categoricall}: stated that tt account of asphyxia as a result injuries or bruises on each side Doctor, when the accused th Spontaneously, therefore, the i111 was to cause death of his wife-T1 In the result, the appeal be dismissed and it is hereby dismi: Sd/- Acting Chief Justice accused/appellant argued that that no hyoid bone or any other and no grievous injury on any eased was found’ therefote, an iug devoid of merits is liable to be ised. Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sdl- aharin Bai.