^ S»aliSiiJ HIGH COURT OP CHHAGGISGAR AT BILASPILR Cr.Appeal No. 600/1989 RamNafh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhatdsgarh) JUDGMEBT Hon'ble ShriJustice Fakhruddui CCW^-9lr EQr_Consideration Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge •)-•>- .U0.2UUO Sd/- Fakhruddin AS .06.2005 Postfor ^'7.06.2005 Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge \5^06.2005 HIGH COURT OF CHHAGGISGAR AT BILASPUR Cr-Appeal No. 600/1989 Ram. Nath Vs. State of Madhya Pradesb (now Chhattisgarh) CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI FAKHRUDDIN, HON'BLE SHRI DILIP R. DESHMUKH, JJ Shri B.N.Paadey, couusel for fhe appeUaut. Shri Akhil Mishra, P.L. for the State. J_UDGME^NT PetLDiUp R. Deslimukh, J, This appeal is directed agauist fhe judgment dated 6*b June 1989 by Shri K.L.Kori, II Addl. Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No.47/89 whereby the accused-appeUaut has been convicted uader Section 302 I.P.C. for coiumittmg iniu-der ofbis grand father 'Chudu' on 7th Januaiy 1989 at about 8.30 P.M. in vfflage Ulkhar, PoUce Station Sarangarh, District Ra^arh aad sentenced to uader ^o unprisouiaent for life. 2. If is not disputed that the accused appeUant-Rani Nafh is the son of Harihar P.W.l and the graadson of the deceased aad Laxmi Bai P.W.2; Dadurain P.W.3 is ftie uiicle ofdeceased 'Chudu and resided ia close vicinlty of the house of the deceased. 3. Briefly stated the prosecution stoiy is fhat since about two yeara prior to the date of occurreiice, tfae accused appetlant-Raiu Nath aad his father Hanhar P.W. 1 were Uving in the sauie house &/ P''1 ^KtBiiW aii ii-'?j! - 2-- with the deceased 'Chudu' aad Laxini Bai P.W.2, fhough in separate rooius. 'Chudu' beiag an old ruaa was unable to cultivate, and fherefore, Hariliar P.W. 1 was lookiag after his parents. 'Chudu' aad the accused appetlarit did not go along weU aad used to fight frequeutly. On the night of occurrence i.e. at about 8.30 P.M. on 7ttl Januaiy 1989 a quarrcl ensued between the accused appeUaat aud 'Chudu' whereupon the accused appeUaut dealt lathi blows upon 'Chudu' on the head, chest and haud. Chudu' succuiabcd to the injuries in fhe night inside the house. Harihar P.W. l who was taking out paddy from fhe Kofha saw the iucident aad lodged F.I.R. EX.P. 1 at Police Station Sarangarh on 8th Januaiy 1989 at 9.00 A.M. Sub-Inspector Mukesh Khare P.W.8 reached the spot on the same day and prepared Panchnama of the dead body of 'Chudu'. Dr. Iqbal Siagh conducted tbe post-iuortexn examination 8.1.1989 at 4.00 P.M. on the body of 'Chudu' and found the foUowing wouiids: 1) A bony deep lacerated wound on right side of forehead near light temporal area size 4" loag; 2) One lacerated wound 1 Vz" traasverse and Unear on posterior aspect of right arm 2" proximal to rigbt elbow. Bony continuity of huiaerous is lost. Creptatin present. iracture ofright humerous was found; 3) A contusion sized 3" x 2"on right side of chest at iilfi-a clavicular area; and 4)~A/lacerated wound on fhe posterior aspect of fhe right forearm at its iniddle sized 1" linear and transverse. 4. Upon dissection, he found fhat fiontal aad right bone were fractured with subdural and extradural beiuorrhage and right 2nd, 3rd aad 4th rib were fi-actured with clotted blood present In his ~~ 3 -3 H opinion, the cause of death was shock due to uitra crauial haeinorrhage and ioJTuy to vital oi^ans like bram. Deafh was hoinicidal in nature. Qlood stained soil, sunple soU. aad nonnal soil were seized vide Ex.P.9. At the iastance of fhe accused appeUant, one thick bainboo stick haviag 5 knots was seized by Mukesh Kfaare P.W.8 vide Ex.P.8. Upon being sent for cheiaical examiaation to the Forensic Science Laboratoiy, Sagar (M.P.), presence of blood, was confinned on fhe bamboo stick seized from. the accused appeUaat vide report Ex.P.17. After coiupletion of investigation, the accused appeUaat was brought to trial. 5. The accused appeUant abjured his guilt aad did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. The prosecution examiaed Harihar P.W.l, Laxini Bai P.W.2, Dadiu-am P.W.3., Ghurau P.W.4, Gopal Prasad Verma P.W.5. AU fhese witnesses tumed hostile and did not depose against the accused appeUant. Dr. Iqbal Singh P.W.7 proved fhe post-inortein examination report Ex. P. 13 and Sub-Inspector Mukesh Khare P.W.8 proved fhe fact of lodgiag of F.I.R. Ex.P.l by Hariliar on 8.1.1989 at 9.00 A.M. and the fact of seizure ofbamboo stick on the nieinorandum ofaccused appeUaiit. 7. The trial Court upon consideration ofthe inedical evidence of Dr. Iqbal,.Singh P.W.7 held that deafh of 'Chudu' was homicidal -. / and could not be caused by fall as was suggested by hostile witaess Harihar P.W. 1 aad Laxmi Bai P.W.2. In paragraph 16, it found fhat witnesses Harihar P.W.l and Laxmi Bai P.W.2 had falsely deposed fhat while takmg out-paddy, 'Chudu' had a faU (-3'^ l»tltii ^ll] W! inside fhe Kotha and sustained injuries. In paragraph 18, the trial Court found that fhe defence of the accused that the deceased had gone up to reniove fhe paddy aild had a faU was wholly unreliable. It also placed reliance upon. the factiun oflodging ofF.I.R. Ex.p.l by Harihar P.W. 1, father of fhe accused appellant. Reliance was also placed on fhe testimony of Dadurani P.W.3 fhat at inidxiight on the date of occurrence Harihar P.W. l had coine to his house and told him that Ramnath had killed his fafher 'Chudu' whereupon he went to the house of Hanb.ar aad fouiid that 'Chudu' was lying inside his rooni and that blood was oozing froiil his head aad ofher iajuries were present on the body. 'Chudu' was ili a state of unconsciousness and was not able to speak. The tlial Judge held that the accused appeUant was present iaside fhe house on the date and time of occurrence and after fhe iucident went away from. his house, as narrated by Daduram. P.W.3 which also proved beyond doubt fhat it was the accused alone who had caused the death of'Chudu'. On the basis of these fiadiugs, fhe trial Court convicted fhe accused appeUaat under Section 302 I.P.C. for coiiunitting fhe miurder of 'Chudu' aad sentenced liim to imprisoninent for life. 8. It is setfled law fhat the burden is on fhe prosecution to prove ftie.''guUt of the accused beyond aU reasoaable doubt. This / .burden never shifits. The approach of the trial Court has been faulty as it drew iaference against the accused on the basis offhe lacuna ia ftie defence version. The accused need not estabUsh his ^Sh^r/* -5- i;)'i!ll!)t! innocence. It is the duty ofthe prosecutkin to bring honie fhe guilt of fhe accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 9. Harihar P.W.l h^s stated that at about 11. A.M. whffle his fafher 'Chudu' was takmg out fhe paddy from. the above Kotha for feeding the cattle, he feU down aad fouiid fhat 'Chudu' had sustaiaed injuiy ia fhe head aaa hand aad was unconscious. He has denied lodging of F.I.R. as per Ex.P.l. Thus, fhere is nothing in his testunony agaiast the accused appellant. Laxnii Bai P.W.2 is fhe widow offhe deceased. She has also narrated that in fhe night her husbaad 'Chudu' went above fhe Kofha for taking out the paddy to feed the cattle aad had a faU. She has clearly stated that 'Chudu' had sustained injuries due to faU froiii the above Kotha. This witness is fhe wife of fhe deceased. She would not Uke to shield fhe accused appeUant if he was responsible for causing the death of her husbaad. Thus, bofh Harihar P.W. 1 and Laxmi Bai P.W.2 who were eye witnesses have not deposed against the accused appeUant. The testicaony of Daduram P.W.3 fhat Hanhar had told him that Ram. Nafh had kffled his father 'Chudu' is inerely hearsay. He has stated that on reachiag fhe house of Harihar, he fouiid that the accused was also present iaside the house. This witaess has also been declared hostile aad was cross-examined by fhe prosftcution. Nothiag has been elicited ia his cross- / exaraiuiation against the accused appeUaat. Ghurau P.W. 4 has also deposed that Harihar had told him that his father 'Chudu'had a fall froin above the house whereupon he had gone to house of Harihar aad saw that 'Chudu' was - lying unconscious. This I 'igail witness has also denied that Hariliar told him that there was a fight between the accused aad 'Chudu' whereia fhe accused had assaulted 'Chudu' by a.1afhi oa fhe head. 10. So far as the report Ex.P.17 of fhe Forensic Science Laboratory is concemed, it does not estabUsh fhat hiiman blood was found on the bamboo stick aUeged to have seized fix>in the accused appeUant. The testunony of Miikesh Khare P.W.8 that he had seized one bamboo stick froin the "Patav" of the house at the instaiice ofthe accused is thus ofno consequence as also found by the trial Judge iu paragraph 15. Thus there is absolutely no evidence in this case which would show that it was fhe accused appeUant who had iaflicted fatal blows by a lathi on fhe deceased and who alone was responsible for causing the death of 'Chudu'. The testuaony of Dr. Iqbal Singh P.W.7 only prcwes fhat the iajuries sustained by 'Chudu' could not be caused by a faU but this alone is not sufficient to bring hoine the guilt of the accused appeUaat. 11. It is thus clear that there is absolutely no evidence to connect the accused with the death of 'Chudu'. The trial Judge has stretched his iuaagiaation too far and on the basis of the 'iaedical evidence alone concluded that the defence version was unreUable-'and found fhe accused appeUant guilty. Tbis approach / of fhe trial Court was wholly erroneous as the accused appeUant was not required to prove his ianocence. In this case, siace prosecution has not led auy evidence to coiuiect the accused wifh the death of'Chudu', the conviction ofthe accused appeUant under ^r Scctjon 302 I.P.C. aiid (he seatence awaided fherNiader caiinotbe sustained in the eye oflaw. 12. Consequentty, the appeal is aBawed. The conviction of the appcllaat uader Sectton 302 I.P.C. and fhe sentencc awarded ffaereunder are set aside. TTieaccused appenantisaequittedofflte chaige under Section 302 I.P.C. His bafl bonds shaU stand cancelled. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge ^y.06.2005 Sd<- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge a~).06.2005 YOGENDRA SINGH KANWAR Digitally signed by YOGENDRA SINGH KANWAR Date: 2025.02.20 13:17:58 +0530