CF0000060852' -^^.//<- XII-189/(Jail) C.J.P.R. 11/94/2,000 APPEAL OF FRESO B^ •••t^rt'sf Nad&gs^jrade^ stASALPSUR A&PS4995 ^s.»».^^..«.^»....... MER R'-cepiawi .H^h "<usn, ^afe^ipiw I No.... ...3s:.?..ci. /.^/............ ......... Name ::.'^ .^ ^......... ^__ ' ' ^ ^. n *'°'<c'1' , rows'on 8^ch (^'^^^^^^^^^ 's name'^-£r^}^^Y^vy^'err^^y^^^''^t'*^W"''"''''"''"'"^1'' Residence ^^.^^^^ .^^. ^...^^^.^.c. Age ....,2. :y~^.^ . Sentencedto^.^.^^..^.^.^^^.,.^.^^^0n....\^^^^ ......... Under section ^^^^^^...... by^^.^.^p^^.^.p^^^.. It is explained to the prisoner that ifhestates or wishes to be represented by legal ^ractitioner the Appellate Court will notproceed withthe base for seven days unless ^vhe legal practitioner appears . If the legal practitioner does not appear within seven day^he may not heard at all . IfThe prisoner states that he does not wish to be repre- sented by legal practitioner the court mayproceed at once with the case ancl will nct be obliged to give a hearing to any legal practitioner who should appear , 1 Date of Application for copy of Judgement ... ......\/^.i^4....................— 2 Date onwhich copyreceived ............... ...... :^/.^ .|L ^ .^ ...........,............/... -3 Date on which Appeal seot........... r. ...............'^..f.0.^' ... ........................ 4 Whether the prisoDer wishes to be represented or ©et--Y'es / No ^. •[>-'• /' ^NNI^- ••••••••••<-•••..•» 1.'<€*11A\<' • »•.•l* • .j fc<* «•'•••'»••»*• t-S • • •^JS* •V •^•?t •<• ••••••• • • ••••••• •• Confinedm ...... .......^.^.^............ Jail ...^.^^..^.^,^ ^ No......^^ ............f.U^f^ Dated.................. .. 1994:.7. .:?^/.3,|..c'lxt •••-•••- l(-yrwarded to the €HIEFL-WOTCIAl7MAGISIRATE'.^ ^o..^Si.^^.^.^^^^..y^,^^, ^ ,. /.. < -. ^^'^— y^(^A^ togather which a copy of judgement or order passed in the case for fav'our o'f'trans- mission to the proper Appellate Court. ^ ^t ,.> .D l . Cs^ c' ( -f >i Q (c--i ^' • • '^>f ^^ < ^ j ^ 'nf^ I ^^ ^-^' -^-4 SuperiD;t^trdent .3TaAl,i.;.l.%'%!l' • e •,^<^»• ^^ • ^'^r'f* • • <1 tll^ ^"«.»<^« •"•~• • • -»*- • •-• ••• 9^ Date of receipt in. office.........................u^^.^. Date of receipt record to accompany the Merno ofAppeal to ihe Appellate court /) •\t No Forwarded to the Dated ....................199. Oate of receipt io Appellate Court (P. T.0. ) N \.r,;::,- '^\ XI-HC-22 'sTi^i^r f^fw^ni^T ^"RT^^T^ ^ ' • /'-. -s^ ^RT^PT, ^NT^»'N^roy a^tyr . . ...<??:.^:..d^:.i.^/^6 ® ^R^rr ^WTO" "te^s?' ^T^T ^RTIW TrfN '^N^Fft^ l:RR^ ^ fefl" ^^R '^'31^T <3Tlq¥[ DIVISION BENCH: - HON'BLE MR. L.C. BHADOO Ah&D HON'BLE MR. V.SC. SHRIVAST^VA. JJ. 20-12-2005 Smt. Kiran Jain, Advocate f| Shri Alok Bakshi, (?ovemmej Orai judgment. By 1+iis criminal appeal, acci^ Drthe appeliant. it Adyocate for the State. sed Ferha has questioned the iegality of judgment of conviction &<3ent4ice dated 1.3.1996 passed by learned Additjonal Sessions Judge, .Khd|'a9arh in Sessions Triat No.114/95. whereby learned AdditionaJ Sessi|?ns Jucige after holding the accused guiJty for commission of offence i|nder Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code sentenced him to undergo ri^orou^ jmprisonment for life, The prosecution aise, in bjrief, is thaton 26.01.1995 at about 7.00 a.m. deceased Latmaar LodHi- father of accused Ferha went to Kothar for tying the bullocks; Asjthe deceased Latmaarousted his son Ferha from- the house 3-4 da^s prior to the date of incident, therefore, accused Ferha was sit^ing in tlie Kothar since the night of 25.1.1995 and the momenf Latrr^sar entered Kothar/accused Ferha attacked Latmaar on his neck & H®ddwith the axeand commjti-ed his murder. Just after the incident, jBabulal (PW-1) <& Santosh (PW-2) saw .wcu^d Ferha coming_oyt of the Kothar carrying the bbod stained axe [^t^ ^^ XI-HC-22 ' (S^ -^^ ~?qFiR?R, ^NTi?. ^roy ^nf^r ^^^ -HW^fl <^^1<^ "^ 200 ^TT^T^FT R-SJ^ 3?i^T ^RN"^ft^ J^ a^i'i^T^R"^^ ^.^^ in his hand. Babulal (PW-1) lodged ChhuikhacJan at about 11.00 a.m. C|n receiving this jnformation, the Station House Officer after register ^{^ffcl4l'l ^S^^if ^ 1^21 Zfa^R ^^P^RW^T the report in the Police Station ing the F.I.R. (Ex.P-1) left.for the scene of occurrence, prepared th6 si|-e plan under Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-3 and • /' . / •!11 • .. after giving notice (Ex.P-6) to the Pijinchaas prepared the Panchanama (Ex.P-7) of the body of_decea^dLatt|'»aar.'He abo took into possession the btood stained soil and piain soi! f^om the place of occurr^nce under Ex.P-5 and one axe from the gard^n of Shiv Kumar under Ex.P-4. C!o1+ies of accused/appeilant were t^ken into possession under ExP-utO and ciothes of deceased Latmaar wjere taken into possession under |Ex.P-ll. Dead body of Latmaar was |sent fqr postmortem examindtion 'to the Primary Heall+i Centre ChhL|ikhadaan, where Dr. M.^. Tiwar'i (PVV-S) conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased -and prepared the post mortem report E4P-13 in which he had opined that the cause of death was haemorrha^ shock due to muitipie injuries. Recovered artjcles were sent for ^xamination 1^) Forensic Science ILaboratory, Raipur fromwhere the re^ort Ex.Pwl5 was received/ After compietion of the inves^ the Court of learned Judicial Magist iturn committed the case to iearned d |whereJearned Addifional Sessions Jijdge, Khairagarh has received the igation, charge sheet was filed in <cte, 1st CIass, Khairagarh, who in iessions Judge, Rajnandgaon from case on transfer for trial. ['Tfr^ ^Rsi^l -T XI-HC-22 z^ ^PTRW, ^NT7T?t '^ray ^t^T^T 'f^i^^ii^T ^RW^rfN ^^ /'-..^r WR^lT^^r^ "^ 200 •^^vs' 3Ti^y ^^iw 1crf^T ->f The prosecution in order accused Ferhd examined nine was recorded under Section 3131 Sessions Judge in which he denie<| that he has been falsety implicate^l Learned Additional Sessionl Pubiic Prosecutor and counsel forl the accused Ferha in the Judgment. We have heard learned coilis Kiran Jain and tearned ^overnmesh Bakshi. The fact of homicfdal natul disputed by counsel fo^ tlie accu^e the evidence of PW-1 Babuial, evidence of PW-8 Dr. M.<5. Tiwarli were 11 lacerated wounds on the On dissection, the right internal were foundcut. PW-8 bpined nature, cause of dea1+i was shoc| cuttlng of right internal jugubr ^ '^Frfen^T 'HP^* ^ fe^ ^far^K ^3ri^ 371^1 to establish the charge Ggainsf the wittliesses. Statement of accused Ferha |of the CrP.C. by iearned Additional the prosecution evidence and stated in the crime. Judge after hearing the Additjonai |the accused convicted and sentenced manrler as mentioned in Parauti of this ^inse! for the accused/appellant Smt. ^sht Advocate for the State Shri Albk he of death of Latmaar has not been accu^ed/appeliant. Apart from that, from PW-2 Santosh as also .the medjca! Tiwarli in which he has stated that there y^rlous parts of the body of decea^d, yygular vein and right carotid artery the Injuries were anti-mortem in due to haemorrhage on account of ^ein and right carotid artery and the [Tft^'^Ri^ thbt XI-HC-22 3:O^T^T 'f^TW'sTii^r ^RW^fi^ J ® ^EET •^n^RT7?. "^^m?. 1^'Kiy ^rm^rww^ '"^200 3?T^T T^T^R ^a death was homicidal in nature. estabiished that death of Latma<Ixr As far as the involvem4 question is concemed/ Ifiere is | case and 1tie whQte case r^sts up| i. Evidence of PW-1 BabiliJal appeitant coming out o| carrying the blood staifjied ii. Extrajudlcial confessfcn before PW-3 Jagdish 4 iij. Weapon of offence i.e{ the garden of Shivkum^ In order to convictan accuse! tHe Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of W.B. reported in (19S}4) "In a case based <i circumstGnces from be drawn have not that all the circumstarl concluSive nature onf^ ^i^ferfi^ '^Fi^f ^ fe^ T^^R °^ ^ti^m ^?^? [Therefore, in vjew of the above it is was homicidal in nature. nt. of accusecl/appetlant m crime in Ino direct and ocubr evidence in this ^n the circumstantial evidence i.e.; & PW-2 Santosh saw the accused/ f the Kothar at the time of offence, axe in his hand. made by the accused/appeljant s PW-4 Fuduk Ram. axe was recovered under Ex.P-4 from where the accused had thrownit. d based on the circumstanttol evidence, matter of Dhananjoy Chatt-erje® Vs. 2 SCC 220 has held that; |n circjjmstantial evidence, the v^iich the conclusion of guilt is to to be futly established but also kes so established should be of a ofid consistent on!y with the iiypothesrs—'xrf—th%~algai+ta°-of—1+re—accused; ^J]i^s? ^R^T T' -f~ XI-HC-22 ^7^1'^T f^^'STlt?! ^^{T^W^cT ,^ •i- ^^ ^rrar^, ^^T?, "^iray WR^T'^^1'^' "Wi^ iw ^?T§[¥r^RII^R^^ • -^' circumstances should no by any other hypothesis and the chain of the ev not to leave any .consistent with the inno no reminder that legafly not merely indignation of conviction and the greater should be the evidence lest suspicion t| tlo Now, we shajl proceed to Sc\ adduced by the prosecution, as able to establish the char9e again^ circumstantial evidence in view Hon'ble Apex Court in the above j •A^ far as Point No.l is J occurrence carrying the blood stc^ ^ere not the eyewitnes^^s to <^P7fepfr;T "RTH^Tf'? 1^^ T^^R ^ 3?^w ^ii^r •t- be capable pf bein9 explained except the guiit of the accused |idence must be so Gompiete as rea4?nable ground for the beiief inn<fcence of 1+ie accifsed. It needs established circumstances and ojf the court can form the basis more serious the crime, the care taken to scrutinize the |skes the piace of proof." ^utinize the evidence, which has been whether the prosecution has been |t the accu^d/appellant based on the jof the principle laid down by the j^dgment; ;oncerned, learned counse! for the accused/appejlant argued that ^vidence of PW-1 Babulal <& PW-B2 Santosh is to -Hie effect that th^y saw the accused near the piace of ined axe in his hand, therefore, they 1+ie incident and there was every [^ft^^fe'^ . T- l^ XI-HC-22 ^-e[ ^T^i^r, -^frffn^. 'f^wy 3ff^T X|^^ wq^i%^^ '^ 200 ^ii^T'^r f^ri^^it¥[ •! ^RW^ft^ 4 3Ti^T ^RTI^R 'HitPf -i- possibifit^ that any thsrd person 4aY have commiti'ed the crime in question, bo[dy ' PW-1 Babuial has stated in hi 26.1.1995 he went to Kothar for H went towards the droiin and when heard the cries of Latmaar from thl Gccused/appeilant herein was coming his hand and same was stained withl ran away and while running away he Shivkumar. He chased him but couid entered 1+ie Kothar and saw the then he'went to cati the Kotwar of \j persons collected in the Kothar. The^ the Potice Station Chuikhadaan to chasing accused Ferha, Santosh als^ him. PW-2 Santosh has corroboratey stated that he saw the accused 26.1.1995 at.about 7.00 a.m. and he was stained with red coiour and sam^ of Shivkumar. It is true that these whiie attacking Latmaar, but the Ferha ^N^FTR ^RT^Tf'? fe^ Tf^^TC , ^•3TPcRa^r li^ evidence that ih the morning of f?ng the butbcks. Thereafter he |ie was returning from there, he side of Kothar and saw that the out of the Kothar carrying axe in blood. Thereafter accused Ferha t^irew the said axe in -riie garden of not catch him oind thereafter; he of Latmaar in a pool of blood, fiDage and by that time number of teafter, he alongwil+i Kotwar went odge the report. When he was came^ frorri the front and he saw the evidence of this witness and running awayin th;e morning of ^as carrying axe jn his hand/ which was thrown by him in 1+ie garden v^itnesses had not seen the accused levidence of these witnesses is [Tft^ ^P^^i t (@) XI-HC-22 ^a^ ^PTI^T, '^^Ti%, ^iTCTy 3??^T ^^^ • 1?PTRT^.Ni€b<*"'c*a"*<'t**"s*< ^^ 200 '^^"""."""""""" W^T^Fl 'f^iw^si^r ^Rfe^f^f! v hiNB^1 ^3^T ^RTia^: ^rft^ ^- admissible under Section 6 of the In' that " facts which, ifiaugh nat in i^i i^sue^ a^ ta farm part af 1he same they accurred at the same time an^ place^ff The fact in issue was that L|itmaGr was murdered by attacking him and as per doctor evidence as r^any as 11 bcerated wounds were found on his body, mandibte was intemat jugular vein and right, car< ^. accused/pppeflant was seen by PW-1 carryjng the blood stained axe in his him while he was running awayand Shivkumar and the body of Ldtmaar/ in the Kotha^. PW-2 Santosh also ^pw the accused running from the place of occurrence. Therefore; the relevant under Section 6 of the accused/appeibnt with the crime in qtjestion. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of these 1wo witnesses to the effect that their evidenceis unretiable or untrusl^worthy* As far as Point.No.2 regarding laaking of extrajudicial confession by the accused/appellant before PW concerned , tearned counsel for the -L: ^RMqM 'HR^tf ^ fe^ T^^R ^ <3?rPOT ^I^T lian Evidence Act, which envisages ^ are so connected wiiii a fact m Tan^cthn, are relevant whether 1 place ar at different times ancf Found fractured, even the right ^tid artery were found cut. The Babubt coming out of the Kothar [hand, even Babulat (PW-1) chased ithrew the axe in the garden of ^ho isfather of accused.was iying kvidence of these two witnesses is pvidence Act in connecting the |-3 Jagdish <Si PW-4 Fuduk Ram is ^iccused/appeihnt argued thatas [Tft^^f^ I /i u T XI-HC-22 ^^r "^n^s^i^, ^twrrg, fe^iray HW^tl ^W^ "^ 200 ^T^T'^T ^iN'<3^[§^T ^Rt^^rfi^ i 3^T?^T^^fN -?- , a- ?er evidence of PW-3 Jagdish the .atmaar was att'acked and Baghmarr< !is about 12-15 kibmeters and theret to the effect that about 8.00 a.m. ir and made extrajudicia! confession bej is not possible for anyone to cover s^ as such, evidence of this witness Second point argued by learned coi that PW-3 Jagdlsh has stated extrajudiciaf confession before him PW-4 Fuduk has stated in his evidej^ extrajudicial confession in front Jagdish (PW-3) has stated in examin^ about 8.00 a.m^ inmorning he was ir| purpose of unfurling the natsonai fla^ to him and stated that he has axe. Thereafter, he and Khujiram v| the body of Latmadr in the Kothar. deceased, there were injuries aiso the performance of last rites he c^r has stated in his evidence that on ^i Jagdish (PW-3) that he has murd^r ^N^n^ 'WT^f "^ iWt ^n?R '^>^t^R5?TR^ istance between Kulrkkasa/where ^ where this witness was present . ^re, the evidence of this witness the morning accused Ferha came [ore him is not correct, because it kh a distance within one hour and loes not inspire the confidence. L|nsel for the accussd/appeflant is lat the accused/appelbnt made n the Baghmarra school, whereas, ice that accused Ferha has made the house of Ja9dish (PW-3). ation-in-chief that on 26.1.1994 at the schoot of Baghmdrra for the at that tlme accused Ferha came combitted murder of his father with ^ent to Kuiikasa on a cycle and saw Blood was present on 1+ie body of )n the head of Latmaar and after ^e back to his house. PW"4 Fuduk ^1.1995 accusedFerha was telling "ed his father with the axe, then [Tit^^Ri^ XI-HC-22 3?1'^T^T f^ri^^dfit^ ^HW^ffi^ ^ -if ^s^ -s[[qi<rW. ^ftTFTS, t^RTy WRCT'WRP^ '^ 2oo 'l^^s?" ^n^r'i^rr^'H^H oh this witness has said to the accujsed father then how you couid be of Jagdish to take the accused, persdhs to send Ferha to Ku! witness has stated that accusel before them at about 8"9 p.m. words when they were sitting in He has further stated that Latrrfcxar that when you have murdered your bnybody. On this/he asked his nephew which Jagdish went along with few jkasa. In the cross-examination, this Ferha made extrajudicial confession jtn the night. The accused said these jfront of the house of Jagdjsh (PW-3). was his retative. As far as the first argu.me accused/appellant that iookin; Baghmarra & Kuiikasa it was Bagmarrha in such a short ti evidence, we do not find any suh that the time which was rnenti< nientioned approximateiy, they which is evident from the was 8 to 9 a.in. Simihrly, the ti but there is no evidence that the watch. PW"3 Jagdish has reach Kuiikasa from Baghmarra two hours, the distance is also first argum^nt advanced '^H'^TfeT^ ^Fi^Tf ^ ft^ T?W$K '^3?P^[3?]^T nbt ^- by learned counsel for the to the distance between Viftage possible for the accused to reach |ne is concerned, after perusing the stance in this argument, for the reason, ^neci by these two witnes^s has been |iave not stated about the exact time, of PW-4 Fuduk that time of occurrence is given as 7.00 a.m., ejxact time was mentioned after seeing that normaliy it takes one hour to |snd it is incorrect to say that it takes g-iven Qpproximately and therefore, on [Tit^^i^ crossl^xamination tihie XI-HC-22 -s^-'^FT^i^, 's^7!^, 't^rray ^I^T^T 'f^iW^S^T '^RT^'^fi^ ..-6.^ ^- 'q^? WR^T'gT^W '^ 200 "l^sr" ^TT^T "^RiT^R ^TfiTT —?e^ this ground the evidence of these^ Simiiarly, as far as the making of 'WlfeT^T 'RTH^f °^fe^ Tf^^R '^^OT^il^I two witnesses cannot be disbelieved. ^xtrajudiciaJ confession in the school and in frontofthe house of Ja^dish (PWatt3) is concemed/it is just possibie that the accused must have made extrajudicial confession firstiy in the school and ther^af'|er in frontof the house of Jagdish. Mdreover, it has not come on tile record thdt what is the distance between the schoo! and house of \ these two witnesses, nothing couf^ Tagdish. In the cross-examination of be elicited that the^ witnesses had any animASit^ or grudge against t|ie accused/appeilant that made them to impiicate the accuse^ in a fals stated by these two witnesses re< by the accused/appe lEant $tands accused/appellant was seen whife attacked his father Latmaar and Babulal & PW-2 Santosh. As Latni was occasion to come to him Therefore, the evidence of the^ from the evidence of PW-1 A PW- Now coming to the Point have Stated in their evidence coming out of the Kothar carr/ing b case, Moreover, whatever has been Idrding extrajudiciai confession made cor?^oborated by the fact that the running from the Kothar/where he he was seen running away by PW-l aar was his relative^ therefore, there and made extrajudiciGl confession. two witnesses hnds corroboration ^o.S. PW-1 Babutd <& PW-2 Santosh tjiat they ^sw the accused/appeltant Ithe bbod stained axein his hand and ••f ['^ft^'^R^f F XI-HC-22 ^n^T^r 1^TNT3:n^T ^?7N"^TJin 6-'. ^' -^^ -^FH^f^, -^^1%, l^<yll<al^< 'HS'R'^TWW^ "^. 200 'SiT^T'^RH^R'HiN while running away he threw that where the axe was recovered Officer Shri Sanjay Pundhir (PWj-9) this wtness in Para«5of the evid^nce into possession the axe from the same was stained with biood. The Laboratory, Raipur for exarninati^n was found stained with UIood- accused/appellant argued that tjiere that the blood, which was found too of the same blood group of whoie case rests on the recov^ before connecting the accused offenc®stasned with blood, it is which was found on the weapon c|f of the deceased. But, in this cas^ fne recover/ of the weapon of ^ the accused/appellant was seen the dead body of' Latmaar w4 thereafter, he made extrajudicit: PW-4 Fuduk. Even PW-1 Babuj4l ^T&i{<n<fli 'RPT^if ^ Fs^i T^^R ^3^R3?1^? axe in the garden of Shivkumar, from under Ex.P-4 by the Investigating and the same has been proved by where he has stated that he took ^arden of Shivkumar under Ex.Pn4 ond axe was sent to Forensic Science and as per FSL report (ExP"15) axe Learned counsel for the is nq serologist report to show ion the axe was human blood and that ^he deceafied. It is true that if the of weapon of offence only, therf in a crime bas^^on the weapon of always safe to ©nsurethat the blood, offence; must be of the same group the whoie ca^e is not resting only on ^ffence, there is other evidence that running away from the Kothar where is found in the pool of blood and il confession before PWro3 Jagdish & & PW-2 Santosh had saw that the ao€y^@4d»was^wo^m^4fce-^x€»4^ garden of Shivkumar from-s^here [Tfti»^fe^ XI-HC-22 W^T'^1 ^i^ ^^l ^Rw^rii^ z^ ^PTT^R, '^ft?Fre, ^^ray -HlN^l ww^* '^ 200 fN^s?' ^n^T'^iT^R ^1td n.' thdt axe was recover^d unctel Therefore/the recovery of axe of the case connects the accu^d! Now if we examine accused/appeltant was seen runn) 1+ie commission of crime i.e. hand and the conduct of the running, PW"1 Babulal tried to notcatch hinfi and accused ran in 1+ie garden of Shivkumar, extrajudicial confession before of murder of his father recovered from the place wher^ that the accused is throwing blood. Therefore, the chain of| based on that the ac< comrRtSsion of critne in question up'to the tests laid down by Judgment. Learned counse! for the a^ is no evidence that injories whicjji murcfer ctiase av^ay ths Latmfcar the xused/appcjliant ahcl the ^Frf^fN 'W^ff'? 'fe^t iF^-^sC '^3?f^p:?3??^r Ex.P-4 by PW-9 Sanjay Pundhir. ^tained with blood and other evidence wi1+i the crime in question. the above three points that ng away out of the Kothar just after of Latmaar, carrying the axe in his tccused was such that when he was him and caught him, but he could and the said axe was thrown by him Thereafter, accused/appellant made PW-3 <& PW"4 regarding cornmission with the axe and said axe was the witnesses i.e. PW-1 & PW-2 saw axe and same found stained with circumstances stands completed and has rightly been held guilty for evidence adduced in this case stood Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cused/appellant argued that as there were found on the body of deceased -r- Latmaar wereiuTficient to cause death in the ordinar^-q^^^p of XI-HC-22 '3^1 ^T ^ich 3T?i^T 9b^i<^ ^rftn <>.,^ -s^ ^PTRW, '^wri^, ^iray WWPITWW^- "ff^- 200 "^^r* ^TY^T'^n^R'Hfi'er •]^ nature, therefore, th& accused/c commission of crirrie under Section sed/cjppellant cannot be he!d 9ui!t^ for i302oftheIPC. ordin^ry 0r It is true that in the opined that injuries which were suffjcient to cause death in the the medical evidence avaibble orj mortem report, the Court con atsoj of injurjes that whether the^ inj^ in the ordinary course of naturq report and evidence of Dr. M.G| followlng injuries were found on th| i. Lacerated wound ini neck obtique in natuf Lacerated wound in| centre of the neck Lacerated wound in| bone. LGcerated wound in of throat. Lacerated wound in of right ear. ii. III, IV. V. ^i^fo4i"j 'RFf^f ^ fe^ if^r^K •^aTp^H^TT^I cour^ the doctor ought to have fJ3und on the body of deceased/were ^rdinary course of nature. But, from record i.e. injury report and post ascertain from Jopking to 1+te nature injtjries were sufficient to cause death . From perusai of the postmortem Tiwari (PW-8) it is evident that body of deceased Latmaar:- the size of 4i- "x l"x 2? "on the Ithe size of t.5''xl"x i-"oblical in the ^nd wind pipe was cut. |the size of 1.5"x?"x|-" on the coibr |t-he size of lnxi-uxi" on the back side ,1-he size of i"xj"xi" on the rear side [^^fe^ r XI-HC-22 ST^T-^T 'f^N'^ii^r '^TRN)"^'^ *^^ '•^ip^R, '^WT?»'N^ray ^TR^IT^W^ 'M "I^^T' ^TT^F ^^T^T'^finr Vt, VI L WL IX* X. XI. Lacerated wound chi^?<n41i "Hrt^if"? fe^ <f^^{< '^3Tf^F^T?^T in the size of l"xi-"XT" in the centre of the rjght ear. Lacerated wouncl in the size of l"x4xi" 4 above the rightside of the|:ollar bone. Lacerated wound Lacerated wound parietal region; Lacerated wound in the size of l"xi"xy" on the left ear. in the size of 2"xl?"x?" on the left in the size of l?"xl"xi" on the feft occipital region. The raandibje wai found fractured and further evsdence of -ttie doctor (P^V-8) is that on opening of the body the right internal ju^uhr vein and right carotid artery were found cut. In view of the above injur) the wind pipe was found cut, wounds on alrrsost all 1fie parts ^ doctor has stated that on accoi ies/itcan safely be inferred that when right internal jugufar vein and right cacotid artery were found cuf and there were numerous iacerated If head <& neck of 1+ie deceased and the ^nt of cut of right internal jugular vein and right carotid artery the ^eath was cciused, these injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of^ nature to cause death and as such we do not find any substdnce in tl^e argument of tearned counsel for the oc.cu^ed. [Tfr^ ^p^^ XI-HC-22 "S^ ^TPTi^R^ ,'S^OT? t^TRTy ^S^^II 'ANJeh'' "^ 200 ^t^r^r f^T^^IT^T '^IW^Tft^ ^., ^i7-< ^ ^ - ^T^T ^^T^R ^i^l -v^ rencis Lookin9 to the nature of the inJi ^as cau^ed and the weapon of offenc^ t can safely be inferred that the int^r t-o cause death of his father Latmafljr ^rial court convicting the accused/app| j^n the iegal evidence ond same doesj it+iis Court Juries, the parts of bociy where it used by the accused/appellant, int4nfion of e accysed/appellant was \ therefore/the finding of the )bl1ant under Section 302 is based ftot require any interference by In the resutt, the appeal is iiab e to be dismissed being devoid of l^ny merit and ^ame is dismissed. Sd/-- L.C.