WWWButtmae »<H»»«BWW»*«t»«<»>W WW 'eitSW i^S^§i3^S-i®S^;^SS»^^S^^^^^ ^.s' ^ ^^'TC." ^\- -z^^ \ }" ^ V?,vc-, "(. ^c^.^ '°1 > '^.'•^-'^ ' r^-^:. s l^. 1 s' ^•VJ —I ^l 5 .1 «a -1., •*, s\: ~~i '' -I •-( -h ^ a\ '3 -3 -, ^, -I: .-1. -< vs< ^ 1 -• c^ V-a /*-( \ •" -a) ^ 'll? s? ^' >c 1 ^ff ^3. -a 3 ac 1 ^l' ..(^ija ^ J1J ^) 31 1 a|''i s^i i - -Sl.l. -, ^ -^' /<A)[ ^\J \ -^O I 1 ^ i '•a.' -U !>AI 3\^.<;i ffl ( a) ~<J -qi .ai'i -)'' .i1|' 1 .34 •Si ! -! • •i% 1 --Vv 3 (•^1 wa ^I-I' —( .<GI s '../*-'... "-* •-1 !'' - -o .^ » \a <M -<j ^ ?c a)1 J3-f' iEl! ^ ^ 1-« i ••€ (CT' ^''. ^ s)1 ~* o-i - . yw <d -si' *• -a .-Eit a—t 31 ^ ^at ^ ^ \d •y ^c s' °^1 s< ffl —o s< "»'.'y - —fYa a ^, ^ "^ ^\lc. \ 'a ':B ' ^* .-) Gi <3i u> lifSH ns •Ul A. ;=-. B.T RJI ,lTLi E FTt 1 inffaE-ra State of Madhya Pradesh ispondents 1 Bhoju @ Bhojram Sahu,aged 25 years H<s?»ri 2 Lakhansai, S/o Ramiai Kenwat, aged 2! years •esent: Shri VVS Murthy, Deputy Advocate General for appeliant / State. None for respondent No.1 Bhoju @ Bhojram. Shci Praful Bharat, Amicus Curiae for respondent No.2 Lakhanlal. The fotlowing judgment of the Court was passed by Q^ ?. ,.-E .—T.;• f^-Fnm^..^ ff^ J Kc^jBBV. i^Upi^ {iJ^J= The appellant / State has fited this appea! against ihe impugned judgment of acquittai dated 17.10.1985, passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, Camp Baloda Bazar in Sessions Trial No.50/1985, whereby respondents / accused Shojram, LakhaRlal, Gendram, Vedram, Mohitram and Puhuram were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read v-.'lth Sectlon 34 of the i.ndian Penal Code. persons Bhoju ^^s*;s^^ i:^ .^"-^^ 1 2) Poiice Bhatapara, district Raipur sfter completion of the investigation of the case reaistered on the report of PVW1 Shivkumar, brother of deceased Rajaram, charge-sheeted as many as six accused persons, namely, Bhoju @ Bhojram, Lakhanlai, Gendram, Vedram, Mohitram and Puhuram for the alSeged.commlsslon ofthe ofrence punishabie under Section 302 read with. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the accusation of their having committed murder of Rajaram in the evening of 26.10.1984. 3) TS^e accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded fatse impiication to the charae framed bv the tria! Court under Section 302 read with Ssction 34 ofthe IPC. 4) At the triai, the above charges against the accused persons were sought to be proved on the evidence of PW-1 Shivkumar, FW-2 Santosh, PW-3 Jagdish Prasad, PW-4 Biranchi Dehari, RA/-5 Dr SA Matunae, and PW-6 DP Shukia. Ti i Is accused persons also examined DW-1 Chandrik; Prasad Sa.hu in support of their defence. 6) The tria! Court on a close scrutinv of the entire evidence !ed by the prosecution and the defence though heid that deceased Rajaram died homicidal death on account of t'ne Injuries sustalned by 'nim in the evsning of 26.10.1984, found that t.he prosecution evldence feil short of establishing the above charge against the accused persons. The tria! Court, therefore, acquitted the accused persons of the charge under Section 302 \ &"'°'% :ti*l 1 y'^ SteMCSS?' with S ith Section 34 of the Indian Penai Code vide impuQned > s h^^ms^"*1- r'^fffii^l -1 "7 -f H 1 Q? juuys i wi ii ucii^u E ?. EU. E t?oo. 7) Initlaily, the acquittal of all the six accused persons was cha!!enged by' the State by seeking ieave to appeai, but, vida order dated 02.11.1989 passed in M.Cr.C.No.327'1986, leave was granied oniy against the acquittai of respondents No.1 Bhoju @ Bhojram & No,2 Lakhanial and leave was refused igainst the acquittal of respondents No.S.Gendram, 4.Vedram, 5. Mohitram and G.Puhuram. shri V SVIUi ts iV, Ipa Ar1vrsr;^t"^ f^?anfflr^i .'iwS'v'\^-^tW.~^^ *—r^.fi iSi Sii vehsmentiy argued that that trial Court has erred in discarding thf i'/idence of the informant PW-1 Shivkumar and the eyewitness PW-2 Santosh on flimsv and un-tenabie arounds. Learned Deputy Advocate Generai further submitted that the evidence of prosecution v.'itnesses taken together is more than sufficient to estabiish the charge of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal -Gode aflainst respondents No.1 Bhoju @ Bhojram & No.2 Lakhanlai. 9) Shri Prafu! Bharat, learned Amicus Curiae for respondent No.2 on tiie other hand supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and contended that the evidence of PW-2 Santosh, the soiitary eyewitness in this case has been rightly discarded by the trial Court as his evidence suffers from serious infirmitles. Lsarned counse! further submitted that the evidence of FW-1 Sh.ivkumsr, the informant and the only witness about fhe aileged t ^ »J i4 extra judicial confession of respondent / accused Lakhanlal is aiso not worthy of credence. 10) The fact that deceased Rajaram died homicidal death on account of the injuries sustained by him in the evening of 26.10.1984 was neither under challenge befors the trial Court, nor is disputed before us in this appeai. 11) The entire prosecution case against the accused persons hinges on the solitary eyewitness account of PW-2 Santosh. 12) PW-2 Santosh is a child witness aged about nine years and is son of deceased Rajaram. Though he ciaims to have seen the accused persons assaulting his father Rajaram and disclosed ibout the incident to the first informant, who happens to be his uncie PVJ-1 Shivkumar before lodgina of the First Informatlon Report, the material facts that accused persons Bhoju Bhojram, Lakhanlal, Gendram, Vedram, Mohitram and Puhuram were the assailants ofdeceased Rajaram and PW-^.Santosh was an eyewitness of the alleged incident of murder of his father, have not been mentioned in the First information Report at a!I. The omission of the above material fact in the First information Report would certainiy lead to the inference that PW-2 Santosh in fact dici not witness the incident at all and is a got-up eyewitness. The trial Court, in our opinion, in view of the above broad features, has rightly discarded the evidence of the soiitary eyewitness PW-2 Santosh. 1 •^ <»•• 13) The other piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution before the triai court was about the alleged extra judicial confession of respondent / accused Lakhanial before tf-1 Shivkumar. 14) PW-1 Shivkumar in hls deposition before the triai Court has stated that when he reached near the house of Karthik Ram, where his brother Rajaram (deceased) was iying, 'ne found that accused Lakhanlal was standina there Vi'ith a knife in hls hand and on his query, as to who has caused the injuries on his brother Rajaram, accused Lakhanial made ' an extra judicial confession admittirig that he has caused the injuries on Rajaram bv means of knife. True, the witness did mention thls fact in his Flrst Information Report (Ex.P/1), but in his cross-examination in paras 2 & 4 he admitted that when he reached near the house of Karthlk Ram, where his brother Rajaram was lying injured, 'ne did not find any other person and he did not taikto any person at that place. In viev/ ofthe above categoric admission ofthis witness In his cross-examination, t'ne presence of accused Lakhanial near the place where Rajaram was lying injured when this witness PVv-1 Shivkumar reached there becomes hlghly doubtfui. 15) The other connecting evidence against accused persons ihoju @ Bhojram and Lakhania! was about the alleged seizure of knife from Bhoju @ Bhojram snd Paijama & shirt of Lakhsnlal which were aileged to be stained with blood is of no he!p to the prosecution as no Serologist report was produced before the triai Court to estabiish that any of these articles were stained with 16) !n an appeal against acquittal If two viev/s on tt prosecution evidence are possibie and the tria! Court has tata the accused persons, then it wili not be ^ :!li=tp C^niiri" fn r^y^r?^ thp ' finfilnn rsf ;i i, i<-> E ^ ¥(SEiS>^ t.S 1G f ii iUsi tM '^'s one vi.sw Tavourable permissible for the acquittal by taklng the other possibie view on the prosecution •vidence. 17) Fo'r t'ne foregoing reasons, we do not find any suc'n infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquitta! which may warrant interference in this appeai aaalnst acquittal. 18) The appeal filed by the appeliant/ State against the acqulrial of respondents/ accused persons Bhoju @ Bhojram and Lakhanlali therefore, is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby subt Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ~T