^.'y 371^1 ^T f^^icb ^T^T 'STT^RT 9b+li<=b '3^Sf ^|<q|<y><<, ^>Tfi^ll<5, (s|<y>l'M^< Nl^dl *^l<b i_...C<^.:.^.:..^.e..-.....^..<5!./.^.. •^ 200 3n^?r x^ra? (4^^^) ^^TTW^rf^T 3?T^T SB: HON'BLE 8HRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. J. APPELLANTS (!N JAIL) 1. R Y u 2, T VERSUS RESPONDBrBT 29-11-2007 Shri Viiay Deshmukh, Shri Neeraj Mehta, Pau This crimuial appeal conviction and order ofsente 299/2004 whercby leamed Bastar at Jagdalpur has coir rcad witli Section 149, 307 Section 149 aiid 323 read wit has been seutenced to unde: for 2 years and R.I. for sbc m< 2. Uase ot tlie proseciitio^. had gone to Orissa to seek| teasuig wmi tlie wite ol uijurt beaten by people of Jhio.jhir| <=bi^f<rt<fli ^i*i<riT ^f^st <F3i^i< ^" ^fRpT 3^7T^r |aghunatli S/o Motirani, aged aboiit 22 ^ars, R/o Nayamunda, P.S. Bodhghat, ^gdalpur Bast.ar (CG) haji'm.u Ram, S/o Dhajiai*, aged about ^ }rears R/'o Nayamuuda, P.S. |oclhghat, JagdaJ.pur, Bastar (CG) |tate of Chhattisgarh, tliroiigh Police |tation, Bodhghat, Jagdalpur, Bastar ^dvocate for tlie appellaDLts, |el La^vyer, for the State. is directed agamst tlie jiidgiaent of ^ice dated 27-10-2005 passed in S.T. No. 4th Additional Sessions Jiidge, (Krc), dcted tlie appeUaiits under Sectious 148 read with Section 149, 325 read wim ii Section 149 ofi.P.C, aad each ofmem 'go R,I, for 1 yeai', R.i. for 10 years, RJ. )nth respectively. ui brief is tliat FTalilad aad his broUier explaQ.ation about tlie iiicident of eve ?d witiiess Prahlad whereupou they were on account of above aiiimosity. Un 24- r ". ^L- 3'5^'^Pn^T, y>Tn'M<l^, (sf<»»i'My ..C.^::./5..:.^..<?..--....^..o^../cs.^.. -RTOW WlN? ••^••'"••^•"•'•:'""""f"•/"/-""'-^ 200 9n^?r''isw (Tpf55^r) ^I^I^FTRl'tJcb Wff^iTT^T ^|cb ^wi^R <M^a 3?n^?T Ret3ort Pi^lifed 10-2003 when Pralilad, Domy| settle fhe matter by conipro2iii^( persons assaiiited fliein by Gi which, Laxman (P.W. 6), Subbi siistauied grievous uijuries. 10-2003 by Rojo, wife of was recorded aiid on the basisl 26 was recorded on me sanle persons were sent for medica|l jagdaipiir where Dr. K.M. and Subbu Mmijhi aiid gave 10, Ex. P-12 aiid Ex. P-i3. T rcports of me radioiogist pertajii Ex, P-8 aiid Subbu Maiijhi ar| (P.W. 4). Weapou of ottencej memoraiidum of accused persc] chai'ge sheet was filed io. tte Jagdalpur agaiiist tlie appellaa|:s Kailash showuig theni abscondpu 3, Duriiig trial, prosecutio^i therealter statenient of accusdd the evidence appeariiig agaia^ pleaded ninocence aiid false couvicted aiid sentenced Uie cr>i<<(<!i<ili *{wvS^ "fe^ <I^i'^i< ^7 3TRpT3TI^T aiid Laxmaii went to jagdalpiir to 4>e witii ]tlie accused persons, acciised [pti, iron rod and club as a result of Maiijhi (P.W. 7) aad Pi-ahlad (P.W. 2) of the incident was lodged on 24- whereupon Dehati Nalishi Ex. P-1 loftiie Dehati Nalishi, F.I.R. of Ex. P- day. Diirmg uivestigation, tD.jnred exainniation to MaharaD.i Hospital, (P.W. 5) examiiiecl Pralilad, Domo medical examiiiation rcport of Ex, P- >liey were also seut to racliologist aad liiiiig to Pralilad is Ex, P-7, Laxmaii is 1 Ex. P-9 given by Dr. Govuid Tiwaii was taken iato possession on the |ns. After completing the investigatiLng, Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, |:s aiid two oUiers namely Dharmu and pllg. Gii1)ta iiife :a4iiui; ClfUl; exaniuied 11 witaesses ia aU aiid was recorded io. which they denied it Uieni in the prosecution case aiid mipUcation however, tlie trial Court ippellants as mentioned ia para 1 of ^TRT^ ^r^T g^m^r, <M^i^iici —FS/59— 8/2007 —3o,ooo. 3:SET<^i^i<?'><<, y»TO<i<i<o, fs«»>i'yy ..Cz:.^.:..^^.^....^..0..?./.6.^- WIW WRN?" "^"'"•/''I""J"t&i" "'/T:"'/T"i'^ 200 3niRT XR^F (Ti^^5?T) ^- 3?TT^[^R'ti<b WIT^TR^T 1 ^aTw^fN ^n^r this judgiiient aiid acquitted a< charges by extendiiig tliem bene peru^al 4. Learaed counsel for the Nalishi of Ex. P-1 aiid F.I.R, Dhannu is missuig. FTOBI 2b, it is ciear Uiat ailegation Kailash and Laiban of Oriss appeUaiits hi fiirtherance ofcoi persous participated iii the cr Laxman and Subbu Maajhi as appellaiits for coniinission of weapon have not been proved seizure ofweapon have not si^ Reliaiice is placed on Chasad| aiaother 1. 5. On the other haiid, learj Uie iBipugueci juclgment argi| Prahiad descnbed ia para 10 o| his deatli ia. Uie orduiary coursl by letlial weapon Gupti, iron ro] Prahlad, Subbu Maiijhi aiid participation of tlie appellaiits ' 2004(2) CGLJ 147 (SC), <=bi<<t<n<flTi *ii^<?iT "?f f^l<3 <F»f<^i< '^3tfifH3n^[ ^cused Laiban. aad Deepak of all tlie [fit of dqubt. ^.ppeUaiits argued fhat in fhe Dehati of Ex. P-26, naaie of tlie acciised of Uie dyiag declaratiou of Ex, P- of assault has been macle agaiiist }a. There is no evidence tliat tlie IQJD.OII object of assaulting tlie iajured |iae and caused iaiuries to Prahlad, tliere is no motive attributed to tiie brune. Seizure memo and seizzire of Uie witoesses of seiziire menio and Ipported tlie case of tiie prosecution. b & otliers -v- State of U.P. asid 4-s |ied counsel for the State szippoiliag [ed mat tlie uijuries sustaiiied by the judgineut were siifficient to cause t; ofnature. Injuries have been caused |ci aiicl cluD. iiie uiiurecl eye-wiUiesses L^xmao. have categoricaily stated aboiit |ii tlie aforesaid crmie. Pe^etrators of ^rra^ ^T g^TT^, <i^i^iici —FS/59— 8/2007 —30,ooo. \^ ^I^TjSRT R<licb WT ^ 3:5^" ;?:2TPTTQ^', ^TH'M'I^, fsj^l'y^ wiw g^.......<.^.'a.-.N^...<?.°?.^...^ 200 3ni{?T ^S^R (^f^Si^T) ^tai^R tif^a 3n^?[ offence were 5 ui uuniber, object of aveugiag tlie earliei the fiiidiB.g recorded by tlie Cc 6, I have heard leamed co1 rccord as also the inipugned ji Dffence was comniitted witli common uicideilt aad ia tliese circumstaEices, jurt below is just aad proper. (insel for the parties. 1 have perused the liagnient. appei|aiits 7. Conviction of the FTahlacl, P.W. 6 Laxman aad ui fhe said uicident, fheir cluly proved by Dr. K.M. injuries over parietal regiorj described iu para 10 ofti.ie j| This witaess was also sent to| 4) has proved tlie fracture io,^ 7, P.W, 6 Laxmari has also si|i parietal region of head anci i|s X-ray examiuation report o^ noticed. injured Subbu had occipital region of forehead sustameci coutusion ou iiis abrasion wound on his backj size of 16 x % cm. aad 15 x 7 8. Thus ui view of the abt have beeu duly proved by D| ct>i<i{<n<flwi ^wvS 'S[ 'fe^ <F»i^i< ^^TRw^TT^T is based cn the evidence of P.W. 2 >.W. 7 Subbu Mmijhiwho were. iajiired m^dico legal exainiiiation report iias beeu Gi<pta (P.W. 5) who has found 8 incisecl t, left foreami, stomach, left ribs as Jliidgment mid iajuiy report of Ex. P-10. radiologist aiid Dr, Goviad Tiwari (P.W. luy ofuma bone vicle his report of Ex. P- istahied iacised iajuries on right frontal ikicised wound over shoiilder aiid ui his Ex. P-8, fracture of jom.t Tibia was ^so sustauied isicised woiind over right bi size of 1 x A/2 x V2 cm, He had also l^ack ia size of 10 x 3 cm apart from ihe Abrasions were present on his chest in 'm. >ve uifaries siistaio.ed by Prahlad wliich •* K.M, Giipta and s^atemei^t. of injured ?rra^r ^NUr g^m^r, <i^i^ijci —ps/59— 8/2007 —30,ooo. ^n^Tj^r R^icb TOT W^T sb^jcb ^ ®- s ^-^cT ^INK'i'M, y»Tn<1<l^, (s|<»>l'M^< *<INdl **ll<sb ,.Cx:./Q.:.J^?...T:....<?.0.9../.<?.JT- •••••••••^••••••••^••(••••••^^••••••••••^•••••«^.:«/<,»«».» M 200 3T!^?T TRT5R ( 4<sll^<^) ^Wl<9< tll^<1 ^1< Sec4on witnesses, offence under Sect on me uijuries siistamed b] under Section 148, 325 aiid 3 9. P.W. 1 Rojo has proved ol Ex. P-26 aiid has stated tli^ ou his head aad haiid as a brokeu aiid rod was fixed ui Ex, P-1 on the same day. H< Hospital aiid luiderwent treat mis witiiess. 307 ofi,P.C. is made out Similarly, other jtwo iajured witnesses, offence ip3 is also made out, rdsiilt |fhe Dehati NaUsiii ofEx. P-1 aiid F.I.R. |it tlie appeUaD.ts assaulted her husbaiid ofwhich hand ofher husband was |his haad aad she had lodged report of |r husbaiid was admitted io. Jagdalpur Iment. There is no cross-exaniuiation of 10. P.W. 2 Prahlad has de^ ui relation to eve teasiiig wit|i week after the previous iaci^ Laibaa with iatention to assauited hini by a Gupti oiji Dhannu assaulted hini by adniitted ui Maliaraiii on behalf of the appellaiitsj which Biakes fhe statemej unreliable, He has categoric|a time of uicident, tlie denied tliat because he has ii Deepak aad Laibaii, therefor^ Hospl^ rtegoric|aJly appellai(Lts <=t»i<if<n<ili ^w^S ^ ff1^t <pri^i< ^3JfilH3TT^r co|aipromise |osed that tliere was dispute iii the past the wife of his brofher ia Orissa, One lent, he went to the house of accused where appeUao.t Raghunath his stomacii, left haad and appellaiit |rod over his head, He was thereafter (al^ Jagdalpur, In Uie cross-exam.iaation the defeiice could not eMcit ao.ytliuig it of this wito.ess untrust^orthy or jaJly denied the suggestion tliat at tlie were not present aiid iie has fuither bntered iiito a conipromise witlT accused he is not statmg tratli, j ^lt^^^ S?NUr y<ujl^, <t'3t'lU^iGt —FS/59— 8/2007 —-30,000. W^T^RT Rvii<h WT 3TRST 1 3:ScT ^ 1^1 <;<><<, ^Tf1y(<S, fstOl^y ^ rry'^.N^to^ ^^9/^. -WTFIT WIW""-1*'-1""^"'-"1^-''-''"4-''4/^ 9ni{?r XRW (^ci[^<ysT) -^ 200 ^wi^R ^q 3H^T 11, P.W. 6 Laxniaii lias ai$ stated tliat appellaiit RaghiiuaUi was holduig rod head t\vice aad Dharmu has denied tlie suggestion aiiimosity aiid fhat he is not with otlier accused persons. of such a serious nafrare tl' uiireUable. jo narrated m the stmiiar Ihie aiid has Dh^rinu was holdiiig Gupti, whereas ^md he assaulted on his left portiou of ass^ulted by Gupti on his left shoulder. He |iiat he is speakuig falsehood out of |tel3iiig tjruUi as tliey have comproDiised I'iiere are soio.e omissions wiiicn are not lat makes tlie version of mis wituess 12. Siibbu Manjhi (P.W. 7) stated tliat accused persons rod. Dharmu first assaulted assaulted him and Pralilad. medical evidence. 13. it is true that these allegation against the acquip.ted thus mey have resiled froid however tlieir evidence canilot that they are partially uiireU4ble tlie extent they are corroboi^l 14. So far as tlie arguinen|i ct»Hf<vt<ili *ii^<riT^f h^ <F»i'^i< ^^fRpT^n^T is aiso aa uijiirecl witness, He iias aiso 7ere anaed wifli weapon Giipti aiid ii'on Laxmaa wim Gupti aud thereafter he His version is dulv corroborated from tiiree wiUiesses liave not macle aiiy accused Laiban aad Deepak aad ffaeir diaiy stateiaent ia tih.is regard, be discaixled solely on this ground aiid their version caii be accepted fo toiy from tlieir past statemeut, s of leanied counsel for the appellaiits tliat nanie of tlie accused pharmu is not nientioned iii F.I.R. is concenied, tlie report has be^n lodged by Rojo (P.W. 1} who is not the^ •I "- w^N- ^^T ^uii^, <i^-ii^ttc( —FS/59— 8/2007 —30,000. [-HC—78 i 371^T ^T f^^icb TT^T 3T[^T $h^|cti Tc^ ^l<<l<7i><1, ?!>Tfl^ll<S, (s|<?'»l'y^< CY- ft'^»-<?07A<^ 'flWTT g^r^ " ••• • •"•—••^ "-^ 200 3n^?r XRRR (4^^<^T) -7- ^^nw^it^ 3?n^r eye-witness to the uicident appellant Dhannu ui Dehati| appeUaiit Dharmu. In tlie d^ specific allegations against bo^ so far as fhe evidence of cd evidence of P.W 2 Pralilact aii| estabiisiieci, 15. In the matter of Ctiaiadra and otfeers 1, coiisMeriiig Uie appUcabUity of Section 149 presence ia unlawful asseniblj tliere was a coniinon object object aiid that object is one| wiiere tiie common object ot ^ accused persons caiinot be cc| l.P.C, However, iii fhe. iiistaii|fc record, it is clear tlLat uiju|F categorically de-posed the fheir ofher associates who wed' accused persons witli a comm| uicident. There is evideiice of tiie offence aiid, tlierefore, aii appeUaiits based on the above) uijulred cbi^f<rt<fli ^H<A* '?f^^ <Pt^i< IFT 3tTRp7 3TT^?T Thereforc, omission of me nanie of |NaMshi and F.I.R. does not help the mg declaratiou of Ex, P-25 there are tli the appeUaiits regarding assault and Inimon object is concenied, from tiie 3. P.W. 1 Rojo motive for tlie offeuce is t>f 1,P.C., it has been held mat mere ^ will not reuder a persou liable unless ^iid he was actuated by that common of those set out in. Section 141 aiid |n unlawful assenibly is not proved, Uie jnvicted wifh the help of Section 149 of case, from the evidence available on Prahlad aad his wife Rojo have ba<tkground ia which the appellaiits aiid te more fhaii 5 in number assaulted tlie |on object of tRktag revenge due to past Iparticipation of tlie accused persous m Igument of the learaed counsel for tlie judgment caiinot be accepted. ' ' * ^T^T^T ^W^h ^ff 3TR^[ iFRW ??• 3:esr ^rpn^-, ^wi<o, (si^K-iy ^Wv{[ vhW<h C'Y-^.No - £?o <7/0: ^p ...<....^..i,...<^^/.^.^.:,...,i.....^y..7.^ ^ 3n^?r TR^ (^rf^si^r) ^wi^R <if^a ^TT^T 16. Fourtli argumeiit of ftj witnesses ot seizure inenio aa fhe case of the prosecution a4cl weapon is not established witiiesses is concemed, failu3|€ seizure wUl not affect the pros |.e counsel for flie appeUaiits tiiat tiie |d seizu2|-e ofweapon have iiot. supported thus the seizure memo aiid seizure of f}-om Uie testiniouy of Uie iajured eye- of fhe prosecution ia estabUshuig tlie lecution case ui aiiy mminer. 17. On tiie basis of aforesbid proseciition has proved Uie| reasonable doubt aad fhe tridl or uifiniiity ia convictuig t^e meutioneci above. cM<if<rt<ili *ii^<riT ^f Fs'^1 ^^K ^^tRpT^n^T analysis, it is established tliat Uie case agauist the appeilajits beyond Court has not comniitted any illegality appeIlaQ.ts aiid sentencuig theni as 18. The appeal being devoit:! of siibstaace is liable to be clismissed and is hereby disniissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge TOT^T ^T ^tl^, <M-lk*tJcl —FS/59— 8/2007 —30,000,