Jogeshwar Ram Translation Final

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.
23/2009
INDEX
Serial Particulars Page No.
No.
1. Deposition of witness no.1 Shrimati Indarpati
2. Deposition of witness no.2 Dr. S.N.Paikra
3. Deposition of witness no. 3 Surendra Kumar Kujur
4. Deposition of witness no.4 Shivpatiya Bai
5. Deposition of witness no. 5 Ratan Ram
6. Deposition of witness no. 6 Narendra Chauhan
7. Deposition of witness no. 7 Anil Kumar
8. Deposition of witness no. 8 Shambhu Prasad
9. Deposition of witness no. 9 RM Yadav
10. Deposition of Defence witness No.1 Motilal
11. FIR
12. Judgment dated 29.09.2010
Translated, checked and signed by me

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
Witness No…..01…. for Prosecution….. Deposition taken on the … 25/11/2009, day of

Wednesday Witness’s apparent age ------ 42 yrs…… States on affirmation …… my name is Mrs.
Indarpati…. Wife of Budhsagar chikwa …. Occupation …. Housewife……. Address ….R/o
Sureshpur, Police Station- Sitapur,District – Sarguja (C.G.)
1- I can recognize the accused Jageshwar present in the court, he is my nephew as he is the son of my
husband Budhasagar's sister Jugpatiya and he lives in our village Sureshpur. It has been almost a
year since Jugpatiya died. The distance between our and jugpatiya’s house is similar to the distance
between this courtroom and the shops across the main road of the court campus (about 150 feet).
2-At night when we had our dinner and were asleep, Jageshwar's two sons Ratan and Anil reached
our house and told us that grandmother please open the door But I didn’t open the door after listening
to him, then Anil said from outside our house that his father is trying to kill his ‘Aaji’ come get her
released. The witness says Anil's ‘Aaji’s’ name is Jugpatiya. Anil also told us that he had seen to it
that fight had broken off, but Jageshwar did not agree and presses Jugpatiya's throat with his leg.
When we were asked by Anil to come to his house, I along with my sister-in-law Shivpatiya, and my
husband Budhasagar, went to Jageshwar's house at night. Anil and Ratan also went back to their
house with us.
3- Both the doors of Jageshwar's house were covered i.e., they were closed from inside. That time
Jageshwar was inside the house but he did not open the door. We didn’t hear any sound of Jugpatiya
shouting. When Jageshwar did not open the door, both of his son Anil and Ratan went to sleep at
their aunt's house, then we i.e me, my husband and sister-in-law went back to our house from
Jageshwar's house at night and then we also slept.
4-In the morning I with my sister-in-law Shivpatiya went to see Jageshwar's house. There we saw
Jageshwar’s mother Jugpatiya’s body lying in the room where she used to live, and Jageshwar was
also there in the house. We asked Jageshwar how Jugpatiya died, Jageshwar said she died out of
thirst because there was no one to give water in the house. We had seen in Jugpatiya’s body injuries
due to beating on her face. Blood was oozing from her nose and mouth and her thigh bone was
broken. We shouted and called in the village then locality’s watchman Shyamla , my husband
Budhsagar and many other people of our village reached. Who all came I did not pay much attention.

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
5-Someone from the village informed the Sitapur police station, then the policemen of the Sitapur
police station reached the village. I didn’t go to the police station to report. I told the police about
what Ratan and Anil told us when they came home at night and about when we went to Jageshwar’s
home at night and the door was closed all these things were told.
6- The Police came for investigation then after inspecting Jugputiya’s body took the body to Sitapur
for post-mortem. Police had also inspected the room where Jugputiya’s body was lying. Later the
Patwaari also came to Jageshwar’s house to prepare the map. I cannot read and write, I affix thumb
impression. Police took my thumb impression on papers.
7-The First Information Report (exhibit P-01) produced in this case was read out to the witness. Then
she says that when Jugputiya’s body was taken to Sitapur Police Station by the Police I and
Shivpatiya also went with them. That time report was written in the Sitapur police station and my
thumb impression was taken in that report. The information regarding the death of Jugputiya was
also written in Sitapur police station. The police saw Jugputiya’s body in her room that is what was
written by the police in the police station.
8-Jugputiya’s husband was in a government job in the Andaman Islands. After his death, Jugputiya
used to get the pension. Jugputiya used to get rupees three thousand as pension at the time of her
death. I don’t know how much pension Jugputiya used to get before that. Jugputiya had fallen due to
which her leg was fractured and weak, that’s why she used to walk with the help of crutches.
// Cross-examination by Smt. Kamini Sinha, Advocate for Accused//
9-I don’t know in which company does Jugputiya’s husband work but I do know that Jugputiya
receives rupees three thousand as pension.
10-It is correct to say that I didn’t come and report any case, before the policemen brought
Jugputiya’s body to Sitapur. It is correct to say that when Jugputiya’s body was brought at Sitapur
police station, I also reached to the police station and I was crying there. The witness was asked
whether the policemen in the Sitapur police station asked her to put her thumb impression in 3-4
papers, to this the witness replied that at the time I was asked to put my thumb impression I was
crying and I gave my thumb impression. It is also correct to say that the policemen took my thumb

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
impression on the paper but I don’t know what was written on that paper. The police didn’t read it to
me.
11-Our village doesn’t fall in between, when we travel from Ambikapur to Sitapur. Beyond that our
village Sureshpur falls near Beljora village. (Ambikapur to Sitapur distance must be 55 km).
12-The witness was asked that whether Anil and Ratan who are the sons of accused Jageshwar, drink
lot of alcohol, then the witness replied that she never saw them drinking. I do not know whether Anil
and Ratan came to my house after drinking alcohol. Witness herself says that nobody drinks alcohol
in her house and nobody is allowed to enter the house after drinking alcohol.
13- It is wrong to say that after coming to our house, Anil and Ratan told us that their father
Jageshwar came house after drinking alcohol from outside and was creating ruckus and that’s the
reason they came to their house so that they can sleep here. It is wrong to say that, at that time I said
to Anil and Ratan that let’s go to their house and I will help them in opening the door. It is wrong to
say that the night Anil and Ratan came they didn’t tell me about Jageshwar beating his mother.
14- The witness was asked that when she went to Jageshwar's house at night did she not hear any
voice coming from inside, since everyone was sleeping, then the witness said that from outside she
heard the voice of Jageshwar but she couldn't hear voice of others.
15- The witness was asked that whether you told police that you heard Jageshwar's voice coming
from inside the house at night, and you heard his voice from outside, to this the witness replied I had
told but if the police did not mention this in my statement which is exhibit D- 1 then, I cannot tell the
reason for it.
16- It is correct to say that inside Jageshwar's house at night the door was closed, we did not know
how many people were inside the house at that time. It is correct to say that there are two doors to get
out at Jageshwar's house. It is wrong to say that the doors of the house in our village can be opened
by anyone from outside, after lifting it and can enter inside the house.
17- I, Shivpatiya and our nephew Jageshwar (accused) went to Sitapur in the same vehicle in which
the body of Jugputiya was taken. It is correct to say that when Jugputiya's body was taken to Sitapur
in vehicle, even Jageshwar was crying.

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
18- The witness was asked how much land Jageshwar has, to this witness replied that there was a
field/ farm land in the name of Jugpatiya, but Jageshwar sold the entire land after beating Jugpatiya.
It is correct to say that Jugpatiya came to live in her parents house with her husband, that is why she
was a gharjihin daughter. It is correct to say that Jugpatiya received her parent's land. It is correct to
say that my husband has also received share equal to Jugpatiya's share from his parents.
19- It is wrong to say that we were sad about the selling of Jugpatiya's land. Witness says that
Jugpatiya was given this land, so why do we feel sad. It is wrong to say that Jageshwar sold
Jugpatiya's land that’s why we were very angry with Jageshwar. It is wrong to say that to give grief
to and punish Jageshwar we from family together with common intention are giving false statement
against Jageshwar in the court. Witness says she is telling the truth. I am not lying.
Read over and explained to the witness, Typed under my direction

she admitted it to be true.
Sd/- Sd/-
(C.L. Patel) (C.L. Patel)

Sessions Judge, Sarguja Sd/- Sessions Judge, Sarguja
Signature of witness

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
Witness No…..02…. for Prosecution….. Deposition taken on the ..… 26/11/2009,

day of Wednesday Witness’s apparent age …..34 yrs…… States on affirmation
…… my name is Dr. S.N. Paikra….. Son of A.S.Paikra ….. Occupation .
….Medical Officer….. Address ….. R/o Community Health Center, Sitapur, Police
Station- Sitapur, District – Sarguja (C.G.)
1- I am working as Medical Officer in Community Health Center Sitapur since March 2003. I
have 6 years of experience in medical work. Till date total 250 autopsies have been done by
me and reports have been given by me.
2- Constable number 61 Simon Tirkey of Sitapur Police station, produced the body of deceased
Jugputiya age about 65 years wife of Mangal Sai, caste- Chikwa to the Community Health
Center Sitapur on 05.11.08 at 2.30 p.m for examination of the dead body. The body of the
deceased was identified by the witnesses Ratan, Narendra and Rajkumar.
3- I started the post-mortem of the above Jugpatiya’s body at 2.35 p.m. during the day. The
body of the deceased was cold. On external examination, she was found to be a woman of
normal built and stature. Her eyes and mouth were half open. There was blood coming out of
her nose and mouth. The back of the head was depressed. The base of the nails of the
deceased were pale.
4- On internal examination of the deceased, the parietal bone on her head was found to be
fractured. There hematoma was found at the site below the fracture. The right chamber of the
heart of the deceased was filled with blood while the left chamber of the heart was empty.
There was undigested food in the stomach, her small intestine and large intestine were found
to be healthy.
5- According to my opinion, the cause of death of Jugpatiya was the injury inflicted on her head,
due to which she died of shock. It was 16 to 20 hours that Jugputiya had died by the time of
autopsy. Jugputiya’s death is homicidal i.e. murderous in nature. I have prepared autopsy
report in this regard which is exhibit P-02 in which I have signed from Part A to A.

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
6- I have written and prepared the post mortem report exhibit P-2 with my own hands. In this
report, on page number 4, in column with cranium and spinal cord, I have written the skull,
cranium and vertebrae at serial number 1, silli in serial number 2 and the brain and the spinal
cord in serial number 3, to be healthy, which means to be healthy.
7- The witness was asked that you have not mentioned about the fracture in skull in the cranial
and spinal column of the deceased in page number 4 of exhibit P-2, to this the witness replies
that I have already written about the fracture in the parietal bone in the skull in page number
3 of exhibit P-2, that is why have not written it again.
8- It is wrong to say that the fracture in the parietal part of the deceased which I have told that
could happen in rural areas if a person suddenly collides with the door frame of low height
door. It is also wrong to say that if a drunken woman is unable to handle herself under the
influence of alcohol, and if she falls on the stone or on any hard surface, she can get injury on
the head similar to Jugputiya.
9- It is wrong to say that in post mortem report exhibit P-2 I have not told the correct facts and
wrongly telling about fracture in the skull.
Read over and explained to the witness, Typed under my

direction
He admitted it to be true.
Sd/- Sd/-

Certified that the forgoing deposition was taken in the presence of Accused who had an
opportunity to cross examination the witness the deposition was explained to the Accused and
was attested by me in his/their presence.
Date – Sessions Judge, Sarguja (Ambikapur

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
Witness No…..03…. for Prosecution….. Deposition taken on the … 26/11/2009,

day of Thursday Witness’s apparent age….. 28 yrs.…… States on affirmation
…..my name is….. Surendra Kumar Kujur…. Son of Rupan Kujur …. Occupation
….Patwari ( Halka number 37)……. Address ….R/o Headquarter Village Beljora,
Police Station and Tehsil-…..Sitapur…..,District – Sarguja (C.G.)
1- Since 24 March, 2007, I am working as Patwari, halka number 37 at headquarter Village

Beljora. village Sureshpur comes under my patwari halka.
2- On receipt of memorandum from Sitapur police station, in relation to Section 302 of IPC
under crime number 203/08 of Sitapur, on 02/12/2008 at village Sureshpur I prepared the
map as told by the witness Ratan, Indarpati, and Shivpatiya after inspecting the place of
incident, which is exhibit P 3 in which I have my signature on parts A to A. The witnesses
have also affixed their signature and thumb impression on it.
3- In Nazari map exhibit P 3 by marking as serial number 1 the unpaved road is shown. Marked
by Serial Number 2 in red ink the place of incident is shown where as per the witnesses the
murder of deceased had taken place.
4- On 02.12.2008 itself at Village Sureshpur in relation to preparation of Nazari Map I had
prepared the panchnama which is exhibit P 4, in whose A to A Part is my signature. In it the
witnesses have also affixed their signature and thumb impressions.
5- In Jugpatiya’s house’s room where the place of incident is situated there on proceeding in the
northern direction towards the street number 1 then first door is of boundary and the house
which is there in between has two doors of which one opens towards south and one opens
towards north. Therafter in that house’s boundarywall in the northern direction there is a path
which goes to the outside.
6- It is correct to say that at the place of incident shown in the serial number 2 of that house
entry can be made from the direction of the boundary wall of the Northern direction.
Similarly, from street number 1 entry through the door in the boundarywall to serial number 2

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
place is accessible. I do not remember whether the door in the boundary wall on the North
side of this site map was a door with a bamboo slat or some other material. The witness says
that the door on the side of street number 1 was wooden, that I remember.
7- There is no house adjoining the house of the incident site and there is no house in front on the
south side of passage number 1. The witness says that I remember that there is a house in the
south-west direction. Maybe it's Sao's house.
8- It is wrong to say that I made the map according to whatever was told to me by the witnesses.
The witness says that they just told me the place and then I myself inspected the place and
prepared the Nazari map exhibit P 3. It is wrong to say that I have drawn the wrong site map.
Read over and explained to the witness, Typed under my
direction
he admitted it to be true.
Sd/- Sd/-
Sessions Judge, Sarguja Sd/- Sessions Judge,
Sarguja

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
Witness No…..04…. for Prosecution….. Deposition taken on the ..… 26/06/10,

day of Saturday Witness’s apparent age …..55 yrs…… States on affirmation ……
my name is Shivpatiya Bai….. Wife of Machindar Ram ….. Occupation .
….Domestic work….. Address ….. R/o Sureshpur, Police Station- Sitapur, District
– Sarguja (C.G.)
1. I can recognize the accused Jageshwar present in the court. This Accused is my nephew. This
Accused lives in our village Sureshpur only. His house is only that far from my house as is the
distance between this courtroom to the main road outside the court (about 100 feet). There is a
baadi (patch of land) between his house and our house, and no one’s house is in between.
Jugpatiyaa Bai was my dedh saas i.e. elder sister of my husband. That Jugpatiyaa Bai was the
mother of the accused Jageshwar. Jageshwar, his mother and his two sons all lived together. This
Accused Jageshwar’s wife has already died. It's been almost a year and a half since Jugpatiyaa
died. Her death happened, one year from today in the month of Kartik.
2. Jugpatiyaa Bai died in her own house. Jugpatiyaa’s son Accused Jageshwar killed her using
Jugpatiyaa’s wooden crutch. Anil and Ratan, both the sons of Jageshwar, had told this to my
sister-in-law Indarpati when they came to her house at night and woke her up, and thereafter they
came and told me at night. They had said that Jageshwar was beating his mother let us go and
get her released. Then in the night itself, I with my sister-in-law, along with Jageshwar’s two
sons went back to Jugpatiyaa’s house. We saw there that Jugpatiyaa was shouting help-help from
inside the house. Jageshwar had locked the door of Jugpatiyaa's house from inside, so she could
not run outside. From outside we had beaten the door asking to open the door, but despite that the
door didn’t open. Jugpatiyaa was shouting don’t beat me son from inside the house but
Jageshwar didn’t say anything.
3. On account of the door not being opened, both sons of Jageshwar went to their aunt
Maheshwari’s house to sleep, and I with my sister-in-law went back to our house. This incident
took place at about 10-11 o'clock at night. We had had our dinner and were asleep when both
sons of Jageshwar came to our house to tell us. After the passage of the night of incident on
getting up in the morning, I went near the borewell to fetch some water, at that time I went inside
Jageshwar’s house where Jugpatiyaa used to live and saw Jugpatiyaa's face was injured, she was
lying dead in the backyard, her thigh was broken. at that time Indarpati was also there with me to
see. At that time Jageshwar was not inside the house, he had gone to the village. There after
seeing Jagputiyaa lying dead we shouted then locality’s people also came there to see.
4. Jugputiyaa’s husband used to work outside in Andaman Island due to his death Jugpatiyaa used
to get the pension money of 2-3 thousand rupees using which she took care of the daily needs of
the family.

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
5. I don’t know why Jageshwar had beaten up Jagputiyaa. Jageshwar after eating and drinking beat
Jagputiya. Witness herself says that by eating and drinking she meant beating after drinking
alcohol. After the People from our village called the police station, the police came for
investigation.inquiry was made from me and my photograph was also taken.
6. The road to go from my house to Jageshwar’s house has a turn around. The name of my mother-
in-law is Bhinsari. My mother-in-law’s name is Bhinsari. Jugpatiya was asking her share from
mymother in law Bhinsari. I don’t know if any case is going on in that matter. It is wrong to say
that Bhinsari didn’t wanted to give share to Jugputiyaa. Witness says that ancestors had got the
partition done. My father-in-law had given the partition. It is almost 15 years since my father-in-
law died. I don’t know if any present case related to Jugputiyaa is going on in the court of
Sitapur.
7. It is wrong to say that I wish Jugputiyaa is dead. If Jageshwar remains in jail, then the issue of
land partition will end. It is wrong to say that due to demand of share by Jugputiyaa, the
conversation between our family and Jugputiyaa’s family has stopped. Witness says that when
Jugputiyaa was alive, she used to come to our house often. It is correct to say that Jageshwar also
used to visit our house often. It is wrong to say that both sons of Jageshwar Anil and Ratan don’t
come to our house. Witness says that sometimes when Anil and Ratan when needed used to come
to our house.
8. It is wrong to say that Anil and Ratan didn’t come to my house and told me about the incident on
the night of the incident. Witness says that they came to my house to inform. It is wrong to say
that we received the news regarding Jugpatiyaa’s death in the morning. Witness says that Anil
and Ratan came at night and asked me to get Jugpatiyaa released. Witness was asked why you
didn’t try to stop the fight at night itself, to this the witness says how could we do anything, the
door of Jugputiyaa’s house was locked from inside.
9. It is wrong to say that anyone can go inside Jugpatiyaa’s house using the stick door near the
baadi. Witness says that if the door is closed no one can go inside. It is correct to say that the
door will break if anyone strongly kicks the door. It is correct to say that the room in which
Jugpatiyaa lived has backyard all around. But witness says that the backyard was covered and the
door was closed.
It is correct to say that Jugpatiyaa’s back was broken, she used to walk using wooden crutches. It
is correct to say that Jugpatiyaa used to Drink alcohol once a while as per occassion. It is correct
to say that due to broken back Jugpatiya couldn’t visit anyone’s house from past 2-3 years and
she used to stay at her home.
Note: It's 1:30 now. Because of no electricity due to heavy rain outside, the examination of
witness was adjourned till the mid-day break at this stage

Sd/- Sd/-


CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
Note: - Witness Shivpatiya Bai (Prosecution witness No. 04) was again made to administer
oath after midday leave and cross-examination was resumed today on 26/6/10.
11. I don’t know that Jugpatiya had drunk a lot of alcohol on the night of the incident.
Witness was asked that Jugpatiya had fallen in the backyard and got hurt due to drinking
alcohol, then witness says that I do not know about drinking alcohol. I do not know that
Jugpatiya was inebriated after drinking alcohol therefore had fallen on her face in the
backyard and got hurt.
12. Witness was asked when she went to Jugpatiya’s house in the morning, the front as well
as the back door was open. To this the witness says in morning the front door of
Jugpatiya’s house was open, however I don’t know about the back door remaining open.
13. Witness was asked that Jageshwar in the morning went to basti to tell people about the
death of his mother, then the witness says that Jageshwar had gone to basti, that I know. It
is wrong to say that Jageshwar and his sons called people from basti and brought them
where Jugpatiya’s dead body was lying. The witness says when we shouted and made
noise that’s when people from basti gathered.
14. Police didn’t ask me about whether I shouted or not that’s why I didn’t mention to police
that after we shouted and called in the morning then the people from basti reached
Jugpatiya’s house. Witness was asked that Jageshwar did not kill his mother Jugputiya, to
this the witness says if she was not being beaten up then why she was saying help- help
don’t beat me son.
15. It is wrong to say that we are giving statement against Jageshwar that he killed his mother
so that we can acquire Jagputiya’s land. It is correct to say that accused Jageshwar
supported and was taking care of his mother Jugputiya.
16. The witness was asked whether Jageshwar and his mother loved each other and there was
no quarrel between them, to this the witness says that once Jageshwar hit the hand of
Jugpatiya, due to which her hand got torn. It is wrong to say that today I am giving false
statement in the court.

Sd/- Sd/-


CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
Witness No…..05…. for Prosecution….. Deposition taken on the ..… 26/06/10, day of
Saturday Witness’s apparent age …..17 yrs…… States on affirmation ……my name is
Ratan Ram….. Son of Jageshwar Ram ….. Occupation.….Farmer….. Address ….. R/o
Sureshpur, Police Station- Sitapur, District– Sarguja
1. The accused Jageshwar Ram present in the court is my father. I have studied till class
VIII but now I left my studies since last one year. I live in our house in Sureshpur. We
are two brothers.My elder brother is Anil, he and me, my father Jageshwar and
Jageshwar's mother Jugpatiya, we all lived together in the house. I used to call
Jugpatiya Nani in the house. It has been almost a year or a year and a half since
Jugpatiya died. Jugpatiya died in our house. I don’t know my mother’s name. I was
young when she died.
2. Jugpatiya had died at night. That night after having my dinner at my place, I went to
my aunt Maheshwari's house. Me and my brother Anil both went to Maheshwari's
house at night. At that time my father Jageshwar and his mother Jugpatiya were in our
house. My aunt Maheshwari was alone so she called, because of which my brother
and I had gone to her house to sleep. I arrived to aunt Maheshwari’s house at around
8.00 p.m. in the night. After I reached Maheshwari's house, for about one-and-a-half
hour I stayed awake and then fell asleep. I woke up at 7 a.m. in the morning and after
it I with my brother Anil went to our house.
3. When we reached our house in the morning, the outside door was closed but there was
no shackle in it, by opening that door I and my brother Anil went inside the house.
When we reached in our house my father Jageshwar was there in his room. My Nani
Jugpatiya had died. Jugpatiya was lying dead in the door of our backyard. I shouted
my father from there and told him that Nani is dead. But my father Jageshwar didn’t
say anything. Witness now says, he said she died. I and my brother Anil laid
Jugpatiya on the cot which was there in the backyard.
4. Witness was asked, whether anybody from the village came to your house. To this
witness after thinking for a long time says that Narendra from the village, who has
come to give his statement today, had come. And Narendra's mother had also come, I
do not know her name but she has just gone after giving her statement. (Before this
witness, the statement of Shivpatiya Prosecution witness.no. 04 was taken. More
people from our village had come. All those people saw Jugpatiya’s body. Jugpatiya
had injuries on her skull and hand. Her leg was broken.

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
5. The villagers had gone to the Sitapur police station to report, then the police also
came to investigate. My father Jageshwar was in our house before the police arrived.
The police interrogated me saying what do you know? I told the police what I saw.

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
NOTE: - By stating the witness to be hostile Shri Subhash Aggarwal Public Prosecutor sought
permission to ask leading questions, wherein after perusal of the records permission to ask
leading questions was granted.
6. It is correct to say that after having dinner I and my brother slept in our house only. It
is correct to say that my Nani Jugpatiya gets a pension of three thousand rupees. It is
correct to say that, that day Jugpatiya and my father Jageshwar from Batauli had
brought home three thousand rupees of pension from the bank. It is correct to say that
after eating food, my elder brother Anil and I slept in the backyard of the house itself.
7. It is wrong to say that when we were sleeping in the backyard, my Nani Jugpatiya told
Jageshwar that you keep my pension money and do not handle it properly. It is wrong
to say that there was a fight between the two of them over the same issue. It is correct
to say that Jugpatiya used to walk with the help of iron crutches. It is wrong to say
that Jageshwar started beating Jugpatiya with the same crutch. It is wrong to say that,
at the time of Jageshwar beating Jugpatiya with crutches, both me and Anil went in
between to rescue and told Jageshwar not to beat Jugpatiya. It is wrong to say that on
our intervention Jageshwar abused both of us brothers and happened to beat us.
Witness was asked that at that time Anil fell to the ground when Jageshwar pushed
Anil then the witness says that I did not see it.
8. It is correct to say that at night Jageshwar had thrown me and Anil out of the house at
night and locked the door from inside. It is correct to say that after that we went to our
aunt Maheshwari’s house that night.
9. I call Indrapati Nani and I also call Shivpatiya Nani. It is correct to say that Indrapati
and Shivpatiya, both are my father Jageshwar’s maternal aunt. It is wrong to say that I
and my brother Anil went to Indarpati’s house to tell that Jageshwar is beating
Jugpatiya, let us go and rescue her. It is wrong to say that we went to Shivpatiya’s
house along with Indarpati and told her that Jageshwar is beating Jugpatiya, let us go
and rescue her. It is wrong to say that Shivpatiya, Indarpati and both of us brothers
reached our house at night but the door was locked from inside so we could not go
inside the house. It is wrong to say that Jugpatiya’s help- help sound was coming
from inside our house and we heard it from outside. It is wrong to say that after a
while the sound stopped coming, then both of us went to paternal aunt Maheshwari’s
house and fell asleep at night.
10. I don’t know that in the morning Shivpatiya and Indarpati came near the borewell to
fetch water. We didn’t call Shivpatiya and Indarpati in morning. The witness says that
these people on their own reached our house in the morning.
11. It is wrong to say that while giving statement to the police, I had told that Jugpatiya
was beaten by Jageshwar with an iron crutch then we went to inform Inderpati and
Jugpatiya at night. Police statement exhibit P.05’s part from A to A “Aaji Jugputiya
bai has…………. Started hitting her too much with her crutch”. And part B to B “I

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
and my brother Anil…………. Anil was pushed and fell” and part C to C “ both of us
out of fear Indrapati…… after some time the shouting stopped” and part D to D “Aaji
Jugpatiya Bai was murdered by Jageshwar Ram by being hit with crutches which I
have seen and know” such statement I have not given. How Police have written I do
not know.
12. It is wrong to say that my father ought not be punished so want to save him. In my
father’s Arrest Information Exhibit P-6 from A to A part is my signature. It is correct
to say that Police had arrested taken and taken away my father hence he is in jail. It is
wrong to say that to save my father Jageshwar I am lying the courtroom.
//Cross examination by Smt. Kamini Sinha, Advocate for the Accused//
13. It is correct to say that dispute over land is going on in Sitapur between Jugpatiya and
Bhinsari. It is correct to say that Bhinsari is elder aunt of Jugpatiya. It is correct to say
that Jugpatiya was the only daughter therefore she was asking half the share from her
elder aunt.
14. It is wrong to say that during morning time on being so called by us Narendra had
come to our house. It is wrong to say that my father Jageshwar and Nani Jugpatiya
had told me and Anil to go to Maheshwari’ house to sleep. The witness says that we
had gone to Maheshwari’s place on being called by her to sleep there.
15. It is correct to say that matter filed by Jugpatiya is on going therefore Inderpati,
Shivpatiya and Narendra have no visits to our house. It is correct to say that Jugpatiya
had sustained injuries due to fall.
16. Read over and explained to the witness, Typed under
my direction
he admitted it to be true.
Sd/- Sd/-
(C.L. Patel) (C.L.
Patel)
Sessions Judge, Sarguja Sd/- Sessions
Judge, Sarguja

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
Saturday Witness’s apparent age …..32 yrs…… States on affirmation ……my name is
Narendra Chauhan….. Son of Machindar Ram ….. Occupation.….Village Kotwar
Lalitpur and farming….. Address ….. R/o Lalitpur, Police Station- Sitapur, District–
Sarguja, C.G.
1. I know the accused Jageshwar, present in court. He is the son of my father’s sister, that’s why
is he is my brother. About a year and a half ago today, Jugpatiya had died in the west side of
the backyard of accused Jageshwar’s house.That night I was staying at my house in Lalitpur.
That house is 5 km away from Sureshpur. I was informed over phone by my mother
Shivpatiya when the policemen had reached Sureshpur village for investigation, then I
reached Sureshpur around 8.00 in the morning. When I reached, at that time the police staff
of Sitapur police station and the people of the village were sitting there.
2. Police did the panchnama proceedings of Jugpatiya’s body in front of me. In the information
regarding the panchnama exhibit P-07 and deadbody’s panchnama exhibit P-08 I have
signed in part A to A. Jugpatiya had a head injury, which I saw during the deadbpdy’s
panchnama. At that time, blood was oozing out of Jugpatiya's nose and mouth and blood was
also lying in the ground too. The police confiscated the blood which was lying in the ground
and also the wooden crutch. Confiscation letter regarding the seizure of blood soil was signed
by myself from part A to A in exhibit P-09. Confiscation letter regarding the crutch was
signed by myself from part A to A in exhibit P-10.
3. Police also confiscated Jugpatiya’s blouse which had blood on it. Confiscated letter exhibit
P-11, part A to A has my signature. The police did not inquire about the incident from me for
the purpose of information. The police had recorded my statement and my photo was also
taken in the police station but my statement was taken in village Sureshpur.
4. Witness was asked how was the relation between Jageshwar and his mother Jugpatiya, to this
the witness said one year ago before the incident Jageshwar beat and broke Jugpatiya’s hand
then Jugpatiya was taken to government hospital, Ambikapur for the treatment and after
getting her treated, we kept her in our house in Sureshpur for two months. After she
recovered Jugpatiya’s daughter took her and kept her in Jageshwar’s house.

5. It is correct to say that Bhinsari is my grandmother and she is alive. I don’t know Jugptiya’s
mother and father. I don’t know whether Bhinsari and Jugpatiya’s

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
case related to partition is going on in District court, Sitapur. It is wrong to say that the
dispute regarding partition was going on between Jugpatiya and Bhinsari that’s why
Jugpatiya did not visit our house. Witness himself says whenever Jugpatiya needed some care
and nurturing, we used to bring her home.
6. It is correct to say that Jugpatiya has a daughter but if her name is Maheshwari that I don’t
know. There is a woman named Maheshwari in our village, she is the daughter of Kotwar
Milku Ram. I know Jugpatiya has one son and one daughter, this I know because that girl
lives in her in-laws’s house.
7. It is wrong to say that police did not confiscate the crutch in front of me. Witness says that
crutch was confiscated and carried by the police in front of me. It is wrong to say that we are
falsely implicating Jageshwar in this case.
8. Witness is asked whether it takes 15minutes time to travel from your house to accused
Jageshwar’s house, to this the witness says that the distance between our house and
Jageshwar’s house is same as going from this court room to main road of Collector’s office
(about 100 feet) away. It will take 7 to 8 minutes to reach there by walking. Witness says that
I have passed class 8th exam.
9. It is wrong to say that I am giving false statement because if Jageshwar goes to jail, then we
will get the entire land to ourselves. The witness says that the accused is of my caste but his
mother is not my real aunt. I don't know that Jugpatiya is the daughter of my grandfather's
younger brother. I don't know that’s why Jugpatiya was asking for a share.
Read over and explained to the witness, Typed under my direction he

admitted it to be true.
Sd/- Sd/-
Sessions Judge, Sarguja Sessions Judge, Sarguja
Sd/-

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
Tuesday Witness’s apparent age …..18 yrs…… States on affirmation ……my name is Anil
Kumar….. Son of Jageshwar Ram ….. Occupation.….Labour ….. Address ….. R/o
Sureshpur, Police Station- Sitapur, District– Sarguja, C.G.
1. The accused Jageshwar Ram present in the court is my father. We live in Village Sureshpur.
My father, we two brothers and my Aaji Jugpatiya lives in our house. It has been almost 10
year since my mother died. Jugpatiya wasn’t living in our house since 1 year. I don’t know
where she went. I don’t know whether she is dead. I and my brother Ratan went to our
uncle’s house at night to sleep. I with my brother went to our house in the morning.
2. Our house’s door was covered in the morning when we reached there, and there was no lock
in the door. When we went inside the house I didn’t see my father Jageshwar Ram in the
house. My Aaji Jugpatiya was also not there in the house. Witness was asked what you did
after that but after asking repeatedly also he kept saying he didn’t know anything. Witness
was asked whether police came for the investigation, to this the witness says that I didn’t
know anything. I was not at home. In the morning I went back to my uncle’s house. I didn’t
tell anything at my uncle’s house.
3. My photo is pasted in police statement exhibit P-12. I said to police that I don’t know
anything.
NOTE: - By stating the witness to be hostile Shri Subhash Aggarwal Public Prosecutor sought
permission to ask leading questions, wherein after perusal of the records permission to ask
leading questions was granted.
4. I don’t know that my Aaji Jugpatiya has died. It is correct to say that my Aaji had a broken
leg due to which she walked using crutches. It is correct to say my Aaji received pension of
rupees 3000/- every month from bank in Batauli. It is correct to say that night when I went to
sleep in Maheshwari’s house with my brother, that day during the day time my father
Jageshwar and my Aaji Jugpatiya went to Batauli bank to collect pension money, and that
day only they came back home after collecting the money. In the evening everybody
including my father Jageshwar and my Aaji had dinner. After having our dinner, I and my
brother slept near Aaji’s cot.
5. It is wrong to say that at night during bedtime my father Jageshwar had an argument with my
Aaji Jugpatiya and started beating her with the crutches. It is correct to say that we told my
father to desist from beating then he got to beat us also. It is correct to say that after this me
and my brother Ratan Kumar went to our aunt Maheshwari’s place at night. Witness was
asked whether your father locked the door from inside, to this the witness says yes.
6. I know Indarpati. She is our father Jageshwar Ram’s aunt. I call her Aaji. It is correct to say
that before going to Maheshwari’s house, me and my brother went to Indarpati’s house. It is
CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
wrong to say that I talked about Jageshwar beating Jugpatiya and asked Indarpati to help us,
stop the fight. It is wrong to say that me and my brother along with indarpati and Jugpatiya
went to our house to see.
7. It is correct to say that when we went to our house with Indarpati it was locked from inside. It
is correct to say that my father Jageshwar didn’t open the door despite being asked to open it.
It is correct to say that in the event of not opening the door at night I and my brother went to
Maheshwari’s house. It is correct to say that at night Indarpati and Shivpati went to their
house and slept.
8. It is wrong to say that in the morning when I returned to our house from Maheshwari’s house,
I saw Jugpatiya lying dead on the ground. It is wrong to say that due to beating there were
injuries in Jugpatiya’s face and body and blood was also coming out and also blood was lying
on the ground. Witness says I didn’t saw. It is correct to say my father was not at home, he
ran away from home.
9. I don’t know that after Jugpatiya died Indarpati, Shivpati, Narendra Chauhan and watchmen
came to see her dead body in our house in the morning. The witness says that I went to my
aunt’s house.
10. Police statement exhibit P-12part A to A “Indarpati went to shivpatiya bai and told them
Jageshwar beating his mother” and part B to B “Today morning on 05/11/08 at 6 am when
we reached home, we saw aaji Jugpatiya had died” I didn’t give such statement to police. I
don’t know how police wrote this.
11. It is wrong to say that we want to save accused Jageshwar, so that he is not punished. It is
wrong to say that because of this I am not saying truth in the court. It is wrong to say that I
am lying.
12. It is correct to say that Police didn’t read to me what they wrote in my statement. It is
correct to say that police didn’t inquire anything from me. It is correct to say my Aaji always
drank alcohol. It is correct to say that my Aaji slept after drinking alcohol at night. It is wrong
to say that aunt Maheshwari came to call us and then we went to her house. Witness says that
I and my brother went by ourselves to aunt Maheshwari’s house to sleep.
13. It is correct to say that at night there was no fight between my father and my aaji Jugpatiya. It
is correct to say that my father asked us not to go to aunt Maheshwari’s house to sleep but we
said we are going to sleep at aunt Maheswari’s house and left. It is correct to say that we
didn’t go to Indarpati and Shivpati’s house, we went to aunt Maheshwari’s house.
14. It is wrong to say that we went inside the house after we came back from aunt Maheshwari’s
house to our house. We didn’t went inside the house. Witness says that we don’t feel like
getting inside the house so we went back to Maheshwari’s house.

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
15. I don’t that Bhinsari was the mother-in-law of Indarpati and Shivpati. If there is a case going
on between her and Jugpatiya , then I don’t have any information regarding it. It is correct to
say that my Aaji Jugpatiya walks very less using crutches.
16. It is correct to say that there are two doors in our house. One opens to the front side and one
opens front. It is correct to say that the back door remains covered and we used to go through
the front door. It is correct to say that when needed we came enter inside the house using the
back door.

Sd/- Sd/-
Sd/-

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
Tuesday Witness’s apparent age …..48 yrs…… States on affirmation ……my name is
Shambhu Prasad….. Son of Motilal Gupta ….. Occupation.….Farmer….. Address …..
R/o Sureshpur, Police Station-Sitapur, District– Sarguja, C.G.
1. I know the accused Jageshwar Ram, present in court. He is the resident of our village
Sureshpur. I also know accused’s mother Jugpatiya Bai. Jugpatiya Bai died about 1 year ago
today. Jugpatiya Bai died in the house of the accused. My house is two and a half kilometres
away from the house of the accused. I had heard in the village that Jugpatiya died due to a
drunken fall.
2. On the second day of the incident, when the police came to the accused's house, I also went
to the accused's house. The Police had made a panchnama of the corpse of Jugpatiya in front
of me. For corpse panchnama notice exhibit P-07 and corpse panchnama exhibit P-08 has
my signature from part B to B. I did not see where in what all places Jugpatiya got hurt.
3. Nothing.
Read over and explained to the witness, Typed under my direction she
Sd/- Sd/-
Sd/-

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
Friday Witness’s apparent age …..53 yrs…… States on affirmation ……my name is
R.M.Yadav….. Son of Late.Shri. B.P.Yadav ….. Occupation.….Assistant Sub-
Inspector….. Address ….. Police Station-Darima, District– Sarguja, C.G.
1. I was working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in Sitapur police station from 2005 to July 2009.
Currently I am working in Darima police station as Assistant Sub-Inspector.
2. On date 5/11/2008 at 9:15 a.m. in the morning, the Complainant Inderpati husband
Budhsagar Chikwa village Sureshpur came to the police station Sitapur and filed a report that
Jageshwar Ram Chikwa has killed his mother Jagputiya Bai by hitting her with an iron
crutch. On the above information, I have registered the crime number 203/08 of offence
under section 302 of IPC in the police station Sitapur. Its first information report is exhibit P-
1 in which from part A to A is signed by me and the Complainant has affixed thumb
impression.
3. On the same date 5/11/08 at 9:20 a.m. in the morning, on the information given by the
Complainant in relation to the death of the above-mentioned Jagputiya Bai, I entered the
Marg number 110/08 of section 174 CRPC, which is exhibit P-13, part A to A of which I
signed. The Complainant has affixed her thumb impression..
4. On receipt of the above information, I left for investigation at village Sureshpur on a

motorcycle along with the police staff. I reached there at 10:05 a.m. in the day and issued
summons to the witnesses under section 175 CRPC to be present at the place of incident
which is exhibit P-07, I inspected Jagputiya's body inside Jagputiya's house at the spot in the
presence of the witnesses and prepared the Panchnama which is exhibit P-08. part C to C of
the above two documents bear my signature in which the witnesses have also signed.
5. After inspecting the place of incidence, I had prepared a site map of the spot, which is exhibit
P-14, the witness Indrapati has put her thumb impression in the said map, my signature is on
part A to A. Point-A in the above map is the place where Jugpatiya's dead body was found in
the backyard. Point-B is the place from where the incident has been witnessed by Ratan and
Anil. Point C is the place where accused had slept before the incident. Which I have shown in
the Nazari map exhibit P-14.
6. From the place of incident, I had confiscated a sample of blood-soaked soil and plain soil in
front of the witnesses, prepared seizure letter of it which is exhibit P-09, in which A to A part
has been signed by witness Narendra, C to C part by witness Roshan Ram. I signed from B
to B part.
7. On the same day on 05.11.08 at 12:30 pm I had written and sent to the doctor at the
Community Health Center, Sitapur an application for post mortem of the deceased Jugpatiya,
which is exhbit P-2A. In the said application from part A to A and part B to B has my
signature. I entrusted the duty of getting the post-mortem conducted to Constable No. 61

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
Sunil Tirkey, who, after getting the post-mortem conducted produced the sealed packet of the
clothes of the deceased given by the doctor in the police station Sitapur, I had seized that
packet in the presence of witness Narendra Chauhan, its seizure letter is exhibit P-11, in
which the witness Narendra Chauhan had signed from part A to A and I have signed from
part B to B.
8. During the investigation in this case, the statement of witnesses Indarpati, Shivpatiya, Anil
Kumar, Ratan Ram, Narendra Chauhan were written down under section 161 CrPC. Witness
Anil Kumar told in police statement exhibit P-12 from part A to A that "go and tell Indarpati
Shivpatiya Bai that Jageshwar Ram is beating his mother". And part B to B "Today on
5/11/2008, at 6:00 am in the morning on coming home saw that Aaji Jugpatiya had died".
Statements of the same were given before me which I have written down on being told.
9. Witness Ratan Ram had told in police statement exhibit P-05 from part A to A that
"Aaji Jugpatiya Bai said that…………………. started beating a lot using her crutches". And
from Part B to B that " Me and brother Anil were sleeping………………….. Pushed Anil
down". Part C to C that "We both from fear Indrapati, Shivpati………………. Then after a
while the screaming stopped". Part D to D that “Aaji Jugpatiya Bai has been murdered by
Jageshwar Ram by being hit with crutches, which I have seen and known". which I have
written only after he told me.
10. On 6/11/2008 on being produced by the accused Jageshwar Ram before the witnesses I seized
as evidence a piece of iron crutch, about 4 feet in length, below which there was a blood like
stain in the sharp part, the iron of the upper part of crutch is bent whose confiscation letter
exhibit P-10 was prepared in which from Part A to A has been signed by witness Narendra
Chauhan, part B to B by witness Roshan Ram, part C to C by accused Jageshwar Ram and
part D to D, I have signed.
11. On the basis of investigation on finding the accused to have committed the offense, I arrested
the accused before the witnesses on 06.11.2008 at 17:30 hours, his arrest memorandum is
exhibit P-6A, in which I have signed from Part A to A. In which the accused and the
witnesses have also signed.
12. I had sent a copy of the first information report registered on the basis of report by the
Complainant to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur, in respect of which the
acknowledgment letter given by the Court is exhibit P-1A. Received acknowledgment from
court.
13. I had also sent a memo for preparation of Nazari map of the place of incident by the Patwari,
on the basis of which the site map was prepared and given by the Patwari which is attached in
the case as exhibit P-03.
14. The punitive properties of this case were sent for chemical investigation to FSL Raipur on the
date 26/12/2008 according to the memorandum exhibit P-15 of the Superintendent of Police,
the second copy of the said memorandum is in two pages. FSL report is also presented in this
case which is exhibit-P-16 which is in 3 pages.

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
15. On completion of the investigation of this case, a charge sheet was prepared against the
accused and presented by the station in-charge in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Sitapur.
16. It is wrong to say that I have written the first information report exhibit P-1 and marg
intimation exhibit P-13 by exaggeration and on my own. It is wrong to say that in the first
information report, I have exaggerated and written from my side about the injuries on
Jugpatiya's body.
17. It is wrong to say that I had come to know during the investigation that there is a lot of
quarrel between the family members of Indarpati, Narendra Chauhan and Shivpatiya with the
family of accused Jageshwar. It is wrong to say that I have deliberately made the above
witnesses, having enmity with the accused, as witnesses in the present case.
18. It is correct to say that in the site map exhibit P-14, I have shown the place of incident as a
house, in which the exit doors of the house at the back and in the front has not been shown.
The witness now says that there is a door on the south side of the house, it has not been
shown, only the door on the north side is shown. It is wrong to say that the door on the north
side is always open and only remains covered so that anyone can enter the house. It is true to
say that I did not ask the witnesses whether the door on the north side is always covered or
not. It is wrong to say that any person can enter the house through the south side door and
commit a crime.
19. Witness was asked that Jugpatiya could hardly walk. On this witness says that she used to
walk with crutches, this people have told. So my guess is that she must have been
incapacitated. The witness was asked that Jugpatiya used to sleep in the house shown in the
point-A place in the map, who has told you this. Then the witness says that the said thing was
told by the Complainant and the witnesses present there.
20. In site map which is exhibit P-14, the accused always slept in place shown as point-C, he had
slept there even on the date of incident, this was told by the Complaint Indarpati. The witness
was asked whether on the date of incident Jugpatiya was sleeping near point-A in verandah
and the accused had slept at point-C inside the room and point-C's room can be locked from
inside, then the witness says that the accused could lock point-C's room from inside, then he
can open it and come out also. It is correct to say that Jugpatiya had slept at Point-A has been
told by the witnesses.
21. The witness was asked that in the verandah any person inside the house can move around,
then the witness says that any person living inside the house can move around in the
verandah, but a person outside cannot move around however if he enters the house from
outside, then that person can go to the verandah.

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
22. It is wrong to say that Jugpatiya Bai was assaulted by Narendra Chauhan by entering her
house from outside. It is incorrect to say that there has been no incident of Jugpatiya being
assaulted by the accused, which was seen by witnesses Anil and Ratan.
23. It is true to say that there is no house near the house of the deceased. Houses are at a distance
from there. Witness was asked how far is the house of the deceased from Indarpati's house,
then the witness says that the estimate distance is about 100 meters away.
24. It is wrong to say that I have not made the site map exhibit P-14 after seeing the spot and as
told by the Complainant.
25. After the post-mortem, the clothes of the deceased were sent by the doctor, which was
labelled, which showed that it contained the clothes of the deceased. The witness is asked
why it took about two and a half months to send the punitive property to FSL, then the
witness says that there was delay in sending the property to FSL due to the investigation of
other cases in the police station.
26. It is wrong to say that where Jugpatiya's body was lying, crutches were also lying there. It is
wrong to say that the crutches I seized were not of iron but of wood. It is wrong to say that I
put blood on crutches to prepare false evidence and that is why I sent it late to FSL Raipur.
27. It is wrong to say that I have not confiscated crutches from the accused in front of the
witnesses. It is wrong to say that I did not write as told by the Complainant Indrapati,
Shivpatiya, Anil Kumar, Ratan Kumar, Narendra Chauhan. It is wrong to say that I wrote this
statement by exaggeration and on my own. It is wrong to say that I deliberately did not take
the statement of the people living near the spot in this case.
28. The witness was asked that why did you not take the statement of Anil and Ratan's aunt
Maheshwari on the date of incident, while two witnesses were sleeping at Maheshwari's
house, yet you did not deliberately record her statement, then the witness says that I did not
consider it appropriate to take her statement. It is wrong to say that Jugpatiya used to drink a
lot, so she herself fell while she was intoxicated and died.
29. It is wrong to say that I am giving a false statement to implicate the accused in the court.
Read over and explained to the witness, Typed under my direction she
Sd/- Sd/-
Sd/-

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
Witness No…..01…. for defence Witness….. Deposition taken on the ..… 21/09/10, day of
Tuesday Witness’s apparent age …..75 yrs…… States on affirmation ……my name is Moti
Lal….. Son of Nanku Sav ….. Occupation.….Farmer….. Address …..R/o Raikera, Police
Station-Sitapur, District– Sarguja, C.G.
1. I can recognize the accused Jageshwar present in the court. He is a resident of village
Sureshpur, the distance from my village to Sureshpur will be about 9 to 10 kilometers. My
store is in village Raikera and I live there. Earlier we also had a house in Sureshpur where I
lived. Now my boys live in Sureshpur and I live in the store house of Raikera.
2. I lived in Sureshpur, at that time I had seen the accused's mother Jugpatiya, and knew her. I
haven't seen Jugpatiya for almost 3 years. I don't know where Jugpatiya lives now. Witness
now says I had heard that Jugpatiya has died.
3. The case was initiated by Jugpatiya in Sitapur District Court regarding partition of land
received from her maternal home. I also went to give testimonial. I don't know what
happened in that case.
4. Narendra Chauhan is the maternal uncle of this accused Jageshwar, I do not know who is
Shivpatiya. I know Budhsagar, I do not know the name of his wife, but I can recognize her. I
do not know much about the case of Jugpatiya which was going on with the family of
Budhasagar. I know this much that the people of Jugpatiya's maternal side are Budhasagar
etc. I do not know who killed Jugpatiya.
5. I had gone to Sitapur to testify, that thing is from three-four years ago, I can't remember
properly now. Jugpatiya's father's name was Maansai. Jugpatiya had presented a case against
Budhasagar and others. Budhasagar is probably the nephew of Jugpatiya. I don't know that
much; I have come to tell the court that I don't know anything.

Sd/- Sd/-

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
Sd/-
FORM No. 01
FIRST INFORMATION REPORT ( Under Sec. 154 Cr.P.C )
1. *District– Sarguja *Police Station– Sitapur* Year- 2008
*F.I.R. No. 203/08 *Date- 05.11.08.
2. (i) *Act I.P.C. *Sections 302 I.P.C.
(ii) *Act ….........X............. *Sections ….........X.............
(iii) *Act ………X……… *Sections ……….X…….....
(iv) * Other Acts & Sections ………X…......
3. (a) Concerned Roznamcha Sanha No.....................................
(b) *Day of incident- Tuesday *Date–04.11.08 *Time–

11:00 pm
(c) Date on which the Information received at Police Station
05.11.2008 Time 09:15 am hrs. Gen. Diary Reference Entry No(s).
4. Type of information : *Written / Oral - Oral
5. Place of Incident : village Sureshpur (vaniyapara) police station : Sitapur
(a) Direction and Distance from Police Station - 10 KM east
(b) * Address of place of Incident : - Village Sureshpur (vaniyapara), police station Sitapur.
Beat No...X..
(c) In case outside limit of this Police Station, then the name of P.S.
…....X….. District ...X......
6. Complainant / information : -
(a) Name – Inderpati

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
(b) Father’s / Husband’s Name:- Budhsagar Chikwa
(c) Date / Year of Birth- 42 years
(d) Nationality- Indian
(e) Passport No. ...X.... Date of Issue: ...X... Place of Issue ...X...
(f) Occupation: - Housewife
(g) Address: - Village Sureshpur, Police station -Sitapur.
7. Details of known / suspected / unknown / Accused with full particulars
(Attach separate sheet if necessary):
Jageshwar Ram S/o Mangal Chikwa, age-48 years R/o Sureshpur Police station Sitapur,
District- Sarguja (C.G.)
8. Reasons for delay in reporting by the complainant / Informant:
…non- availability of means at night….
9. Particulars of properties stolen / involved (Attach separate sheet if necessary):
….....X.........
10. * Total value of the properties stole / involved: …..X…..
11. * Inquest Report /U.D. Case No., (if any) : ….......110/08 section 174 CrPC
12. F.I.R. Contents (Attach separate sheets, if required):
Description–
I live in village Sureshpur, and I do household chores. My house and my sister-in-law Jugpatiya
Bai's house are located nearby. Jugpatiya Bai used to get her husband's pension of Rs. 3000, which
yesterday day Tuesday date 4/11/2008, Jugpatiya, along with her son Jageshwar Chikwa, had come
home from Batauli bank with the pension amount of Rupees 3000. At around 11:00 pm, Ratan Ram
and Anil Kumar came to my house and woke me up. They told me and my sister-in-law Shivpatiya

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
that Jageshwar Ram was fighting and beating his mother Jugpatiya Bai. Then I went to Jugpatiya
Bai's house with sister-in-law Shivpatiya. Inside the house, Jageshwar was beating his mother
Jugpatiya. My sister-in-law Jugpatiya's voice was heard from outside, she was shouting save-save.
Then we pushed the door but it was closed. We tried to open the door by raising our voice but the
door did not open. After sometime Jugpatiya’s sound stopped coming. We were accompanied by
Ratan, Anil Chikwa, who told that while defending Jugpatiya, they was also abused by Jageshwar
Ram and pushed and thrown away from the house. On not opening the door, Shivpatiya and I went
to our respective homes. Ratan Ram and Anil, both brothers went to sleep at their aunt Maheshwari's
house out of fear. Then today, on 5/11/2008, when we came to Vaniyapara to get water in the
morning, Ratan and Anil had come home. When we asked him, he told that Jageshwar has killed
Jugpatiya Bai by beating her with crutches, then I and Shivpatiya saw, Jugpatiya Bai had died. There
was injury in her face, nose, both cheeks, back, right leg. Blood was coming out. Then I called the
father-in-law’s son Narendra Chauhan and told him. Due to it being night reporting it today and
investigation be done. I have read and heard my report it has been written as I have told.
13. Action taken: …….registered the case and took up/not took up under investigation and
handed over the case for investigation or transferred for investigation to P.S. …....... District-a.. on
point of jurisdiction. F.I.R or proceeding has been done U/s 154 “B” of Cr.P.C.
Read over the F. I. R. to the complainant / Informant, admitted being recorded correctly and copy
given to the Complainant / Informant free of cost.
“A” Sd/- (illegible) “A”
Signature of the Officer-in-charge,

* Name : R.M.Yadav
*Rank– Asst. Sub Inspector
Signature /Thumb-impression * No.(If any)
of the complainant / informant
To,
The Hon'ble Court of J.M.F.C. Sitapur for kind information.

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
Court- Sessions Judge, Sarguja (Ambikapur) (C.G)

(Presiding Officer –Shri C.L.-Patel )
Sessions Trial No. 23/09
Institution Date – 13/1/2009
State of Chhattisgarh
Through Police Station- Sitapur ,
District - Sarguja ……………... Prosecution
Versus
1 Jageshwar Ram S/o Mangal Sai Chikwa ,

. Age 48 years , R/o Sureshpur , P.S Sitapur
District Sarguja ( C.G)
This Session Case arises out of Order of transfer dated 06/01/09 in Criminal Case No. 431/08
by the Court of JMFC Sitapur (Shree Vivek Kumar Tiwari).
Judgment
(Pronounced today on 29 September 2010)
01. The allegation of an offence punishable under section 302 IPC has been made against the
Accused Jageshwar Ram Chikwa, in this regard that on 4/11/2008, at around 11:00 pm in his
village Sureshpur, committed murder by hitting his mother Jugpatiya Bai with crutches with
the intention or knowledge of causing fatal injury leading to death.

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
02. The Accused, on his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has admitted that Indarpati (PW-
01), Shivpatiya (PW-04). Ratan Ram (PW-05), Narendra Chauhan (PW-06). Anil Kumar
(PW-07) and Shambhu Prasad (PW-08) are residents of Sureshpur village of the Accused.
They recognize the Accused. Among the above witnesses Ratan Ram (PW-05) and Anil
Kumar (PW-07) are sons of Accused Jageshwar. Indarpati's husband Budhasagar's sister was
Jugpatiya Bai who was the mother of the Accused. The said Jugpatiya is dead. There is
Jugpatiya's house in village Sureshpur, where the Accused lived, which is about 150 feet
away from the house of Indarpati (PW-01). Jugpatiya's husband Mangal was in a government
job in Andaman Island. After his death Jugpatiya was receiving Rupees 3000/- as monthly
pension. Before death due to broken leg she used to walk with the help of crutches. Ratan
Ram and Anil Kumar were living along with Jugpatiya and Accused. On the date of incident
in the morning Jugpatiya Bai along with Accused Jageshwar Ram had taken pension money
from Batauli Bank and returned home in the evening. After the passing of the night on the
next day at around 7 a.m. Anil and Ratan Ram, both sons of Accused when returned from
their paternal Aunt’s Maheshwari’s house then they saw Jugpatiya Bai being dead and her
dead body lying in the backyard. Accused Jageshwar was arrested by the police on 6/11/2008,
all other facts about the incident are disputed.
03. The case of prosecution is such that in village Sureshpur Accused Jageshwar Ram Chikwa
used to live with his mother and children. On the date of incident 04/11/2008, the Accused
returned along with her mother from Batauli Bank after withdrawing 3000/- of the pension.
At around 11 pm when both sons of Accused went to the neighbour who is also the
complainant, Indarpati’s house and woke her up and said to Indarpati and her sister-in-law
Shivpatiya that Jageshwar Ram is beating and fighting with his mother Jugpatiya Bai, then
Indarpati and Shivpatiya went to the house of Accused along with them. But Jageshwar
closed the door from inside. And Jugpatiya was shouting Save me – Save Me. her voice was
heard by the complainants. Since the door was closed from inside the incident could not be
seen even after pushing the door. When the Accused did not open the door and the sound of
Jugpatiya also stopped, the sons of Accused Anil and Ratan also said that when they were
trying to save Jugpatiya at that time Accused abused and pushed them away from the house.
When the door was not opened by the Accused, Indarpati and her sister-in-law went back to
their house, then Ratan Ram and Anil also out of fear went to their paternal aunt
Maheshwari’s house to sleep. On 05/11/2008 when complainant Indarpati went to the
Baniyapara to fetch water, Ratan and Anil had returned to house and said that their father

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
Jageshwar has murdered Jugpatiya bai in the night by hitting her with Crutch. Upon receiving
this information, the complainant Shivpatiya and Indarpati also went and saw that Jugpatiya
had died in her house. The crime number 203/08 section 302 IPC was registered after the
report of the said incident was done by Indarpati Chikwa on 4/11/2008 in Sitapur police
station. And on the report of Indarpati, the death information number-110/08 was also
registered in connection with the death of Jugpatiya Bai.
04. The investigation officer R.M Yadav in relation to the offence during the investigation has
prepared the Dead body panchnama of the dead body of the deceased Jugpatiya. An
application was given to the doctor of the Community Center Sitapur for autopsy. The map of
the place of incident was also prepared by the investigator. Blood-soaked soil and plain soil
were confiscated from the spot. On 6/11/08 one piece of iron crutch was seized from the
Accused. After the post-mortem, the clothes of the deceased were sent by the doctor in a
sealed packet, their seizure was done in front of the witnesses. The confiscated clothes,
crutches and soil were sent for chemical testing to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory,
Raipur, from where the FSL report was received. The map of the place of incidence was also
prepared by the Patwari. The Accused was arrested and this information was given to his son
Ratan Ram. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was presented against the
Accused in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur on 26/12/08. Later, after
the commencement of regular court of the said court in Sitapur, the said criminal case was
transferred to this court on 5/1/09 from the Court of Sitapur and session case number 23/09
registered against the Accused and the same is under trial.
05. Accused has pleaded not guilty for offence under section-302 IPC and has stated that he
didn’t kill his mother Jugpatiya Bai. Then the prosecution witnesses were examined. On the
basis of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under the provisions of section
313 of CrPC. The Accused pleaded to be innocent. The family of Accused's mother Jugpatiya
is having land-related dispute with the prosecution witnesses Indarpati and Shivpatiya,
therefore Accused states that he would present defence witness namely Motilal R/o Village
Raikera (PW-01) Since the aforementioned witnesses are trying to falsely implicate the
Accused.
06. Main issue under consideration is: -
Whether the Accused on 4/11/2008, in his village Sureshpur at night, murdered his
mother Jugpatiya Bai by intentionally inflicting fatal injury?

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
07. From the side of prosecution Smt. Indarpati (PW-01) in her statement has stated that in the
house of Accused when the dead body of his mother Jugpatiya was found, the watch man of
the village Shyamlal and her husband Budhsagar and many villagers of the village reached
and on seeing the dead body Police station Sitapur was informed through phone. After that
police reached at the place of incident and prepared panchnama procedure of the dead body
of Jugpatiya and the dead body was sent to Sitapur for postmortem. RM Yadav (PW-09),
Assistant Sub-Inspector, who is the investigation officer in the present case , in his statement
has clearly stated that on 05/11/2008 at 9.15 AM in the morning, complainant Indarpati w/o
Budhsagar Chikwa Village Sureshpur had reported at Police station Sitapur that Jageshwar
ram had murdered his mother after beating her with iron crutch. Upon the information at
Police Station Sitapur crime no. 203/08 under sec 302 IPC was registered and First
Information Report is Exhibit P-08. This witness upon the report of the complainant on the
same date in relation to the death of Jugpatiya bai registered Marg no. 110/08 u/s 174 CrPC
which is Exhibit P-13. In the aforementioned two information letters the complainant has
made her thumb impression and this witness has signed from part A to A. There is no reason
to disbelieve the registration of the aforementioned information.
08. R.M Yadav (PW-09) has said in his statement that he went on a motorcycle accompanied by
police staff at village Sureshpur for the purpose of investigation and issued notice under
section-175 of CrPC to the witnesses for being present in the place of incident. This witness
examined the dead body of the deceased Jugpatiya Bai in the presence of other witnesses and
thereafter in the presence of other witness prepared the dead body panchnama of the deceased
Exhibit P-08. In the aforementioned two documents the witness RM.Yadav has signed from
part C to C. In relation to the preparation of the dead body panchnama of the deceased, the
witness appearing for the prosecution Narendra Chauhan (PW-06), Kotwar of village lalitpur
has also supported the same, who has said to be present in the place of incident when the
dead body was being examined and in presence of this witness the examination of the dead
body is said to be done and Exibit P -08 dead body panchnama was prepared. Same has been
supported by Shambhu Prasad (PW-08) R/o Village Sureshpur and the statement given by
them has not been challenged in the cross examination. Narendra Chauhan (PW 06) has
stated that the injury on the head of Jugpatiya , was seen by him at the time of preparing the
dead body panchnama. Jugpatiya was bleeding from her nose and mouth and there was blood
on the floor as well. Aforementioned blood-stained soil was also confiscated in the presence
of this witness as per Exhibit-P-09. As such R.M Yadav has clearly stated about seizure of
blood-stained soil as well as normal soil from the place of incident. there is no reason to

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
doubt the seizure of aforementioned soil. R.M Yadav (PW-09) in his statement has stated that
in order to obtain the postmortem report of deceased Jugpatiya Bai, he has sent the
application Exhibit P-2A to the doctor at Community Health Center, Sitapur on 05/11/2008
at 12.30 PM. This witness had entrusted the duty to get the post mortem of the deceased done
to Constable no. 61 Simon Tirkey. This statement of the witness has been supported by Dr
S.N Paikra ( PW-02) in which he has stated that on 05/11/08 at 2.30 PM the dead body of the
deceased Jugpatiya Bai was produced by Simon Tirkey at Community Health Centre , Sitapur
for examination of the dead Body and it has further stated that the aforementioned dead body
was identified by Ratan, Narendra and Rajkumar.
09. Dr S.N Paikra (PW-02) has stated that the post mortem of the dead body of Jugpatiya began
on 05/11/08 at 2.35 P.M, at that time the dead body of the deceased was cold, she was a
female of average height and weight. Her eyes and mouth were half opened, her nail base was
pale. This witness upon doing the internal examination found that in the parietal bone of the
head there was a fracture and hematoma was found below the aforementioned fracture. as per
this witness the deceased was having blood in the right chamber of the heart and left chamber
was empty. upon examination of stomach there was some undigested food, this witness
found the small and large intestine to be healthy.
10. Dr SN Paikra (PW -02) upon the examination of the dead body has given this opinion that the
Cause of death of Jugpatiya is the injury on her head. Because of aforementioned injury
Jugpatiya died of shock. Jugpatiya died almost 16-20 hrs ago from the time of examination of
the Dead body. Death of Jugpatiya was not natural but was homicidal, in relation to which
this witness has given postmortem report Exhibit P-2 and in which he has signed from part A
to A. As per this witness the other organs of the deceased, Skull, Spine, Silli, brain and spinal
cord was found to be healthy. Witness has clearly stated about the fracture of the parietal
bone of the deceased in his report Exhibit P-02. This witness has stated that the fracture
found in the head of the deceased cannot be caused by falling on her own under the influence
of alcohol and has also denied that sudden hit on the door frame on a lower height can cause
the fracture injury as suffered by deceased. This witness has also denied that he has wrongly
stated about fracture in the skull. There is no reason to disbelief the statement given by
aforementioned witness Dr S.N Paikra (PW-02).
11. In this way the aforementioned witnesses produced by the prosecution, it is clear that the
death of Jugpatiya bai was not natural but She has died due to shock because of fatal injuries
suffered by her on her head which is homicidal in nature.

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
12. R.M.Yadav (PW-09) during the investigation in this matter has prepared the map of the
place of incident Exhibit P-14 , in which witnesses have affixed their signature and put their
thumb impression. In aforementioned map Exhibit P-14 point A is place of incident where
the dead body of Jugpatiya was found in the backyard and point B is the spot from where
sons of Accused Anil and Ratan had seen the incident, point-C is the place where Accused
was sleeping before the time of incident , which this witness has marked in the
aforementioned map of the place of incident, Exhibit P-14. This witness statement finds its
support from the para 6 of the statement given by the complainant Indarpati (PW-01). She has
also stated that police prepared the map and thereafter Patwari has also reached the place of
incident and prepared the site map. Surendra Kumar Kujur (PW-03) is Patwari of Patwari
Halka No. 37, under which village Sureshpur also comes. As per this witness on 02/12/2008
he after reaching the village Sureshpur had prepared the Nazari map of the place of incident
Exhibit P-3. In the aforementioned Nazrari map serial no. 1 has been marked as unmetalled
road of the village, serial no. 2 has been marked as place of incident where the witnesses have
stated in relation to the murder of the deceased. At the time of preparation of the
aforementioned site map in the presence of Panchnama as per Exhibit P-4 was prepared. As
per this witness, the street in the south direction of house of Jugpatiya and Accused has been
marked as Number. 1, the place of incident marked as Number 2 can be reached from the
door present in the boundary at that side. This witness has stated that aforementioned door in
the south direction was a wooden door, but in the north direction the door of the boundary
wall was a bamboo shaft door or something else this witness is unable to tell. Investigation
officer R.M Yadav (PW-09) has admitted that the door present in the street in south direction
has not been marked in Exhibit P-14. but it is clear from the statement of this witness that
dead body of the deceased Jugpatiya was found in the room of the house belonging to
Accused and there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.
13. Smt Indarpati (PW 01) in her statement has said that Accused Jageshwar is nephew of this
witness since he is son of her husband Budhsagar’s sister Jugpatiya. According to this
witness, Jugpatiya's house is about 150 feet away from this witness's house. At the time of
incident this witness was sleeping in her house with her family after having dinner , at that
time in the night both the sons of Accused Ratan Ram (PW-05), and Anil Kumar (PW-07)
reached the house of this witness and shouted “oh grandmother open the door” in the
beginning this witness did not open the door but Anil shouted from outside the house and said
that his Aaji (Jugpatiya) is being beaten up by Jageshwar, therefore come and get her

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
released. Anil also stated that he and his brother Ratan Ram have tried to stop the fight
between the Accused and Jugpatiya bai but Jageshwar was not listening and pressed his leg
upon the neck of Jugpatiya. When this was told by Anil, this witness went to the house of
Accused at the night along with her sister-in-law, Shivpatiya and her husband Budhsagar,
Sons of Accused Anil Kumar and Ratan Ram also went there. When they all reached near to
the house of Accused then they found the door covered that means the door was closed from
inside. At that time Accused Jageshwar was inside the house but he didn’t open the door. This
witness also told that she didn’t hear the voices of Jugpatiya. When door was not opened by
Jageshwar then his both the sons Anil and Ratan went to the house of their aunt Maheshwari
to sleep then this witness and her sister-in-law Shivpatiya and her husband also went back to
their house and slept in their house.
14. Smt Indarpati (PW-01) after passing of the aforementioned night in the morning went to the
house of Jageshwar along with her sister-in-law to see Jugpatiya, at that time the dead body
of Jugpatiya was lying in her room. Accused Jageshwar was also present in the house. When
this witness asked Jugeshwar as to how Jugpatiya died then he said that she has died because
of thirst, there was no one in the house to give her water. As per this witness Jugpatiya was
having injuries on face, body which was due to beating. She was bleeding from nose and
mouth. Her thigh bone was fractured. after seeing Jugpatiya bai this witness and her sister in
law shouted and called the villagers. the watch man of area, Shayam lal, husband of this
witness Budhsagar and many other villagers reached the spot. Someone had given the
information about the incident at Police station Sitapur because of which the police officers
came for investigation. This witness is not literate but this witness has reported the incident to
the police station Sitapur. This point is clear from the statement given by R.M Yadav (PW-09)
Assistant Sub-Inspector in para 2 of his statement, according to which it was Indarpati only
on whose report crime no. 202/08 under section 302 IPC offence was registered which is
Exhibit P-01.
15. Smt Indarpati PW01 has stated that Accused has beaten up his mother Jugpatiya at night and
same was informed by Ratan and Anil at night. At that time, they went to the house of
Jugpatiya but the door was closed, all of the event was stated by her to the police. It is clear
that complainant went to the police station Sitapur and got information registered as Exhibit
P-01.
16. The witness produced by the prosecution Shivpatiya Bai (PW-04) is also a resident of village
Sureshpur, where the Accused also resides. Shivpatiya has stated that at night Jugpatiya was
beaten by her son Jageshwar with crutches, and it was informed by the sons of Jageshwar,

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
Anil and Ratan by going to the house of her sister-in-law Indarpati, there after this witness
also went to the house of Accused to intervene and stop the fight. this witness upon reaching
the house of Accused, has heard the voices of Jugpatiya Save me – Save me from inside the
house. The door of the house of Jugpatiya was closed from inside by Jageshwar therefore
Jugpatiya was unable to run from the house . This witness has also stated that despite asking
to open the door and beating the door, the Accused did not open the door. Jugpatiya was
shouting “Don’t beat me son” from inside the house but Accused Jageshwar did not say
anything. When Accused did not open the door then both his sons went to the house of their
paternal aunt Maheshwari to sleep and this witness as well as Indarpati also went back to
their house. This witness has stated that the aforementioned incident took place at night 10-11
PM. Before that this witness slept in her house after having dinner.
17. Shivpatiya (PW-04) has also stated that after the passing of the night , when she went to fetch
water on the next day near borewell , at that time in the house of Jageshwar , where Jugpatiya
used to live, she went inside the house and took a look and at that time there was injury on
the face of Jugpatiya and she was lying dead in the backyard. Indarpati also saw the dead
body of Jugpatiya. As per this witness when this witness went to see the dead body of
Jugpatiya at that time Jageshwar was not present in the house, he had went to the colony area.
This witness and Indarpati shouted thereafter the villagers came to take a look. This witness
as well as Indarpati both have admitted to this fact that Father of Accused Mangal Sai used to
work in the Andaman Islands and because of his death 2000-3000/- pension income was
being received by Jugpatiya. Through which she use to take care of her family. Therefore this
witness Shivpatiya Bai cannot tell that why did the Accused killed his mother, but it is clear
from the para 5 of the statement given by this witness that Jageshwar had beaten Jugpatiya
under the influence of alcohol. This witness in her statement in para 10 has stated that
because of broken back of Jugpatiya bai before her death she was not able to go out since last
2-3 years and she use to live in her house only. Because of her broken back Jugpatiya used to
walk with the support of crutches, this has also been admitted by her and this fact has also
been admitted by the Accused upon his examination.
18. Shivpatiya (PW-04) in her cross examination has admitted that the Accused was taking care
of his mother and also maintaining her but this witness has denied that Accused has not
murdered Jugpatiya. This witness on her own statement in para 14 has stated that if Jugpatiya
was not being beaten up in the night then why would she shout “help-help”, “don’t hit me
son” in the night. It is clear from the statement that Accused on the date of incident at night
was present in the same place where Jugpatiya was present. Both the sons of Accused

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
Jageshwar, Ratan ram and Anil Kumar were not there. At that time Jugpatiya was killed
inside the house, this fact has been supported by the statement of Indarpati (PW-01).
19. Prosecution witnesses Ratan Ram (PW-05) and Anil Kumar (PW-07) are both sons of the
Accused. Both these witnesses have told in their statement that Jugpatiya had died in the
night. This witness had gone to his aunt Maheshwari's house after having dinner in the night
but at that time the Accused's mother Jugpatiya was left in the house with the Accused and
there was no one else. This fact is clear from the statements of both the above witnesses.
Ratan Ram(PW-05) has told in his statement that when he reached home on the second day in
the morning, the outer door of the house was closed and there was no chain in it. When this
witness and his brother Anil went inside the house after opening the door, Accused Jageshwar
was in his room and this witness's maternal grandmother Jugpatiya had died, her body was
lying in the backyard at the door of the house. Ratan Ram has also told that he had told his
father Jageshwar by shouting that Nani is dead but his father Jageshwar did not say anything
at first and later said that Jugpatiya is dead. After that this witness, along with his brother
Anil, kept Jugpatiya in the cot in backyard. Anil Kumar(PW-07) has told that he did not have
information about the death of his Aaji Jugpatiya, he has been declared hostile witness by the
prosecution. This witness, Anil Kumar, has admitted that before the night of the incident,
Jageshwar, the father of this witness, took his mother to the bank and came back home with
the pension money and after that in the evening when Jugpatiya and Jageshwar and Witness
ate food. It is said that Anil Kumar had slept with his brother Ratan at night near Jugpatiya's
cot after having dinner. Anil Kumar has admitted on being asked leading question by the
Public Prosecutor in Para 5 of his statement that when this witness and his brother had asked
Jageshwar cease fighting then Jageshwar tried to beat his both the sons as well. After this
witness and his brother Ratan went to their aunt's house at night, and the Accused had locked
the door of the house from inside at that time.
20. Anil Kumar (PW-07) in his statement para-7 has admitted that this witness along with
Indarpati(PW-01) went to his house to Accused in the night but the door of the house was
locked from inside. Accused Jageshwar did not open the door. When the Accused did not
open the door, this witness and his brother Ratan Ram went to aunt Maheshwari’s house at
night. That night, Indarpati and Shivpatiya also went back to their house from the Accused's
house and slept. Thus, Anil Kumar (PW-07) has supported the prosecution story that, on the
night of the incident, the Accused was with his mother Jugpatiya, at that time. No other
person was present in the house. Inside the same room Jugpatiya's body was found in the
morning. The fact that the Accused was in the house during the night has been clarified in

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
para 13 of Anil Kumar during the investigation. It has been suggested on behalf of the
Accused that Jageshwar had told this witness not to go to the aunt's house to sleep but this
witness had left with his brother saying that he was going to sleep at the house of aunt
Maheshwari. This witness Anil has denied opening the door after reaching home from
Maheshwari's house in the morning, but Ratan Ram (PW-05) has accepted that Ratan Ram
went inside the house with his brother Anil in the morning, then Jugpatiya's body was found
inside the house. Although Ratan Ram (PW-05) and Anil Kumar (PW-02) have not fully
supported the prosecution story, due to which leading questions were asked after declaring
them as hostile.
21. Witness Narendra Chauhan (PW-06), appearing for the prosecution, has told in paragraph 4
of his statement that the relationship between Jageshwar and mother Jugpatiya was not good.
According to this witness, one year before the incident, the Accused Jageshwar had broken
Jugpatiya's hand. Then Jugpatiya was brought to the government hospital Ambikapur for
treatment. After getting treatment at that time, Jugpatiya was kept in Sureshpur for 2 months,
later after Jugpatiya was cured, her daughter took her from witness Narendra Chauhan's
house to her house and kept her at Jageshwar's house. This witness tells Bhinsari Bai to be his
grandmother who is still alive but this witness does not know Jugpatiya's parents. He says he
has no information about the case going on in the District Court of Sitapur regarding the
division of land between Bhinsari Bhai and Jugpatiya. This witness himself says that
whenever there was a need for taking care Jugpatiya, he used to bring her to his home for it.
Jugpatiya's daughter Maheshwari also lives in the same village. Jugpatiya has a boy and a
girl, that's what Witness knows. This witness has denied that he will get the entire land once
Jageshwar goes to jail, so he is giving false statement against the Accused in the court. Smt.
Indarpati and Jugpatiya Bai (PW-04) have also denied that false statement was given to
implicate the Accused.
22. R.M.Pandey Assistant Sub-Inspector has told in his statement that he had seized the blood
stained soil and plain soil from the place of incident in front of the witnesses, and had
prepared the seizure letter exhibit P-09, in which the witness Roshan Ram, Narendra has
affixed signature. The statement of this witness is also supported by the statement of
Narendra Chauhan (PW-06) who has supported the confiscation of blood stained soil and
plain soil by the police. RM Yadav has told that on 6/11/2008, on production by Accused
Jageshwar Ram an iron crutch was seized in front of the witnesses as per exhibit P-10.
Roshan Ram and Narendra Chauhan have also been told to be witnesses of the said seizure.
Narendra Chauhan (PW-06) has told to have his signature in the seizure letter exhibit P -10

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
of the seizure of crutch. The seizure of crutches by the police is said to be done during the
investigation of this case. Although he has stated it to be a wooden crutch but the seizure of
the crutch was done by R.M.Yadav (PW- 09) on being presented by the Accused hence there
is no reason to disbelieve the fact.
23. R.M.Yadav(PW-09) told that after the post-mortem of the deceased Jugpatiya's dead body, the
blouse of the deceased was brought in a sealed packet from the hospital and on being
presented by Simon Tirkey it was seized in front of Roshan and Narendra Chauhan. seizure
letter exhibit P-11 was prepared in respect of it, as is evident from para-7 of RM
Yadav's(PW-09) statement. It is clear from para-3 of the statement given by Narendra
Chauhan (PW-06) that Jugpatiya's blouse was seized by the police, in respect of which he has
also given his signature in the seizure letter exhibit P-11.
24. The above confiscated properties were sent for submission to FSL Raipur on 26/12/2008 as
per the memorandum P-15 of the Superintendent of Police for the report of the chemical
examiner. This is what RM Yadav (PW-09) has told in paragraph-14 of his statement. The
second copy of the above memorandum in two pages is exhibit P-15. The FSL report was
also received in respect of the above property, in which according to exhibit P-16, the
bloodstained soil of the crime scene as Article-A, the clothes blouse of the deceased as
Article-C, and the crutches seized from Jageshwar as Article-D has been marked. Above three
items were found to contain blood as per the FSL report. Although no report of the serologist
has been presented. In such a situation, the crutches seized from the Accused and the blood
group in the blouse of the deceased were the same, this fact has not been proved by the
prosecution, but no explanation could be given by the Accused about the circumstances of
blood being found in crutches.
25. During the investigation of this case, RM Yadav has expressed to record the prosecution
evidence according to Anil Kumar's statement exhibit P-12 and Ratan Ram's statement
exhibit P-5 as per their instructions. In this situation the Declaring of prosecution witnesses
Ratan Ram (PW-05) and Anil Kumar (PW-07) as hostile does not negate the entire statement
made by them, but the prosecution story gets support from their statement and can be used to
substantiate the charge leveled against the Accused.
26. In this case it has been argued on behalf of the Accused that the relations with the family
members of Indarpati and Shivpatiya were not cordial with the Accused Jageshwar's mother
Jugpatiya. There is a land issue going on between them. Due to this enmity, the said witnesses
have made false statements against the Accused to implicate the Accused. Therefore, the

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
Accused cannot be proved guilty in respect of the murder of his mother Jugpatiya. It has also
been argued that the prosecution story has not been supported by the Accused's sons Ratan
Ram(PW-05) and Anil Kumar(PW-07). And in this case, the Accused's sister Maheshwari has
not been examined by the prosecution, where both the sons of the Accused have been told to
go to sleep on the night of the incident. It has also been submitted on behalf of the Accused
that Jugpatiya could have been killed by any other person entering the house of the Accused
during the night and this possibility cannot be ruled out as the door of his house was locked
from inside, at the time of the incident, this fact could not be proved by the evidence of the
investigating officer. It has also been argued that the crutch by which the statement of injury
to Jugpatiya is being made by the prosecution, itself has been told by the prosecution
witnesses Indarpati(PW-01) and Shivpatiya(PW-04) to be wooden crutches, but the
investigating officer told that it is an iron crutch. Therefore, there is a contradiction about the
crutches used in the commission of the offence, in view of which the prosecution story cannot
be considered credible. It has also been argued that the Accused did not have any motive to
kill his mother, hence also the Accused cannot be convicted in respect of the murder of his
mother, so the Accused should be acquitted.
27. Refuting the above argument, it has been argued on behalf of the prosecution that the
Accused was inside his house during the night on the date of incident with his mother
Jugpatiya. Refuting the above argument, it has been argued on behalf of the prosecution that
the Accused was inside his house during the night on the date of incident with his mother
Jugpatiya. When Anil Kumar(PW-07) and Ratan Ram were thrown out of the house by the
Accused after the incident, it was informed by them along with Indarpati (PW-01) and
Shivpatiya that the Accused is beating his mother Jugpatiya Bai, come and get her released.
But the door of the house was not opened by the Accused. The door of his house was locked
from inside by the Accused. Prosecution witnesses Indarpati and Shivpatiya tried to open the
door but the Accused did not open the door. At that time his mother Jugpatiya was with the
Accused in the house of the Accused. The dead body of the said Jugpatiya was seen inside the
house of the Accused in the morning after the night had passed. Therefore, the said criminal
act has been committed by the Accused in a secretly secluded situation inside the house, due
to which it has been told that Jugpatiya Bai died. No explanation has been presented by the
Accused, so the Accused is responsible for the death of Jugpatiya Bai.
28. In support of the above argument on behalf of the prosecution “Trimukh Maroti Kirkan
vs. State of Maharashtra 2007 SCC 20 and state of Rajasthan versus Parthu AIR 2008
CriLJ 10” has been cited in the case, in which the circumstantial witness strengthens the

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
chain when the Accused did not explain the circumstances of the death of the deceased inside
the house.
29. On behalf of the prosecution, a judgment given by Supreme court is cited “State of UP Vs
Satish 2005 CriLJ 1428” and it has been stated that if there is a short interval between the
Accused being seen with the deceased and the finding of the dead body and no possibility of
any other person coming in between. If so, the Accused can also be convicted on the basis of
last seen principle. On behalf of the prosecution, one instance of Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High
Court has been cited Govind lal and another versus State of Chhattisgarh 2010 (2) CGLJ
122 Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court, in that the same principle has been propounded
therein that the principle of last seen is of weak nature but if the fact that the Accused being
found last with the deceased is proved and the Accused is found to be last seen and at the
time of death, the gap should be so small as to negate the possibility of a third person coming
between the deceased and the Accused. This fact would be sufficient ground to conclude that
the Accused who was with the deceased is the same person who committed the culpable
homicide of the deceased.
30. Thus, in the present case, the Accused Jageshwar's sons Ratan Ram(PW-05) and Anil Kumar
(PW-07), who have not fully supported the prosecution story, but the evidence given by them
supports this story of the prosecution, that the Accused was present along with his mother
Jugpatiya Bai on the night of the incident. The two sons of the Accused went outside the
house at night to inform Indarpati and Shivpatiya about the criminal act being done by the
Accused, in such a situation, if the interested witness of the Accused contradicts the
statements of his two sons, then it cannot be concluded that the statement given by
Shivpatiya(PW-04) and Indarpati(PW-01) should be rejected. Therefore, the last time the
Accused was with his mother Jugpatiya in the night and in the morning Jugpatiya's body was
found inside the house, the above circumstances go against the Accused on the basis of the
Accused not giving an explanation.
31. In the present case, on the basis of perusal of the statements of the evidence presented by the
prosecution and the statement made by the defense witness Motilal (PW-01) presented by the
Accused, it is clear that the defense witness Motilal (PW-01) ) has declared himself to be a
resident of village Raikera, and in his old village Sureshpur, the Accused and his mother
Jugpatiya have been told to reside. Motilal is unable to tell under what circumstances
Jugpatiya died. Although this witness has told the matter of trial in the District Court Sitapur
in connection with the partition of land by Jugpatiya from his maternal home. But if the case
of Jugpatiya has been going on with the family of Indarpati's husband Budhasagar Chikwa,

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
then he has expressed his lack of knowledge about it. This defense witness has made it clear
in paragraph-4 of his statement that he is not aware of who killed Jugpatiya, so the statement
of this defense witness cannot help the Accused.
32. Based on the analysis of the above prosecution evidence, it is clearly proved that Jageshwar
Ram has murdered his mother Jugpatiya Bai by intentionally killed her. Therefore, the
conclusion of the main question under consideration is given in 'yes'.
33. On the basis of the above evidence, the Accused Jageshwar Ram is found guilty of offence
punishable under section 302 IPC in connection with murder by causing intentional death of
his mother Jugapatiya Bai. The Accused is in custody. Judgment writing is adjourned at this
stage for hearing in relation to punishment.
(CL Patel)
Sessions Judge, Surguja
Ambikapur
Later-
34. Heard in respect of punishment to be given to the Accused. It has been submitted on behalf of
the Accused that he is an illiterate person being from a poor family. He has no means of
employment; he has no criminal background. He has been in continuous custody since his
arrest. Therefore, he should be punished with the least punishment.
35. On behalf of the prosecution, it is presented that the circumstance of murder by the Accused,
of his mother Jugpatiya Bai, to be a very serious circumstance and by telling the case not to
be an offence falling under the category of rarest of rare crime, requested the Accused should
be given appropriate punishment.
36. It is clear from perusal of the record that no evidence of prior conviction or criminal
antecedents has been produced against this Accused. He is said to be a poor person. In such a
situation, in this case, the Accused is ordered to be punished with life imprisonment and a
fine of ₹ 2000 for the offense punishable under section 302 IPC. In default of payment of
fine, the Accused shall be additionally liable to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009
37. In this case this Accused is in custody continuously from 6/11/2008 till today 29/9/2010, the
said period of custody should be adjusted in the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the
Accused under section 428CrPC. Custody period certificate should be prepared.
38. Seized punitive property, seized blood-soaked soil, plain soil, blouse of the deceased, iron
crutches, etc. being of no value should be destroyed after the appeal period. On appeal, the
criminal property should be disposed of as per the order of the Appellate Court.
Ambikapur (CL Patel)

Date –29 September, 2009 Sessions Judge, Sarguja
Ambikapur
Detention Certificate
01. Date of arrest of Accused: - 06/11/08
02. Date of police custody: - 06/11/08
03. Duration of judicial

custody of the Accused: - 06/11/08 to till today 29/9/2010
04. If the Accused was released

on bail then description of the
above duration: - Nil
05. Total duration spent in confinement

by the Accused, which is to be set-off: - 693 days.
Sd/-
(CL Patel)
Sessions Judge, Surguja
Ambikapur

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.23/2009

Jogeshwar Ram Translation Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jogeshwar Ram Translation Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRA/892/2010 S.T.No.

Translated, checked and signed by me

Witness No…..01…. for Prosecution….. Deposition taken on the … 25/11/2009, day of

Translated, checked and signed by me

// Cross-examination by Smt. Kamini Sinha, Advocate for Accused//

Translated, checked and signed by me

Translated, checked and signed by me

Read over and explained to the witness, Typed under my direction

(C.L. Patel) (C.L. Patel)

Translated, checked and signed by me

Witness No…..02…. for Prosecution….. Deposition taken on the ..… 26/11/2009,

Translated, checked and signed by me

// Cross-examination by Smt. Kamini Sinha, Advocate for Accused//

Read over and explained to the witness, Typed under my

(C.L. Patel) (C.L. Patel)

Date – Sessions Judge, Sarguja (Ambikapur

Translated, checked and signed by me

Witness No…..03…. for Prosecution….. Deposition taken on the … 26/11/2009,

1- Since 24 March, 2007, I am working as Patwari, halka number 37 at headquarter Village

// Cross-examination by Smt. Kamini Sinha, Advocate for Accused//

Translated, checked and signed by me

Translated, checked and signed by me

Witness No…..04…. for Prosecution….. Deposition taken on the ..… 26/06/10,

Translated, checked and signed by me

// Cross-examination by Smt. Kamini Sinha, Advocate for Accused//

Read over and explained to the witness, Typed under my direction

(C.L. Patel) (C.L. Patel)

Translated, checked and signed by me

Read over and explained to the witness, Typed under my direction

(C.L. Patel) (C.L. Patel)

Translated, checked and signed by me

Translated, checked and signed by me

Translated, checked and signed by me

Translated, checked and signed by me

Translated, checked and signed by me

// Cross-examination by Smt. Kamini Sinha, Advocate for Accused//

Translated, checked and signed by me

Read over and explained to the witness, Typed under my direction he

Translated, checked and signed by me

// Cross-examination by Smt. Kamini Sinha, Advocate for Accused//

Translated, checked and signed by me

Read over and explained to the witness, Typed under my direction he

Translated, checked and signed by me

// Cross-examination by Smt. Kamini Sinha, Advocate for Accused//

Translated, checked and signed by me

4. On receipt of the above information, I left for investigation at village Sureshpur on a

Translated, checked and signed by me

Translated, checked and signed by me

// Cross-examination by Smt. Kamini Sinha, Advocate for Accused//

Translated, checked and signed by me

Translated, checked and signed by me

// Cross-examination by Smt. Kamini Sinha, Advocate for Accused//

Read over and explained to the witness, Typed under my direction he

Translated, checked and signed by me

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT ( Under Sec. 154 Cr.P.C )

1. *District– Sarguja *Police Station– Sitapur* Year- 2008

*F.I.R. No. 203/08 *Date- 05.11.08.

2. (i) *Act I.P.C. *Sections 302 I.P.C.

(ii) *Act ….........X............. *Sections ….........X.............

(iii) *Act ………X……… *Sections ……….X…….....

(iv) * Other Acts & Sections ………X…......

3. (a) Concerned Roznamcha Sanha No.....................................

1. District– Sarguja Police Station– Sitapur* Year- 2008

F.I.R. No. 203/08 Date- 05.11.08.

2. (i) Act I.P.C. Sections 302 I.P.C.

(ii) Act ….........X............. Sections ….........X.............

(iii) Act ………X……… Sections ……….X…….....

(b) Day of incident- Tuesday Date–04.11.08 *Time–