o. ”“2937’as’” iather'; Residents. Sentenc&é U nder Sn; '"' ‘ ‘%\»Cy<"\§’ ECiLWf"3r/7E‘m' m ”“""?-§')" N ,itlse be reprs ’ not pro; . practit; -'appear y pri sone'i" legal py ‘ case ani practitf 1. Date 2 o ‘Dautkk 3 . Dab: 4. of Application for f on which»; appeal sen; > whe? i 3 $.5IZQ‘é: - Continu: :‘i‘ 75a No; N Forward to ga ’th: of tran NO. Date of Date of Memo of ’ NO . Forward»? ' .er the prisoner wis‘x'ed Ito be represc; fré3 1.4% it: 03 OX 05 _. 19" O thgrrGHLEwI a am m ~ whicn a copy of 0) ler massed in th 31’%%—\q ébzyr’a SupL-nintenden t receipt: in C.J.M's Diffice _ :éceipt record to accompa ny Qpeal of the App'eliate Court _ to the C.J. aceipt in Appeliato Court ‘Date. of IIIIIIIIIIH ‘ CF0000065487 APPEAL OF P..ISONER r"\ Name m. . ,LZ“ :<a-v..o.« “H name ____''._*_<a:7;§] ”Fig c/< K y Q )%k5)0'1 /", 1 5 FE Reg. M gamma w», auw" w o 71‘ $36!“ 7 Qua?“ \zjl‘gaTggmwéPZ3f04 wm tion; ‘ . ......,- _-_V on u" .7-.~‘ '3k 2 mil? {Em wmri W lalned to the prisc ver that if he sf ed with the base f0“: appears. ‘ner If tho legal practiti: th~in seven days he may not heard a‘ states that he does not wish to be 1‘ “tiotioner the court may proceed at vill not be obliged to give a hearix 7,; war who should appwr. :opy of Judgement gm; g y » 1m$* o which copy received n 455i ”err 5' Atu3 '.QJ..:.£‘.$I. 7 ./ to ented by legal pracvitionerithe Appa Cll the . legal t rloes not *ll. i. c g or wish seven days unlu z; ate Court x Tf tlm ‘N resented b lo with the to any leg } -._ Tl I: a)” iec'l or not—{z./‘é/No. A $.53! I. t t... Q 2 V QAES" l 161.5‘ Q3 m‘ Dated ‘Dated Jail owl“ walEl. e for fa ‘Ur gm bxkawr PE gistra t 1 b- g zv/O X twig s Lssion to the hropc Aooelliate Cou-_ . Qi \NJI‘, ‘»- \5‘ .Agc 4661M c... @ by 375.5 : y W. 9W 91,51 airy} wgej‘ id) K Mia; \nT‘ @centxal ‘ “M _ -- HIéH CGL’RT QF £HHATTI5$ARH AT $IL£.$?UR (Srimirsai Appgal Na.133 0f 2605 CQRAM: HQN’BIE MR‘TAP‘SHARMA & HON’BLE ERR LEHANWAK JJ. APPELLANT Tim 5/0 Qudha Kunwar, aged abau? 4G (in jam year-s, @ccupafion Agricuifuris‘? m& imour, I l Rio viihge Hasmi, Peiice Sfai'in'n l \I . . Dhouipur; Distric? 5urguja {CL-‘3.) Versus RESPQNDENT 5mm af Chha'n'isgarh '(CRMENiaL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37’4 {2) OF THE CODE OF (JR’EMINAL PROCEDURE. i973‘) Presant- Mrs.Kimn Jain, cwnsa! for The appe3iani‘. MnAshish Shukia. Governmem A&vooa1’e for fhe Shh/respondent JUDéMENT Wassed on 10* March, 2m T) Th5 judgmam 0f Th5 Cour? was delivered by TVP.$harma, J.:— hallenge in ‘ll’lls appeal is to irlae judgment 0f eonvic'tion n15: elder 9:5 senience dated 31.12005 passed by The Firs? Addi‘riaml Sessions Judge, Ambiksg-ur, Surguje in Sessinns Case No.15?/04, whereby 15a, whereunder learned Firs? Additional 5essians Judge affer balding The apgeilani' gull'l'y for cammiss§on a? culpable hamicidal deai'l'! af Pa'rango Bai amauafi‘rsg ‘3'9 murder canvicfed under- 5ec'l‘ian 302 of ‘lhe Indian Penal Code and sentenced him Te underge imprisnamem far life d, 1'9 pay fine af Qs.300/-. 2. Canvlctiaa is impugned an file greand ‘rhd? wifhout there being any iozra of evidence, 'i’he Caurt belaw nag canvic'red and senfenced fine appellant as aforementioned and Thereby cammit‘i‘ed illegality . C .3.‘ Case cf fhe prosecufion, in brief’ is that an the fateful day of 1.3.2001! a? Luau? 9 pm Pamngs Bai (génce deceased) was present in her heuse n+ vilhga Bhakum‘ district Surgujai ‘E'he agpeihn? came to her house with paintad rod and assaui'reé over- her ch35? and Thereby causeri fatal injurizs. Other viiiagers came ft.) hzr hams; she made dying dedarm'ion To Kntwcw Sehtm Das (PW-2L Thakur Dayni Singh {PW-4),. 5M! Pmsad (PW-5), Dhanashwari Qai {PW-6) and Shanti (9W-7) and fimliy shz digd. EIR. was ladged by Shiv Pmsad (PW-5) wide Ex.P,/12. Merg was recerded vide Ex.P,I'13. investigafing efficar proceedad far the scehe 9f accurrence and after- summonmg the witnessas yide EXP/4' inquest ever the dead body 9'? i£acaased Pantzmgo Bai was prepared vide Ex.P./5. Dead budy (If the deceased was sent fer autogsy t9 District Hesiriitai, Ambiiéapur‘ Autopsy was conducted by DrR.l\i.6upta (WV-3) vide EXPIZ and found one stab wound over left side 9f he? chest, size 4 ems. x 4 ems, rupture of iung was found and ene liter biacd was found inside thoracic cavity. Mode 9f death was shack. 5pat mag: was prepered by investigating officer- vide ExPlé. Pdtwdri aise eregdred spat map vide EXP/7. Bloods-rained 84 plain soii were reccyered from the spot vide EXP/11. During the course cf investigation, the aggeiidnt was teken inte castedyi he made canfessienei statemem ef pointed md vide EXP/9, same was recovered et the instance 9f the epgetidnt vide EXP/10. Painted md was exemined by the dectm' vide ExP/3. 4y $taternents 9f the. witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code 9f Criminal Preeedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code‘) and after completion cf investigation, charge sheet was fiied in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikeiour, who in turn committed the case to the Court of 5essions, §urgujo {Amhikoeur} from where First Additional $essions Judge Ambikopur received the same on transfer for trial. En order to {grove the guilt of the accused/anpeliant, the prosecution has U1 examined as many as 9 witnesses. Statement of the aceused/apaeiiant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code where he denied the circumsi’ances appearing agains‘!‘ him anti claimed inmcence and faise impiica‘tion in The crime in qugsfian. After affgrding an agg‘gortuniw 9f hearing m ‘H'ae, par-Ties, First Additiam! x$essians Judgz has convicwd and sentenced The appeilam as aforemeu'tioned. ‘ We haye hanrd Mrs.Kimn 3am, counsel fer fhe appellm? anti MruAshish 5hukia, Gbvemmerat Advace‘r‘e far fhe .Sin‘re, perused the judgmen‘t impugned and record 0f The Cdur? belaw. Learned ceunse! far +he appe!!eat vehemen‘rw argues the? in the. present ease, the ease is based 9n dying deciercd'ion 9f The deceased made 1'9 Katwdr Sohcm Des (PW-2), Thekur Deyd! Singh (Pvt/.4), Shiv Pmsed (PW-5), Dhaneshweri 3ei (?W-é§ and Shanti (PW—7), but an accomn‘!’ of fate! ingury 1'9 deceased Patengo Bei, she was n0? in e gashian To say anything, Thereferei {rhe evidence 9f dyiiig declermrian is n9? admissible and safe i'o reiy. Even atherwise dying decierei'ian is week wpe 9f evidence and same is not safe 'm reiy uniess corrobamfed by the materiei seure‘es. Learned ceunsei further argues The? the appeiiem has caused singie injury which shews i'ha? he has he? caused injury with intent 'i’a muse her dea‘ih, Therefore, if the evidence of the proseeu‘rien is admitted, irhen fhe eci’ af the appeiien? daes not Travel beyand 1’he scape of Section 304 Peri: 11 cf the Indian Pena! Cede. On the efher hand, learned State eaunsei suapor'red the judgment? O‘ impugned and argues fha'i’ ‘ihe deceased has made dying declaration before Katwar Sahan Das (PW-2L Thaiéur Dayai 5ingh (PW—4), Shiv Prasad (PW-5), Dhaneshwari Eai {PW-6) and Shanti (PWJ) which inspire confidence, trustworthy and safe to reiy. Qnce dying declaration is to be proved, then same alane is sufficient for canvictian of the appeiiant, though the appeilant has caused singie injury but nature of injury, object they used and force at the time of causing injury reveals that the appeiiant has caused injury with intent to causing death of the deceased and in case cf even single injury, cmvicticn under 5ec?ion 302 of 'rhe Indian Pena! (Jade is susminable under The law. 10.1?! arder To appreciate fhe argument advanced an behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence ayaileble an record. In the presen? ease, convictian is based en dying dedemtion made by The deceased m Kai-war Sohars Das (PW-2), Thekur Daycd Singh (PW-4), Shiv Presed (PW-5) Dheneshweri Bai (PW-é) and Sh‘anfi (PW-7). Kozfwar- Sohen Das (PW-2) has degosed in his evidence the? after the inéiden‘r, he went to tine heuse 9f Pei-ergo Beinlang with Thekur Deye! Singh and wher persans. This wimess whn is Kotwnr has further deposed Thai- Pa‘tangc Bai made dying declarafioa befere him The? accused Tiru Ram has essaui'ted her. She was stained with biood and after- semetime she died. His eyidence is cormbom‘ied by The evidence of Thekur Deye! Singh (PW-4), Shiv Presed (PW-5), Dheneshwari Bei (PW-6) and 5hen'ti (PW-.7). Defence has crass-examined these witnesses at ien9 ‘ih i but theY have s‘rruck info their version i'ha'i' ‘i‘he deeen-ed has made dying declarafien before fhern. The principle of dying deeidre‘l’ien is based an iega! maxim “heme marimrus mesmiimr menfiri’k man wiii n9? meet his maker with a iie in his mauth. .Lord Chief Justica Ba.o. Eyre {See R.\./.Wogdcack; 1789) _1 Lea 502} expressed his view reiating ‘io dying declaration as fellows:- Thd+ such declaratians ere made in extremityv when The par'iy is aT fhe poinf of deafh, and when every hope of This wouid is gone; when every moiive in faisehooa' is siienced, and i’he mind is induced by The mosf powerful cansiderefinns fa speek the fru‘rh; a si‘iua'rion so soiemn and so awfui is considered by ihe iaw as creuiing an abiigaiian, equai in fhai which is imposed by a pesitive aa'i'h in a caur‘i of justice......." 13. If the dying declaration is to be proved, then same is sufficient for warrant eonvictian. In he present ease, the evidence of KotwarVSohan Das (PW-2), Thakur Dayal 5ingh (PW-4), 5hiv Phased (PW-5), Dhaneshvvari Bai (PW-6} and $hanti {PW-7) relating to dying deciaratian made by the deceased inspires confidence, trustworthy and safe ta reiy. u 14.As regards the motive is concerned, in casg of direct evidence mafive lesses its importance, even afherwise‘ motive oniy aids in criminaiify and can. be inferred m1 thz basis of namre of injury, kind of weapon used, gar? af the body effected and ofher simiier circumstances, ahhnugh the appeilen'i‘ has caused singie injury, but has caused injury ever the chest of the deceesed up m depth effecfing iungs by peimed rod of 19 %" mere than 1 =15 feet Causing sub wound by dengereus weapon up fa sueh depth shaws grave in'ien'i'ion 9f causing; deem 9f the deceased. 15.Af1’er appreciating The evidence available on regard, learned First Additienai sessiens Judge hes convicted and sentenced The eggeiidni' as , ,8 'x \ 'h dfgrementioned. 16. On close scrufiny 0f the evidence, we are 9f 'i’he view thef fhe canvicfidn is based an ciinehing, credibie end legal evidence sustaindble under the law. The Cour? beiew has no? commiiied my iiiegeiify in the judgment impugned wurrun‘i'ing any interference. 17. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is iiabie ta be dismissed end it is hereby dismissed ff ”gee: ‘Sdl— R.L.Jhanwar Judge ‘1”, w- J