•XI-HC—78 •^^ ^i|^|0-q, ^ITfi^^Ko, fcj01^^< C^.^^o.\^<?V|^03 C^.{\^t>. VX^/^ceZ- W^ W^""(:-;"^;"^:"§;"^"^~"'^ 200 aii^r i^^ (^f^<i8r) 3TI^T ^T (<rli<=h ^T^H 'STI^T ^TRNr '^ITW^tcTW^T CRIMINALAt APPELLANT AnandRaml years, residej Distt. Raigaijh (C tffiSPONDENT StateofCMJattisgarh, Distt. Raigatfi (C. CRIMINAL AI^PEAL N0. 1296/2002 ofChhjattisgarh, througb Police Station Lailunga, Raigatfi (C.G.) APPELLANTS 1 Amritlal Ra^at, 26 years 2 LohersaiRa^ 30 years 3 R.amsaiP.awl AU residents | Distt. Raigarlji RESPONDENT StateofChh Distt. Raigar] CRIMINALA APPELLANT Chinta Mani Kedamafh Ra|vat, RESPONDENT State Distt. Raigarhj(C.G.) D.B. Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhaldoo and Hon'bIeShriDhirend ct»i€i{<n^iiiT7Praf ^f^^ <fa^K ^T^fOT^n^r 'PEAL N0.1284/20ft3 son ofUsat Raun Rawat aged about 45 rt ofvillage Saramdega, P.S. Lailunga, :.G.) Versiis son of Anandram RawM, aged about |rat, son ofDhaniram Rawat, ag^i about |t son ofDhamram Rawat, aged 26 years |ofvillage SarMndega, P.S. Lailunga, i (C.G.) 1/ersus (ttisgarh, fhrou^i PoUce Station Lailunga, KC.G.) EAL No. 804/2003 i |<awat, aged about 32 years, Son of R/o. village Sannadega, P,S. Lauunga, Disft. Raigarh (C.G.) ersus ofChhapisgarh, throu^i Police Station Lailunga, a Mishra. JJ. XI-HC—78 ^n^T ^T f<^i<^ ^sn'STT^T ^RW TwT ^i<4i<^Ai, ^TH'y4i(o, isioi-y^ TIPRTT ANIch "rn^ 200 a^r-ro^ (l^il^<^) '^mW^rf^T^T^T 4-4-2007 Sim Ramkumar Tiwari, Adv4^cate for appellant Anandram. Sushri Uslia Chandrakar, Ad^ocate for appellaat Chmtamani Rawat. Smt. Indira Tripatfai, Advoc| Rawat and Ramsai Rawat. Shii Sudhir Bajpaiy Dy. Govt) Arguments heard. Oi'aljudgment dictated on D^is. ORAI Per L.C.Bhadoo. J, : Criminal Appeal No. 1284/; No. 804/2003 ffled by Chintamani sentence dated 4-12-2002 passed by 18/2001 whei'eby leamed Special offence under Section 148 ofLP.C. offence under Section 147 of LP.C. <^S€li<n4ll ^H<?ff "?ffe^ iPt^K '^^f^H^?li^T ite for appellants Aimitiai Rawat, Dohersai Advocate, for fhe respondent/State. JUDGMENT |003 filed by Anand Ram, Crimiiial Appeai p.awat and Criminal Appeal No. 1296/2002 fued by Amritlal Rawat, Lohersai R^jwat and Ramsai Rawat are beiag disposed of by this common judgment as all fhe^e appeals are arising out of same judgment dated 4-12-2002 passed by Special J^dge, Raigarii in Special Case No. 18/2001. These appeals are directed ag^inst fhe judgment crf conviotion and order of ISpecial Judge, Raigarh in Speciai Case No. fudge after holding the accused appellants guilty for coxmnission of offence ujtder Section 302 read wifh Section 149 of I.P.C and accused Anandram, Chint4'am, Ainritlai Rawat and Lohei-sai guilty for ^heyeas acciised-appellaiit Ramsai guilty for sentenced each of the accused-appellcttit to undergo imprisonment for life and t<|) pay a fine ofRs. 2,000/- and in default of payment offine, to further undergo i|iiprisonment for 6 monfhs for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 jof LP.C« accused An<mdram, Chintamam, Amritlal and Lohersai have been ^entenced to undergo one year's R.I. under XI-HC—78 7'^r ^iqi^-q, ?$TTi'y4i<s, fs)0w^<; ^I^T ^T ^i.^ ^STT -3H^T 5h^i4> 'W^T ^W ~"°^ 200 ^?^r ^^ (1^t5^?) ^'WI^R^f^cT 3fl^f Section 148 ofLP.C. and accused year's R.I. under Section 147 ofl.t Case of fhe prosecution, |n brief is that P.W. 1 Membai lodged First Infomiation Report Ex. P-1 in Po4ce Station LaUunga with the aUegation tfiat on Friday 16-7-1999 at about 2.00 p.4i. on coming to know that fheir crop standing .,/in Pakdhoda forest is bemg damag^ Bhagwano ieft for the a^icultur<jii field. She also foilowed them. When they reached to the filed. they saw tha^ her husband, brothei'-m-iaw and sjie were retuming to theii' house. By th^ time fiwy reached to the last corner oftbe fieid, atl of a sudden Anandram- Chintaram, Lohersai, Ramsai and Amrit came! Chintamani and Anandram started) mjuries spontaneously. Receivin^ for the scene of occiarrence. Site on the body ofDhirau Ex. P-4 was deafh was coma due to extradura <^8*§?<n<i1i ^H<nf^fe^ <fa^t< '^^ifiR^n^i lamsai has also been sentenced to undergo one .C. respectively. ;d by animals, her husband Dhiraa Ajiamo and there were no animals in the field. Therefore caiTying club. spear, ase witfa common object to murder hei' husband. LoharsaL I^msai and Amrit fhrew the weapons fhey were carrying and caught hold of h^r husband and threw him on tfae ground. assaulting her hiisband with axe. She tried to intervene but fhey did not stop. H^r husband could not rise and siiccumbed to the this report, Station House Officer. Police Station Lailunga registered offenc^under Sections 147, 148 and 302 ofLP.C., left t)lan Ex. P-2 of the place of occurrence was prepared by Head Constable Bansi^har Sidar. After ghdng notice Ex. P-3, inquest prepared by the &ivestigatmg Officer. Body of Dhirau was sent for post mortem e^amination to Primary Healfh Centre, LaUimga where Dr. S. Upadhyay (P.W. 9) c^nducted post mortem and opined that cause of haemon'hage and injury of head, death was homicidal. Post mortem report is E|^. P-23. Based on memorandum Ex, P-5 given by Ramsai, Ex. P-6 given by Anapidram, Ex. P-7 given by Chmtamani, Ex.P-8 given by Amrit LaL Ex. P-9 giv^n by Lohersai- under Ex. P-10 one axe was XI-HC—78 ^E^ r^|A|j0<q, ^Tti^^l^, [cj^l^y; ^'c TnTl^lT iCTTO' "^ 200 3ff^r^ ^i.^ ^sn 3Ti^r ^<-ii<^ a^itw'c^^ (^I^i^?) '^TTW^I^ ^ii^T seized at the instance of Lohei'sai. linder Ex. P-11 one Lungi of Lohersai was seized, imder Ex. P-12 plain soil a4d biood stained soil was seized. under Ex. P-13 one ciub at the instance of Rai|fisai was seized, one Lxmgi of Ramsai was seized under Ex. P-14, one axe w^s Anandram, one Dhoti of Anandraml /' seized under Ex. P-17 at the instancel Ex. P-18, bow and arrow was seize4 one towel under Ex. P-20 was seizedtat the instance of Asiritlal. The axe was sent for opirrion of Assistant Surgeori und|r Ex. P-24-A. Doctor gave opiision Ex, P-24 investigation, charge sheet was fil©4 Raigarh against accused appellant asj case to fhe Sessions Judge who was a| The prosecution examined 1; charges against the accused persons. animosity between fhe parties for agr^ Leamed Special Judge after acquitted accused Daitari and Itwar Indira Tripathi on behatf of Amritial c|>8^i^t<i1wi nm^u ^fs^I <fa^i< i!iT3iRw^?^i seized under Ex. P-15 at the instance of was seized under Ex. P-16, one spear was of Chmtamani, on@ Limsi was seized under at the instance of Amritlai under Ex. P-19, in which he mentioned fliat mjury s4stained by Dhirau can be caused by axe in question. Articles W€?re sent for chelmical exanrination to die Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur fi'om where rq5or|t Ex. P-27 was received. After completion of in fhe Court of Chief Judicial Maffistrate, aiso Itwar and DateL who committed ihe so empowered as Special Judge. witoesses at fhe ttial in order to establish ptatement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in whicji they denied fhe material appearmg against them and stated tliat fhey have been J|iisely implicated m the crime on account of mltui'al land. |iearing counsel for the respective parties, ^hereas convicted tfae aceused ^pellants as aforementioned. We have heard Shri Ramkufnar Tiwari on behalf of Aiiandr<m, Smt. JRawat Lohersai Rawat and Ramsai Rawat, 3:ssr ^i-qi<^^, ^)T{I^^|(S, is)<^>iy^< ^ *(INdl *NI®h" -H^ 200 w^r ^^? (4^H^<^) ^T?^T^ ft^icb T|8TT3?T^T -^T^ "^na;R ^rfN ^TI^T lushri Usha Chandrakar on behatf of ^ehatfofthe State. Homicidal death of Dhii'au has jippellants. Moreover from the eviden< ^onducted post mortem on the body MLembai, P.W. 2 Anamo- it is esrtablishe^ fiature. As far as involvement of accu^ed ;oncemedL ieamed counsel for the ac Improvement in the evidence of witaess lAnamo. Their ©videncebefore ifae Cowt Bection 161 of Cr.P.C. as also to the F| pThey also ai-gued that in fhis case, fhe Sntervened at fhe time of commission Fbrother of the deceased, has not been |ticident is said to have happened at 3.0() |odged on 17-7-1999 at 3.00 p.m. On the otfaer hand Shri Having heard counsel for the ije jevidence ofP.W. 1 Membai, P.W. 2 Anajmo, ;ase diar\r statement ofthese witnesses jReport Ex. P-1 lodged by P.W. 1 jaccused persons namely AinritlaL Loi| [weapons. they caught hold ofDharau. ttjrew Anandram and Chintamam attacked DMrau it has been mentioned that only C^hmtamam Rawat and Shri Bajpai on CM<Mf<:1^i1T1 'RR^Jf ^f 1^T^|' ^^K ^'stRrq ^r^r |not been disputed by counsei for the |e of P.W. 9 Dr. S. Upadhyay who Dhirau as also evidence of P.W. 1 tiiat death ofDhirau was homicidal in appellants in crime in question is |cused appellants argaed fhat there is ss namely P.W. 1 Membai and P.W. 2 is contradictorv to fhe statement under |I.R. Ex. P-1 given by P.W. 1 Membai. material witness who is said to have crime namely Bhagwano amd who is sxamined. They further ar^ied Aat the p.m. on 16-7-1999 whereas rqport was Bajpai siq^ported fhejudptient oftiie irial court. ?spective parties, we have pemsed the Anajmo, First Iirfosmation Rq)ort Ex. P-1 md LX. D-1 and D"2. In the First Infonnation it has been mentioned that three ^ersai and Ramsai after fhrowiiig their him on the ground whereas accused with axe and in case diaiy statement Anabdram attacked the deceased with axe Melnbai, GRPR ra- XI-HC—78 ^STI^T ^T ^Jch ^^T ^Tf^T ^RW ^^ ^ll^tl^, ?$Tfi-H^|(o, fc<0iy^ ^ 6 1WRW 9h^i«*8' •IT^ 200 W^T ^i^? (^fyi^sy) ^^[TW^^T 3?I7^T whereas in the Cowt evidence. fact Chmtamani attacked the decea^i CNntamani. It is categoricaUy men^i Therefore, abo-ve SS'Q the serious M4mbai diai-y statements and first mfonnat a()out been offered by fhese witaesses ofl that Anandram and Chintamam prosecutioiL Chintamani was caiYyi}i body of Dhirau and at Ifae time mstance of Chmtamani. Thereforej consistent m respect of the mannerj attacked. Thei'efore, non-examinatid deceased and was real hrofher of tfab attacked deceased, creates doubt above discussion is fhat fhe prosecu^ fhe light of fhe above contradij Bhagwano. The delay in lodgmg FJ distance ofpolice station from fhe on record that there was long animc party about agriculturai land. Therel pi'osecution has faUed to adduce le^ ofifence against fhe accused personsj 5 Manbodh has also been declared entitled for benefit of doubt. For fhe foregoing reasons. accused persons caimot be sustaindd cbl-^fd^l^ NINdT ^,fe^ <Fn^i< ^^RR^ii^ /f4^bai (T.W. 1) and Anamo have stated Ifaat in ?d with axe which was dven bv Anandram to ioned that attack was not made by Anandram. cclntradictions between the court evidence, case on report and no explanation whatsoever has he prosecution. In the F.I.R. it has been stated boA attacked with axe whereas as per ig spear and there is no injury of spear on the rfpnvestigation spear has been reeovered at flie fhe evidence of fhese two witaesses is not |in which the incident started and Dhiraa was |>n of Bhagwano, who was accomp^iymg tfae deceased and who intervened when accu^d fhe prosecution case. Conclusion of fhe (ion has suppressed fhe genesis offhe crime in ;tory statements and non-examination of |R. is about 24 hours whereas as per F.LR. the ofoccurrence is 35 km. It has also come ^sity bettveen the deceased party and accused |ore, we are ofthe consid^-ed opinion that the le^al consistent evidence in order to prow the Recovery witness ofthe seizure memo P.W. hostile. Therefore. the accused persons are p|ace lcomdction and sejntence iinposed upon tiw id. Appeai of the accused-appellants succeed XI-HC—78 ~3^ ^l^ll^^l^ ^T{1<r}Ji(o, NT^R^ ^ 'qro^T 'gwr^ Wt 200 3^?r'c?^? (^F^<^r) ^^ ^r fc(^jch 'cf^T ^TT^T sft^l^ i^nw^rit^^T^T cns<if<vi<iii ^H<?iT ^fe^ <f^<^8< ^•^^H^T^T and they are acquitted of all the charg^ bail. H5s bail bonds are discharged. l| Amritlal Rawat, Lohersai Rawat and not required in any ofher case. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge }s. It is stated that accused Chintamam is on jle need not surrender. Accused Anandram. ^amsai Rawat be set M liberty fortkwith if Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge