SII^T^T fe'^isn^r sh-4 Hf?cT |a;ai!e;iia 3:5? •^l<llc<i|, ttTflwis, [sidluy ^..^^:.lJ^^,o i<IKrtl sn*ii'n --• - R*«d 3pn^r ^wi^ir ^ri^rf APPBLLANT Deepak: aged 2| No. -5,| District RESPONDBN'T State] Rajn^ D.B. ; Hon'bleShriL Yactav, s/o. yadhuram yaclav, years, R/o. Shanti Nagar Ward, Ralnandgaon, Police Station and Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus of Chhatdsgarh, Uu-ough, P.8., uidgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) C. Bhadoo and Hon'ble Shri Dbiresdra Mishra, JJ. 17-4-2007 ynn saurabn uangi, Shri U.N.S. Deo, C.R. Sahu, Panel Law| Arguments heard. Oral Juctgment dictat( ORAU Per L.C.Bhwioo. J. : This appeal is din conviction and order of sei Sessions Judge, Rainandgi leamed Sessions Judge guiln' for commission of Indian Penal Code, senten cb|tlfcl41-< WRtt' ff teA ;(RRZIT ^sri^irgn^T ^dvocate for the appellant. Addlitional Public Prosecutor with Shri yer tor ttie respondent/State. a on DCUS. JUDGMBNT •cted against the judgment of Llence dated 17-5-1999 passed by .on in S.T. No. 3/99, whereby fhe after holduig accused/appeUant iffence under Section 302 of the •ed hun to undereo imprisoninent (iti^^f^) |tE:;i l Xl-HC-22 3n^T?iT R-<i*3n^r <t»li<tiflf??T lag'aiss^sii. IUtl"iitia; 3^^1'PTRTO, WTnu'IS, Rli-iwy 3T1^T <<ach tTiwfi a>iicn Wi; 200 t^<>«d sn^r^nwflfeT for life, to pav a flne of Rs. fine, to further undergo tw4 o]n •i. Uase ot ttie prosecli Kosbalvabai lodged report PoUce Station Rainandgao^ p.ia. in the nigtit his son child went for sta'oUins Deepak son of Sadhiii[i Ghanshvam to an-ange for snouid arrange tor liguor. tj on the ground and said tht On fhis, she rushed to sav| Wmle she was helping saia mat whv fae is attai) grouna atter catenmg he^ Pratap, Bhuru and Raju wl] Ghanshvam to fhe house. her husband enqiiired froiiti on which she disclosed fhal Uquor. Her husband came him. Her husband asked L_ +i'!ilci41-< Ki'<<-fl ffte<^<R]*<i< ^aif^ir 3|1^T OO/-, and in default of pavment of months' R.i. iition, in brief, is that P.W. 1 ix. P-1in fhe Out Post, Cnikhli of |i to the euect that at about 9.30 IGhanshvam along wifh his minor road after taking meal. There )am was standing. He asked liiquor. Ghanshyam replied whv he )n this, UeepaK uirew Ghansnyam ^t why he is not arranging liquor. Ghanshvam and her grand-son. and her grand-son, she ^king, Deepak threw her on the bv her heirs. Persons namelv \o were standing at the place, took IWhen thev carae to fheir house, them as to what has happened, Deepak is asking Ghanshyam for (ut of the house. She also followed |Deepak as to why he attacked Ghfcnshvam ? ('te^r) | XI-HC-22 sn^r^r R-li+3D^T shKlf Bf?(T .^a:^"i!?i.£:i liBi 3^ •lll'Mld'il, »T{I«'IS,tqcll'My 3TI^T Mflth HIlTCfTSh*<l<*> V^ 200 RM Ghanshvani. On this, accu^( on his head with axe whichl down. Deepak said that, t] attacked her husband on hit Hearing her cries, nearb}t Santosh, Bharat and ofhers report, Shaukat Ali, in-ch|ar$ re^stered Ex. P-1 and the Rajnandgaon where F'.I.I^ Investigating officer left for site plan Ex. P-2. Bhaivalall succumbed to fhe imuries.] notice Ex. P-3 to Panchas, BhaiyalaL Injuries of Bhaiy| Damle, he prepared tnjury incised wound horizontallv of 10cm x 3cm x 4 cm, one incised wound on left side in size of 6cm x 2cm x 2afa, wound in size of 4cm x 3etn palm, there was bleeding;, o|ne bleeding in size of 3cui x lcid. *wlc'i41") IWCTI ^'tecfl<Ri*<;]< ^iSri^ITSn^T ;d Deepak attacked her husband he was holdinK. Her husband feU le will finish him and Deepak 3 head wifh axe. She raised cries. persons Shyaiiirao, father of ;ame on tlie scene. Receiving this ?e of Police Chowki, Chikhli Isanie was sent to Police Station Ex. P-1A was registered. |he scene of occurrence, prepared iwas tafcen to Hospital where he Inyesttgatmg oSlcer atter giving Iprepared inquest on the body of ]alal were examined bv Dr. V.K. teport Ex. P- 14-A. He found one Iplaced on parietal region in size and brain was cominR out, between eyelid to temporal side L, bleeding present, one incised x 3cm on index finger of left abrasion on left forearm with x % cm, condition of the patient (Ift^^) ble^dtng XI-HC-22 an^TW R-fi+sn^r StiW (rf?cT .•Sg 35?'i|l'41d'!<, ®Tflu'IS,RK'IIWy 3TT^?T Msith «(T*ICfTit>*11ttl W( 200 R<)«^ sn^TB^gTiiiTflfgg' Kajnanagaon condition iniurties was veiy poor, respiratoryl otticer Daade application District Hospital, a position to g?.ve stateraen^ Bhaivalal is not in a he succmnbed to the under Ex. P-27 was sent otfence was converted iiito Ex. P-16 request was sent f laortem exana.ination was 10). He prepared post that cause of death wasl laceration of left cerebral ol) for exainination to doctor that injttries present on the | bv the axe in question. He unansnvam were also prepared by the doctor. inortem 3. After completion of m1 in the Court ofJudicial.Mas comuiitted the case to the S <tll<<fa'!fl-< t|l*<<vfTffte<^)'<fa«<K ^iaif^irsn^T pulses were feeble. Investigating Bx. P-15 to Assistant Surgeon, i, as to whether Bhaivalal is in I:, on which fhe doctor opined that to give statement. In fhe night >. After death of Bhaivalal merg |to Police Station, based on fhat, iection 302 of I.PC. Therefore, vide |br post mortem examination. Post j'onducted by Dr. B.C. Jain (P.W. report Ex. P-16-A. He opined Jiaemorrhage and head injury, parietal region. The axe was sent Inder Ex. P-17, The doctor opined Ibodv of Bhaivalal could be caused Igave report Ex. P-17A. Iniuries of 1, ini.urv report Ex. P-20A was exaulined ^estigation, charge sheet was filed istrate, Rainandgaon, who in tum ;ssions Judge, Rainandgaon. (•te^w) n XI-HC-22 an^T^T f^IR;3TT^T aiiri^iflfgcf tm 35? ^||l||d4, ®TTI«'IS,ftdiwy 3TT^?T qath imcfTshxi'*) W[ 200 f^p^ w^t\ ^•wiw^fer «Braf?pfl^miRif ^'tecA ttesR ^i31^T3(^T 4. Prosecution examinejd 16 witnesses at the trial. Statement of accused wast recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denie^i the material appearing against him. He stated that he i^ innocent, he has been falselv unplicatecl in tne crune. l-ie result of which, he received further stated that at about 7.00 pm he was cracktng joke^ with son of Bhaiyalal namely Ghanshyam, on which Gha(ishyaDi gave beattng to him, as a iniuries. He was at his residence and fhe report was lodged |against him, he has been falsely unplicated in tfae crtme. pe also examined two defence witnesses namelv D.W. 1 IpUip Yadav and D.W. 2 Dr. B.P. Manesnwar, wno exainined l(lae inluries present on the person of the accused. 5. Leamed Sessions Judbe after hearing fhe counsel for the respective parties, conv^cted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned. 6. We have heard Shri Saiirabh Dangi on behatf of the accused-appellant and Shri. on behatfofthe State. U.N.S. Deo with Shri C.R. Sahu (>te^r) XI-HC-22 an^rgff R-ii+an^r sb*<[«tidf?a' sb*<l«ti 3^'^iraRpr, ®x(1+l'ls,lq<rtl«y 6 3TT^?T tra<h *<iini shHi<*> Wt 200 Ri<>oA StI^TWiTWHfecr 7. Homicidal deafh of BC leamed counsel for fh( Koshahrabai, wife of the de<|: question has stated fhat] husband BhaiYalal wifh conducted post mortem hd nas stated ttiat Uiere was bone was fractured, brain and commg out ot e sJKuUl there was incised wound esj zygomaUc prominence, th| uause ot aeatti was naemol He opined that head injury) of nature to cause death. tn view of the above ocij established that death of BII y. As tar as uivolvem.entl m question is concemed, deceased has stated fhat ac on the fateful night at abo road along with his child. A =bi^ffi'lfl-f i<iucfffftecfl'<Ri+ai< ^gri^irsn^T haiyalal has not been disputed bv appeUant, moreover P.w. 1 :eased who witnessed the criuie in accused Deepak attacked her xe. Dr. B.C. Jain i'P.W. 10) who is stated that on 10-11-1998. He n incised wound on skull, panetal material was visible from. fracture bratn was crushed and lacerated, [tendmg from. below lower evelid to ;re was fracture of rir^i finger. |T4age on account ot faead injiiry. was sufficient in ordinarv course ps report is Ex. P-16A. Therefore, tlar and medical evidence, it is taivalal was homicidal in nature. |of accused appeUant in the criiae 1 P.W. 2 Ghanshyam, son of the ;used is resident of same vicinity, i|ut 9.30 p.m. he was stroUing on fhat tune, accused Deepak came (^^fet) XI-HC-22 ^s? •^i'yi^4, «Tn<fl'is,(si<ii«y 3T(^5T q^tb HltlMI BlNTch V^ 200 Rl'bod SII^T^iT fewan^r a?iRigf?tT STT^T g^cfT^ ef^cT +l<<(<'f'!fl-1 WRTt' if to^t (RRZR: ^; sri^ir sn^sfr fhere. He slapped hiin an<B there, on which, he raised scene. Bovs of fhe vicyutv tt beating to hira, accused wat liquor for hiin. Thereafter saving that he wiU go and 4 of house of Jairam, accusecj neara commouon, came ou|t fafher was Iving and accuse|l his hand, police also came] fafher was taken to hospitaj has stated fhat accused D< 1998 her husband died. Ac On the fateful dav at aho\ between her son Ghanshvi took her son to fhe house. were going to house, stie ar^i at fhat tiine, accused came her husband 4-5 tunes, became uiiconscious. She f\ and her husband was taj Ghanshvam also went to said as to whv vou are sittini ;ries and his m.0ther came on tfae )ok him to residence. wfaile givin^ ^ saymg that you have to arrange tus tafher went out ot ttie house idvise Deepak. Thereafter in front attacked his father wifh axe. He of fhe house and saw that his was sitting there holding axe in on fhe scene and, fhereafter his in a'Tempo. P.W. 1 Koshalvabai ^epak is known to her. At 9-11- tcused is resident of her vicinity. tt 7.00 p.m. there was a scuffle ^m. and Deepak. Thereafter she |A/hen after separating them, fhey jd her husband was behind them, tyith axe and attacked on head of 1s a result which her husband feised cries but nobodv came out Tfen to fhe hospital in Tempo. fhe nospital. T'hereafter police (Ifl^^fe^) Xt-HC-22 sn^TW tewsn^T Shtli* gf?(T ^^ ^, ^St ^||l|lf14, tSITllu'IS, Rt'-IIUy 3n^?T qa<t> Wntl 9)HI<*> V^ 200 R()«d sn^TWareRflfer people came ana sne loa station. 9. Leamed counsel for argued that, material witne( the incident took place, prosecuuon, parucularlY witness examuied, therefor^ independent witness Jairarii agamst me accused, tnel cannot be believed wittioul contradictions, omissions Injuries sustained by the ac| the prosecution. Thereforb acquittal. He placed relianc|( m Che matter of Takhall Chamaaslaeai and anothe *ioi<-<4l-i WRff ff teA <Ri«;i< ^siRiirsn^T pci report EX. jj-l in me poiice [he appellant Shri Saurabh Dangi ^s Jairam in front ofwhose house, [has not been exaniined bv the en Koshalvabai was fhe onlv ;, it was necessan? to examine fhe in order to establish the charge l^fore, testimonv of Koshalvabai anv corroDoranon on account ot |and mfirmities in her evidence. (cused have not been explained bv ttie accused is entitled tor on the judginent of Apex Conrt IHlraii -v- Thakore Kubersingh jeported m (2001 6 SCC 14S, State of Punjab -v- Harba^is Slneh and another reported in (20031 11 SCC 203, Zatilra HabibuUa H. Shelkh and anotfaer -v- State of Guiariat and others reported in (20041 4 SCC 1S8, ItelYan^-v-^S^iteorU.P.reported m (20011 9 (•fl^y^) c XI-HC-22 3^ •^iiilcl'il, ®TTI^'IC,Riyiuy sv^ 4a«h HTqpfTShHlth V^ 200 Rl'b.d 3t)^T^T Ri-fi+sn^T giiiRigfsa' 3II^TS¥BTWflfS(T +i<i?i'i<11-< tOwTffte^t^^K ^isrf^iTsn^T scc 632 and Subramslnl and others -v- State of Tamllnadu reported. in (20Q21 7 SCC 210. 10. On fhe other hfindl supported fhe judgment of^ 11. Having heard the lea| have perused the record of tf leamed counsel for the state he trial Court. med coiinsel for the parties, we be trial Court. l^. As tar as non-exanil perusal of tfae order sheets shows tnat witness Jairaml evidence. On 8-3-1999, son applicauon Uiat .Jatram is Again he was sumuioned 1999 shows that Jairam wa watk. This witness was 'l'neretore, tor the above rea' was not examined bv tfae Regarding non-examination matter of Taktia.JIL HiralL- I's reiiaDle evictence is aireaclv witnesses would only be (lation ot .jairam is concemed, ot the recorct ot me tnai uourt m fact, was summoned to give |q^ Jairain nainely Siinil nioved an p^ralytic and he is unable to walk. E|nd perusal of order dated 12-3- i|s paralytic and he was unable to Lbandoned by the prosecution. ton, it cannot be said that Jairani tirosecution wifhout anv reason. ]of witness, the Apex Court in fhe .(s|upral held fhat if overwhelmint ilvailable and exaniination of other repeUtion, non-examinauon ot (•fl^ys^) XI-HC-22 ai^BT^T R-li+an^r giiiNigf?;!' fmssi^, 3^'^iraRra, siflu'is, (stfiiuy '^ 10 snit^T 4ath «TRWISh*<l» V^ 200 (^M 3tI^TST(IRrcHli(T =bl*ll<-<41-1 WRTt ffteS <Rltd]< ^srf^Tgn^r such witnesses would not yfect the prosecution case. In fhe present case, it is true th^t only two eye-witnesses nam.ely P.W. 1 Koshalvabai, wjjf^ •/ unansnyam, son ot uie becaaie paralytic and was of the deceased and P.W. 2 deceased have been examined. Jairam has not been exantined, but for fhe reason that he unable to walk, therefore, it was not possible tbr fhe prosecitition to examine that wimess and in the ciTcumstances, no against the prosecutlon tor matter of Harbans Singh's, and fhe other witness namd the incident and carried t] most of tune, he was wifh ti iadverse interence can tie ctrawn lion-examination ofJairam. ui the bnlv two witnesses were examined tlv Darshan Singh who witnessed tie/deceased to the hospital and tiem, was not examined, fhe Apex Court held that since clofilies of the witnesses P.W. 4 and P.W. 11 were not found stained with blood, therefore, there is considerable doubt about ^resence of these witnesses at the time of uicident and fhe rlon-examination of Darshan was held to be fatal for prosecu&tin. 13. In fhe present case, m|fact, Jairam was summoned and he becaine paralytic andit ^as not possible to examine mm. and he was abandoned. Thei|-efore, judgments cited by leamed (tft^^it) XI-HC-22 3)I^T^T i^:TR?3n^T SbliliH^cT 3^ •-'IWId'il, »-rfl*ri6,l»iditfy 11 3TT^7T Mach TIWfl shllW ffl 200 (cl()«d, 3I1^T S^ITW ^?(( counsel for fhe appellant witness are of no help to t|: the case. ^arding non-examination of the le accused looking to the facts of 14. As far as non-explan^t person ot Uie accusect is Jtilraii ('supra'), ffae Apex Goibrt as a matter of law or accused sustained an inj^ry prosecution is obliged to of the prosecution to do sc|, disbeUeved. Before non-exl person ot tne accused pers[ may attect Uie prosecution, the existence of twro condj person of the accused was such injuries must have occurrence m quesuon. N01 greater signiticance when fl or parusan witnesses or wJ wmcn competes m protiabitilEy case of Subramanl and cdnceiTiecl, Goihit mvenaDlv uiji^ry e^plain wrf?I^-T WRff ff f&^t'rfwCTC ^3Tl^IT3fI^T [tion ol me miunes present on uie m me matter of TalEhafl held fhat it cannot be held that a rule that whenever the ^ry in the same occurrence, the the tnjiiry and on fhe failure the prosecution case should be t)lanation of fhe Iniuries on the lpn& by the prosecution witnesses fhe Court has to be satisfied of [tions: (ij that fhe mjury on the |of a serious natLire; and (ii'l that t>een caused at fhe time of the i-explanation of iniuries assumes be evidence consists of interested )|iere e evidence gives a verslon i|Sy with that of the prosecution. In (supra), the Apex Court held otUers ^ (^yN) I-HC-22 sn^TW R-ii+sn^r gi'triqitifN i^s-s<;ta^ .1 i:'t"?a"ISii2a!a 3:s?-^|i|lcl4, ®T(iy'is,Ridiuy 12 3T1^?T Miftb 11HMI ShHlth V^ 200 Ri<>4 Sfl^T S^ttTW tlftcT Ufeht mat uie tact uiat uijunes prosecution ot its obligaqc uiterence Uiat prosecution J)i of the occurrence. In the Hfch examine fhe present case, wno examined uie accus< following inturies (T| One coiti 4", reddish in coloiir; (ii) c<] size ol 3 cm x 2 cm, reaais^ nng tmger in size ot 1 cm; size of 3cm x 2cm., reddish ij left thigh 3cm x 1 '/a cm red< ray was advised and injuri^ were caused by hard and marks on ffae clothes of th|i there is nothing on record t( or latal in nature. P.W. 1| evidence that tfaere was s^ accused and fhereafter shc moreover F.w. 2 unansnyaiB scufue between him and acc sustain smiple injunes m th +1<<(<-|4)-1 WRTt ff fecA <1'»1'KK ^aTf^irsn^T yere sim.ple, does not rclieve the )n, on tailure, cozirt can araw ias not presented the true version of tlie above judgments, if we the D.W. 2 Dr. V.P. Maheshwar id has stated fhat there were tusion on left elbow loint size 4" x >ntusion on palm. of left hand in ui colour, (iu) Abrasion on right iv) one contusion on lett Uu.gn m. fi colour; and ('v') one contusion on l.isn jn coiour. b'or mjury NO. l, x- ;S N0. '2, tO O were sunple wmcn ^lunt object. There was no blood accused. In fhe first instance, snow tnat miunes were gnevous Koshalvabai has stated in her fciiffle between his son and fhe brought her son to fhe house, fo- has also stated fhat there was lised, ftierefore, it was possible to scuffle. Therefore, we are of fhe ^ f- r (tft^y^) XI-HC-22 STI^T^T R-fi* sn^r Sh1 (lf?(T Shllti 73f ^iwidit, ®Tflu'is,I'lciiuy 13 3T1^?T qsTiSb *11*<ni 9)*<|ch ^ 200 (^•bod SD^T^gTWflf^cT considered opinion that tt|i ttie accused cloes not attectl 15. The third point raised accused mat Uiere are uicit the evidence of P.W. 1 recorded under Section 16 First Information Report. 9 Court on me contradictionsl ib. we na.ve perusect tfae l'2 and 13 ot ner eviclencej report Ex. P-1 and stateHtent wnen Uiey were retumlng unansnvam, ner nusband ^ in Ex. P-1 and Ex. D-1,she| before the police tfaat the and assaultect 4-£> tune ui| cries, why these thtngs hav| and Ex. D-1, she does not Deepak has not caught hei intervened when Deepak an< <*i«t<-f'in-<iTTOff ^'tscs <Ri«i< ^iari^iTsn^T point raised bv the coiinsel for the case of ttie prosecution. bv the counsel for the appeuant- msistencies and contradictions in fCoshalvabai wltti tier statement of Cr.P.C. iinder Ex. D-1 as also has drawn fhe attention of this levidence of Koshalyabai. In paras she has stated that whue ghrin$ Ex. D-1, she disclosed ttiat ^tter separatm.g the accused and TQS behind, why it was not written Idoes not know. She also disclosed ^ccused brought axe from house the head, on which, she raised not been written in the Ex. P-1 lcnow, She has further stated that from her heirs and she had not ^L Ghanshyam were quarreling nor (^y^) Xl-HC-22 SfI^T^T (^•littisn^T giirR>?rf?(r sw"a;^s«st p'BB'tsSt 3^ •^ll'Mlcl*), »T(1u'is,Rt<-iiuy 14 3TT^?T tra«h tiiini giWtt) Wi; 200 RM 3Fn^?T ^cTTSER ^rf^T Bx sne separated mem and $ portion that "Ghanshvam .1, she does not disclosed in Efc tnere are some contradicnol and his police statement the evidence of P.W. 1 totality. P.W. 2 Ghanshvanti that after taktng dinner, b|i child. At that time accusec) desaanded liquor. Therea) com.motlon, his m.other cara|< tne nouse. 'rnereatter wnei father of Ghanshyam and know about the incident. Ht advise Deepak. He went oi4 fhe axe on his head. E'vic corroborated by the raedics V.K. Damle, who has statedl head obliquely placed on incised wound on left tem incised wound on index fmg^ Kosh|alyabai +l'!<I<-f'ifl-f TORTt' ff fS'S (RRZR ^3(f^IT3(^T •ne even not touctied uiem. 'l'ne .tnro\vn on tne groLinct" x. P-1 and Ex. D-1. It is true fhat ns between the evidence of P.W. 2 ;x. D-2 but we have to appreciate and P.W. 2 Ghanshyam iii L, son of the deceased has stated was stroUing on road with his met him and slapped him, and fler, tie raised cnes. Hearmg and intervenect, sne tooK nim m. [i ttyey went to house, Bhaiyalal, [lusband of Koshalyabai, canie to said that he wiU go outside and (tside, Deepak attacked hun with lence of these two wimesses is )1 evidence of doctor P.W. 16 Dr. that there was incised wound on |)ofh parietal bones and another iporal region, t&ere was anotner ^r, and abrasion on the forearm. < (^^feit) Xl-HC-22 sn^T^r Ri^.icb sn^r g;iiN;g1?d' ^i^'i!lt^.L.-. ""!;'t>Sg;tsa[ 'sss ^)|i||^4, siTn<ri'iG, Rdi'yy 15 3TT^T *<si<h • inWTTShlltt) ^ 200 Rl'b^, 3II^T¥RITW(lfer hbs 17. As far as the argumeili that P.w. 1 Koshalvabai made bv the accused on t<( atter 4 monfhs ot ftie incj possibuity of such contradilc wounds on the head and hsb ot Uie deceasecl as per medK] iniuries must have been si from the attack of the ack offence and medical repoil attacnecl to ttie above contradictions in fhe evit Moreover, it is common Ki attacKed witfa cteaclly weapc] any witness to count that attacked the victim. 'The memorv gives evidence reeait by the accused. The evidenc< 2 Ghanshvam inspires that the incident said to he p.m. ana Uie report was Out Post, Chikhli of Policc *ioiff'ifl-f WRTt' ff f^S rfaRerc ^3l1^IT3fT^T it of the counsel for the appeuant stated that 4-5 assaults were tfead, her statement was recorded [dent, fherefore, fhere was every rtions. As niany as fhree incised isbid and one abrasion on the hand tal evidence were found. The hand istained whUe protecting himself ;used, fherefore, lookin^ to the L, much unportance cannot be inconsistencies or so caUed ttence ot P.W. i Kosnalvabai. lowledge that when a person is jn like axe, it is very difRciilt for tow many ttmes fhe accused has tvitness normallv based on his Idtng fhe number of assault made k of P.W. 1 Koshalvabai and P.W. confitience of the Court on fhe groiind ttte taken place at about 9- 9.30 lodfeed by P.W. 1 Koshalvabai in. the Statipn Rainandgaon at 10.00 (if^^r) ,; :F f XI-HC-22 31^51 qiT feri^an^r st!^w tifer s^ -tii'yici^, aTnu'is, Ri<'iwy 16 3TT^T ^atti WWtl 9>*<l<h g^ 200 Rre^ sn^T OTararflfer p.m., ttieretore, the report wnicn name ot tne ac^ categoricallv mentioned. Moj these two witnesses P.wl. Ghanshvara, the defence these two wiuiesses that the|i accused and the com.plainarl have falselv inipUcated the| Even the accused in stateml has stated ftiat he is innoct crime as at about 7.00 p. unanstiyam, ttieretore, result of which he sustained has further stated that at| residence. He has not sustained tatal iniuries and| P.W. 1 Koshalvabai and P.V^ the accused in such a seri( reason, does not sound to evidence of P.W. 1 atso F.LR. Ex. P-1 and Gorroborates each ofher in Was Has explaiped Koshalvatiai +i<ifc«fl-ftiiu<-iT^'teIA<Riwi<. ^sri^rsn^T GMan lodged wifh aU. promptness in ;used as assauant nas Deen ;over in the cross-examination of 1 Koshalvabai and P.W. 2 not been abie to elicit from re was anv amuiosity between Uie partv, on account of wluch they accused in sucn senous cnme. ;nt under Seetion 313 of Cr.P.C. snt and falsely hnplicated in the |ii. he was cracking iokes wifh jan^hyam assaulted him., as a injm-ies on hand and finger. He about 9.00 pm he was at his anything as to how Bhaiyalal whv these two persons nacaelv 2 Ghanshvam have unplicated tus crim.e without any rhvme or |ie reason. After scrutinizing the ^ai and P.W. 2 Ghanshvam.as fhe medical evidence which lDiaten.at particulars, we do not (<i^^)wt) ,^ ^ XI-HC-22 STI^T^T (S^icfc 3I^T shxiti wf^S 3^'BtFt1?ra', aTny'16, Riciwy 17 3:n^T Math l(Tqwrsh*l|th ^ 200 RM an^T^dTwafN' Snd any material inconsisl maKe uie evidence ot mes< unreliable. 18. Shri Dangi lastlv intention to cause aeatn ot a spur ot moment, thereton Section 302 of I.P.C. is evidence. aiKued fhat fhe accused had no |Bnalyalal, everyttur^ nappened m ;, convietion of the accused under tiot based on legallv adiaissible 19. On the other hand,| supportea mejuctgment ol t| 20. In order to appreciat^ leamea counsei tor ttie appf as weU as medical evidenc^ that when Ghanshyam. was after taking dtnner, accused] tiun to arrange Uquor, wnicfi which he started quarreling Hearing commotion, his raoflher the residence, thereafter Ghanshvam came out of ttie ^ +i'lit!'i41-f t<iti<-ft'fftoA<Ri^i< ^sri^iTsn^r incy or contradicuon so as to two wimesses iintrustwortnv or leamed counsel for fhe State tie trial Court. ftie argument advanced by fhe Uant, we have perused the ocular ;. The case of the prosecution is strolling on road with his child appeared on fhe scene and asked was refused by Ghanshvain, on ing and slapped Ghanshyam. cacae and she took her son to cteeeasect Bnaiyalal, fauier ot house saving that he will advise (^^fe*) -; ^ XI-HC-22 3n^T?>r IS.-fi* sn^r OTRi^r (\y sa' '<<|i|ld4, E!i'rflu'i<o,(»«'iwy 1S 3TI^T qflth tlTOCtlSbllfl ^ 200 R<!^, sn^fTCTtnwHf^r Deepak, why he is quarrel^ and asked Deepak, accusedl eviaence ot ur. y.u. Jaui (| mortem reveals that there m1urv was extending from the size of 9cm x 3cm. x 5]