VAEIIHEEEI‘ 7. mum lmmunmumm s 00063262 ‘ IN TgiE HIGH COUL‘ET OF JUDICgWTU‘RE OF CE—iHiATTISGZ%RH I r3 axLgaSPUR: (CG) CRIMENAL A?EEZ§L NG. Lgv-m-a-ffrf ZOGO. Appeilant. (in Jail) . Rambharmse srn of xtwari Barath, a‘ged abmut 48 years, Re$iéen* hf viilaga— Muktaraj a, 13.33 .B&radwar, ‘ Distt: Janjgir (Chhattisgarh) . Versus. £ i Qfaa . {x‘ Resp onélenu’g; The $tate WE M.E{(Nm~r Chhattisgarh) Thrmugh the ?.$. Barac'iwar, Disttg Ja‘zljgir.‘ CRIMINAL APEEAL UNDER §ECTICN 374(2) OF__ ‘i‘i—EE CDE F CRIMINI‘glL PRGCEBURE. C D @ HIGH CQURT OF JUDECATURE AT 3ILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) {DIVESION BENCH} CRIMINAL AWEAL NQ13 §F 2909 Qamb‘namse 3 - Varsu3 — STa‘re 0f Madhya Pmdesh (new Chha‘r‘risgarh) \\ wDeMEN? Essa mNsmERATIGN V/ sdt- L.c.BHAD00 Judge 08.3.1.2605 HGN‘BLE MR J'USTECE $AT1’SH ii AéNEH§TRI AV/ d]- {I 7 S Satish K. Agnihotri\ r Judge r 10.21.2966’ _/’j:;#/ev : PO$T FOR JUDéMENT ON /€sf£,N¢VEMBER, 2065 Sdl- L.C.BHADOO Judge &..11.2Qo5 \ HIIEH £OURT OF CHHATTESéAm-i §ILA5PUR Criminai Apneal No,13 6f 2000 Rambhqmg - Versus — 5mm of Madhya Prqdesh (now Chhd’fisgarh) Presen‘r: - Mrs. Ranu Knchar, Advocm'e: Fgr #12 uppeliqnf. Mn Ashish Shukh, Public Prosecufor wiTh Mtg. MRS. Bha‘ria, Panei Lawyer For The Sm're/respondem DIVE5IQN BENCH: - “ HGN'BLE MR. LC. BHADQO AND HONBLE MR.>$ATI5H K A§NEHOT§L 33’. JUEéMEN? {Deiivered an /6#\~November,2005) Thg fgUmuinq ‘judqmcn‘r 9f ‘Hjg Cam-1' mm: :izlivgrgd by LC. Qhadagr J:— 1. This appeai is‘ direci’ed againsf ‘Hqe judgmen; dafed 19.10.2GQG pa3sed by iearned 1“ Addi?ional Sessééns Judge, Sakfi in Sessians Trial Nc.151/2000 whereby izumed Addifional Sessions Judge affer' hoiding accused iagpeiianf Rambharose guiHy for commissinn of offence under SecTion 302 of fhe Indian Penal Code for cemméffmg murder of Navrm‘cm Barefh senfenced him m undergo imprisonmen‘r for iifz and To pay fine of Rs‘Zfi‘OO/a in defouh‘" of poymem‘ of fine To fur'rhe.“ undargo RE. for 06 monfhs. \L \u I‘).. . The prosecu‘i’ion story in brief is “rim? in the intervening nigh? of 5” & é” Aprii, 2000 in The Viiioge Mukmroja a Ramoyao programme was organized; fharafore: a1- fhe piace where Qamayon programme was organized many viliagers assembied. Deceased Nuvra‘mn Barafh aiso cume‘ 1’0 Tha‘l’ p‘ace, k) immediafely fherem‘wr’ accused/appeiian? Eambi‘mrose niso came- mere. However after seaing The accused/appeiian‘r Navra‘fan Bara'ria ief'l' fhe place and immeéiw'aiv fher‘eaf'i’er i"ne accused/appelian? had ais—o ieff The pédce. A? abau? 11.00 pm. Navrwmn Sure-H1 came running To “the hnusa cf SuH Ba§ {PW-i?) and saf on fhe cc‘r of Suli Bai whish was iuying in fine ccum‘yard of the house of $uli EGI. Accused/appeiian? Rambharcse aisc came ‘nunning +0 fha? place and sf‘arfad a‘n‘acking Navra‘mn Eargfh wifh a knife: He assauHeti kén‘rinuousiy en chaos? aii parTs af fhe bedy cf Nuvrafcn Eurefh, as a resuif of which 'he receive& many injuries and he ins'ranmnenusiy succumbed 1'0 1'he injuries. Accused/appeiianf ief‘r fhg pi‘qce cf o¢¢urrencg by saying fa Suii Bai & her anugnfar namely H'w‘nri Eni nof ‘ra raise my and no? 1‘9 disciese ‘rhis fac? ?c anybody otherwise he wiii kiii Tham aiso. Hawever: in ‘i'i'ie morning m“ abouf 6.GGia.m. 5uii Bai infermed aboui’ The inciden? To Umesh Kumar (PW-1) nephew 0f daceased‘ Navmfun. On hearing fram Suii 3m, Limes}: Kumar immedia‘i‘eiy infarmed abou‘i' 'i'ne inciden‘i‘ fa Miner famiiy member's nameiy Devpmscd, sanfcsh afc and i'hzreaf‘rer went #c ihe scene af- accurrence where he saw dead bedv of A! Navra‘mn Eare‘rh. from where he aiong wi‘rh aevpmsad wen? 1'6 ihe Poiice STm‘ien Bamdwar. On ’rhe way he me'i with Ashek Kumar (PW-3) ‘i'o whom aiso he disciosed aboui‘ fhe incid‘eni‘. Based on 1'i1e reporT given by Umesh Kumar (PW-1} F.I.R. (EXP—1) was regisfered by the Siafion House Officeri Poiioe Siai‘ion Baradwar a? 7,G0 mm, on é.4.2000. Affer regis‘iering The F.E.E., Smfion House Officer- reached i0 The piece of occurrence! issued noiice EXP-2 i’o The Penches and prepared a‘he Panchnama Ex.P-3 of deed bociy of Nowaian Earei‘n. He #ook info possession ‘i'he plain soil and blood sfgined soil from Th l l I 1‘ e scene of occurrence as also one Cheddar of green coiour @D under Ex.?-4. He also ‘rook info passessian ‘i'he wzapan af offence under EXP-=5 in pursuanca af informafion Ex.P~9 given by fine accused,’appeiiant He fask +h$ cio‘Haes of deceased info possession under EXP-6, prepared 'rhe si?e plan EXP-8 and Sen‘r fhz dead body of Navra'mn Barafh 1‘9 Primary HeaH’h Cenfre, Eamd‘wur fm- posfmerfem examinafion. 0r. P. Sing}: {PW-10} conducfed :‘he posfmor'rem, pragmred fhe pos‘rmorfem repor‘r EXP—13. He was‘rof fhe cpinian 141a? cause a.‘ deafh of deceased Nuvarawn Burefh was shock and haemorrhage due *ro rupTure 0f heam‘, iungs, iiyer‘ and o‘Hqer ergcms. The weagon oi: offence was aiso sen‘? To docf’or for his opinion as 1'0 whe‘rher injuries found an fhe bedy sf eeceased Navrm‘an Burefh can be caused by 'H’mn‘ weapon qné fhe dgc'mr gave his cpinian i'haf injuriescgn be cgusea‘ by The weapon recovered a? the msmnce of the cccusedi appeiianf. Recavered arTicies were aisc sen? for examinaficn .1'c Farensic Science Ieauor‘awr’y: l. Sager from where repor‘? EXP-28 was received. a .Afmr compk'rian of inves?iga?ion, charge shee? Was fiied againsf fhe accused/appellanf in fhe 5cur+ cf Judicia! Magisfmfe Firs? Ciass‘ Sakfi, who in Turn commi‘rmd fhe case fer frial 1‘0 ieur‘ned Eessions Judge, Bilespur‘ frem where iearneé 13* Addifiona! Sessions Judqe, Eilaspur received the case an Wansfer. The prasecu?ien En arder— w prave f‘ne offence ngains1- The accused/appeHanf examined as many as h) ‘J G wifnessesa On The af'ner ‘nand, iearned Addifignei Sessiens Judge recarded ‘rhe smfemen? of accused/appeiianf under 5ec1’ion 313 oi: fhe CnP’C. in which he denied fhe prosecufien evidence, maTeriaI appearing agains? him, he pieaded innocence an& sfa‘red fhaf offence was commii'i'ed by "the son {31" Suii Eai (PW-i9) numeiy Bezi and he has been feiseiy implicafed in ihe crime. Twc defence wifnesses nameiy :lzemsai {DW-l) 3x Ncnkiram (Div—2) were aise examined. @ 4:3 4. Learned 1“ Addi‘i'ionai Sessions Judge affer- hearing The nraumzms of iearned Addmona! Pubiic ?rosecuTor, iearned counsei for fhe accused and af‘fer- perusai cf reads. convic‘l’ed and Sen‘l‘enced fhe accused/appeiian? in The manna? ind§ca1ed in fine earlier par? 9f fhis judgment 5. We havs heard Mrs. Renu Kod'm‘r, iearned ccunsel for fhe appeiian? and Mr. Ashish Shukia, Pubhc Prosacufor wifh Mn M.P.S. Ehm‘ia, Paneg' Lawyer an behah‘ of ‘rhe u S‘fai’eiraspond‘en'r. (3‘ . As far as‘ The quesi’ion of nai’urz of dea‘i'h of Navra'i'an Barefh being concgr‘ned as homicidal, The same has not been dispufed by Iaarne& éeunsei For fhe accused/appeilan'r. The evidence of ?W-9, lfwari Bai & {aw-19! Suii Bai is f6 fhe effac? Thaf 1’hey Wifnessed i'ha crime in ques'fian as the uccused/appeiiun‘? Qam‘b'har‘ose affacked fhe deteaged wif'h knif'e in- {he courward pf Their house. Dr. Singh (PW-m}, who conducted fhe posfmor'ram on +he_body of deceased Novrafqn Eorefh: \ hos sfofed in his evidence fhcif there were fwo iocem‘fed wounds on The ches‘r and ofher five injuries of sharp cutting were presen‘r near 'fhe ieff & righ‘!‘ auxiliary regions, on the neck and on fhe righf knee. He has furfher sfa‘red fhm‘ on opening of body +he EM, 3”. 3i 4fh ribs were found frqc’fured, righ‘i' iung was rup‘i’ured in 'ihe size of 2x2x3 inch and biood was oozing ouT of it, ief? lung was oiso ruptured in the size of 2x2><3 inch. hear? was aiso iacero'i'ed & puncfured in ‘i'he size of 2x3 inch, in‘ies‘iine was rup‘iured, membrane of iniee‘rine was oiso rupi‘ured and fhe fecoi maferioi was coming oui’ of it Half diges‘i‘ea' food was presen’i' and cause of o'eczfh was shock and hoemorrhoge on accoun? of excessive bieeding ans rup‘rure of heart. iungs «Ki liver. The nafure of dea‘rh was homicidai and injuries were on'i'i moriem in no‘i’ure‘ C! Therefore, in View 0i: i’he above evidence of eyewifnesses Irwzir'i Bai (?W-9) & 5uii Bai (PW’i?) and Dr. 5ingh (PW-10), H- is es*ablishe& fkaf ‘H-Ae deafh of Navrm‘an Barei'h was homicidal in mrrur'e. ‘?. Now coming f0 ’rhe invoivemen‘r of accused/appeiian? in commiHing ”the murder of Navra‘l‘an Bare'l'h; ienrried counsei fer fhe acguseWappeiian‘r vehemenfiy argued :rha'i’ fhe evidence cf PW-9, Ifwari'Eai 6i PW-19, Suii Bai is no? nafuml and same dbes no? inspire confidence, for The reason fhai‘ w‘ when a? _11.00 pm. in ihe nigh? accused Rambharese was aitackmg degeased Nuvm'l'an wi'i'h a knife Why ‘i'he deceased A and these wi'i'nesses had n9? raised cries and aiso why PW-ig 5uii Bai remained silenf whole nigi'n‘ and oniy in The morning size informed Umesh Kumar (PW-i) abcu? fire incideni‘. She furiher argued Thai other famiiy members of PW-39 Suii Edi were aiso residing in ihe same house bu? “they have noi‘ been produced as prosecution wii'nesses, ‘rhereiiore, fhe above circumstances makes ihe’ evidence of These ‘i'wo wiinesses un+rus+wor+hy and unreiiable. 8. On The e‘rher hand, learned Public Prosecui'or for the Siafe suppcried i'he judgmeni‘ c ?riai Court xi D\ .In order To appreciafe The argumem' advanced by iearned ’ couneei fer fhe cccused/aypeiiani, we have +9 examine whole case from fhe beginning.’ F’W-ii Meh‘i'mr has e'raied in his evidence Thai on fhe fuieful nigh? in from” 0f his house Qamayana was being nerrafed and same ari‘icies were iaying i'here, iherefore, he aiong whh Ksdu d: Gangeram was si‘rring ’fhere. A1' aboui’ 9.90 phi. in ,‘rhe nigh-i deceased Nevrafen came and ihereafi’er accused Rambharase aiso came There. 'Af‘rer seeing Rembharose, Navrai‘an iefi' The place, ‘ius? afier c #7 i'hai' Eam'bharose aiso lefi’ fhe piace and in fhe nex? warning 6 ha came 1"0 know ‘i‘hai’ Navra'i'an has bean murdered’. Though rhis wifness has bean declarad hcsme bu“: The abave fac? has been proved by him 'H'm‘l' a+ fine piace where Eamayana was being perfarmed Navra‘hm é: Rambharosa cama and They L2H ‘fhe plgca gne affer‘ anofher bafora fhe inc§dznf in quesiign Le. affacking hy accused +0 Navra‘mn Eareéim This evidance is correbcmkd by 1‘he evidence cf PW-EE, Ksdu 1% PW=-1S, {Eangararm Even; fhe"accused,’appeha‘x1. I ; in nis I sfa‘femen? under Secfion 313 of fhe Cr.P.C. in un$wer fa Quegfian Nos; . a g ‘3: 3 has admitted fhis fac‘r. Therefore, fhe pregence of decease& Navra'mn and accused Qambharose fogefher on i'he fghefui nigh? arid kaving We Ramayana p§ace by Them we qffer qn¢f§1cr befm‘g fhz incidani’ in qga$fiqn i$ aka pwvgd and i’he evidence. of above wifnasses Le. PW-ii Mah?mr, PW- 12,Kedu <§ PW-is, éangaram is aémissibie under iieaien é 0f fhe Evidénce Ac'f wiwich envisaaes ‘i'haf‘a facf a,“ sfafemeaf of fee? (7r apim'ori, which f5 5x9 close/y connacred m fi‘me, pf‘ce cma’ circumsfance with sgme acf m“ even? which is it: issae \ fimf if can he said fa farm a pari‘ cf: tée same ffangaci‘imi as the ac? 9r even? " issue, is :‘r5eif admissfb/e m evidence“. Apart from 'H'Iis {act PW~19 Su§i Bai and PW-9 I‘Mmri Bai: who is daughfer of Suii Eat are no? in any way €n‘rer‘es?e& wifnesses no." There is any ev§dence fa ifhe effec? Tim? fhey hud‘ any animosify againsf fine accusediappeiianf and‘ as per evidence of V—l Umesh Kumar‘ én #ke morning a? cbouf 6.00 a.m. or 6‘15 mm. Suli Bai came and mfxarmed him abcu'r ‘H’xe incident i‘xs per medical evidence aisn The iacemfee and incise wounds were feund eii ever The bady 9f deeeasee‘ and doc‘i'or had opined The? above injuries can be caused by i'he weapon 0f nuance Le. knife which was weaver-ed a? The inemnce m': qgeu$edfg9peilanf in persucmce 9f iafermaiien given by him under Seciian 2? af The Evidence inst W -££ J‘ \ Thargfare, in View 9f i’he above ciinc‘ning circums?anf§a§ avidence showing The prasznce 3f accused/appeiiam a? fha fime of offance connecfs ‘Hqe accusediappeiianf whh fhe murder of deceased Navramn Barefh. 9. In The Hgh? of above clinching circums.§n?ia. + i ev§dence,. h; if we examine fhe evidance of PW-9 &. PW~19 Le. Ii’wm'i Bai :31. Suli Bai firm? as fa why they havg he? misaa? any hue 8a cry ané why “(hey waifed TH! mor’ning 1'9 infarm Umesh Kumcr abom ‘i'h incident Suii Ea? {PW-19} 3+ Ifwari Eai {PW-9) have u cafeq‘oricgiév sfa‘reh in Their evideme ?ha? accusea‘ Rambhgwse +hr5afened fhem ‘l'hg'r H: fhev wilE mi$e any hug & £ cry ar- a’Esc§032 ‘i'his fac‘i' fro anyboa‘y fheh he wiii kiH fhzm alsa Th rafor'e, being frightenad They ware no? ab!e Ta mi‘sa any hue and cry, as such, being indies fheir canduc? aanna‘i be $aid ‘m be un-na'ruml. As far as giving of infcrma‘rian To Pvv-i Umzsh Kumar offer passing of some time in fhz morning, is concerned‘, PW-lg Suii Eai being iqdy was frightenz& on acccun? cf gerious incid'en‘r happened in h r presence in her house and fhe ‘H‘weaf given by accused/appellan'r fhaf if “they raise any hue & cry or disc’lase fhis fac‘r fa anybody, he wiii kiH fhem, iherefere, in ihe circumsiances, conduci’ of FW-i? 5uii Eai informing PVV-i Umesh Kumar affer passing oi: some fime in fhe marnina canna. .L be I.neid fa be unnaier-ei. a. l I: a. is seHied law fha‘l' n0 hard & fasi' rule can he iaid down abou-f i‘he conduc’r & behaviour 9f wifness 'i'hct'i' lnew Ineigne f I wiii I ac‘r er react in a pariicuiar cirsumsi'ence, if deaends upen ihe fac'is and circumsiances of each case and persen To persen ‘iha‘i‘ haw he/she wiii behave and canduc? iooking To ‘rhe eat-rounding circumsfnnees ef fihe case and fherefere, being a may, canduc‘i‘ 01" $uii Bni {PW-i9) eanns‘i’ be eaici ‘i’o be unnmurai, more particuiariy when This iady was n0? reimee‘ wi‘ih i'he deceased and was no? having any animosi'i'y againsf I“ w 1 n / mi i 0' @ 1412 accused. When ‘i'he Envesiriga‘i‘ing Cfficar reached ‘i'o fhe scans of occurrence dead body of deceased was faund in The . house e'F $u!i Qai (PM/’49) and 1kg acéused has nof been abie To axpiain fha'f when he ief'l’ ‘H'Ie Qamayana piace jusf afwr' Navrafan lef‘f fhe piaca where he had gone and why Suii Bai has unnecessariiy faiseiy impiica‘rzd‘ him in the crime. Whiie crass-examining PW-19 $uH Bai an unsuccassfu! awemp? was made fa Show fha'r fhe sa‘ird crime was commiHed by fhe San m‘ Suii Bai nameiy Bazi, bu? during inves‘figafian no such fhéng was feund. Even fram The crass-examinafion 01" Invzsfigq?ing Gfficzr (PW-20) $hr‘i 3.5. Qhruv iaarned counse? for fine accased has. no? been ab§e f0 eiici? anyfhing or any fasf ‘Hjr‘ough which an inferznce can be drawn thqf ‘I'he crime in quesi’ion was commii‘fed'none‘i’heiass by ‘r‘ne son o1? PW-ig Suii 93m. 11 .As far as fha quas?ion firm? why 5L!“ Bai (PW-19) (S: Ifwari Bui (PW-Q) had na+ disciosea‘ fhe fac‘i' +o f'heir o+her famiiy mambers Thaw“ such e serious crime has bean cammHkd is concerned; Suii Bqi (PW-19) & I+wari Bai (PW—9) had dearly efafed in Their evidence The? oi'her femiiy member's were sleeping in their houses, Therefore, fhey couid no? know abuu‘l’ fhis fem“ and as 'Hne crime in question was said To happen a? 11.’JO p.m. in f‘ne nigh? and mrmaHy En ‘H‘Ie viHages peopie g9 ’for sieep qf nbouf 9e00 pm. in fhe nigh? ?herefore,. i’n ?he fem-1‘s and circums?ances of ‘i'he case ?he argumen? advances by Eearned course! fer ?he accused/appeiian? is e1“ n0 he!p 'm ?he accused f appeiian'r. Moreoverl ?he evidence cf eyewi‘messes nameiy Sim Bai (PW-19} a I?wari Bai (PW-9) is aorrabomfed by ?he ciraums?an?ia3 evidence i.e.; a. Body of decease& Navra‘mn was ‘Found in ?he house of x +‘nese ?wo eyewimesses, Injuries an The body or r aacensed ' Navm'mn, as s'm‘red by U- 'rhese mm witnesses, were aiso‘found. (1 . Deceqsad and uscused were seen u‘? fha p§aca whara Ramayana was being performed Le. in from“ of fhe house, a“? PW-ll Meh‘rmr jus? befcre #he maiden? in quesfim and frcm Thai' piace firsf Navra‘mn ieff and immedia'raiy fher‘eaf‘l'er accu$ed Ramb'nar-ose giso ieH fhaf Mace, ‘ ' El. . amt-mi“ has given opiman ‘r‘na‘r injuries wmc'n were fmmd W ‘ cm fha bociy cf decaused Navramn can be caused by The wedpnn of offence, which was recover-ed air fine ins‘mnce s Gf agcusediappzilan‘r, which has bazn pravad by *rhe Inves‘figa‘ring Officer Shri 3.5. Shruv (PW—20) Manhamnia! (MM-8) (3’: Ashak (PW—3) and even as per FSL rapor? human biaod was found on ir'ne knifa. I+ is true +h<x+ fhere is m; serologisf repor+ fhaf fhe Igioga, I wnicn l l was found on The . xni‘re, r was m‘ i'he biood greup ef de¢eased'Nqvmmn, bu? in this Case The K7 accused/appeiianf is no? being conneci‘ed soieiy on The basis of Thés circum'smnce. There are eyewimesses mid o'rher ciinching :irwmsmnfiql evidencz and Thi5 sircumsfance is being presszd as a (:ircumsi'ance suppar‘i’ing Tka miner circumsmnces, Therefara, This circumsmnca can aiso be faker! +ogefher wHh a“ cfher circumsfanfiai evidence. 12. The Trw Cour? has righ?%y rejectas Tha evideace 6f dsfence wifnesses namely Ramsai (DW-i) & Nankimm (DH/«2). The evidence nf these twa wifnesses is ef no heip fa fha accused/appeimn? because Remsci (DW-l) has simph} smfed 14m? on The fan-Fui nighf Suii Bai (PW-19) came 1'0 his house ~ Three Times and inquires} frcm imim AA. ina‘i why he is no? going 70 sieep ard he has nm" heard any cry. This wihiess has very cmegoricaiiy in Para 11 cf The srosssexamina’ricn sm‘red Thm' he did no? disciase This 1iac1' 1'0 anyene #haf $u3i Qai (PWwlg‘y came ‘ro ‘nis house thrice in fhe nigh‘r. When nexf day mornirlg he came 1‘0 know about fha murder of Navrafgn Barafn §n the heuse of Suii Eni, he wem" 1’0 ‘H‘xe pince of accurrence uf abouf $.00 Gm 1‘hen why he did no‘r discgcse E‘he fac? G1“ 51m Bani aoming To his house fhric'e in fhe nigh? makes fhe evidence of ibis witness daubffui, He ha$ further sfa‘reci in Para 3 of hi$ “z‘vidence ‘iha‘i‘ Suii Sui informed him ‘H'm‘i' Navrafcn has been murdered by Qnmbharose, bu‘i' accor‘ding 1'9 his informa‘i‘itm Rambharcsa has n0? murder-ed Navm'mn, bu? he has n6? been able fa di3£loae ‘H’ie basis of hi$ kncwiadga. The gyidence 0f Nankiram (bW-2) is ‘i'o ‘i'iie affair? i'im? he saw i'he accuseé Rambhamse and deceased Navmmn a? ihe piace where Qamayana was being performed bur he has sfafed Thai- Rambharase 1aei‘r £ Thai .1. piace haif an hwr affer Navra’ran ief? fi’ia piucz and fhereaffer, Rumbharcsa wen‘i “to his imufei Sui" why this wii’ness has nrn- inf¢rm2d ii'his fat? +o fha poiice, is 301' examined by him and his evidence is cenTrary is the evidance of PW—11; Mehffar: PW-lZ: Kodu & PW—13, Gangaram who have sfa'i'ed 'Hm’t Rambharose iefi‘ ihe piaée jus? affer Navrm‘aii iefi' The place. In Para-8, ‘ihis wifness has sfu‘ied fhuf nexf day morning if was being said fhm" Rambharose has murdered/Newman and ?he name cf $a2i was aisa being Taken. The evidence of This wifness does no? inspire canfidence; mareover, his eviéence is based on ihe guesswork and hearsay. Therefore, 'ihe evidence of above defence wi'inesses is of no heip 1'0 fhe accused person. H. (dI As far as +he moi-ive is cancerned', i’he praseoufion case is that one manth before The inciden? accueed Rembharese saw his wife and deceased Navra‘l’an Eare‘i’h in a comyromising “a (ea 11 posii‘ion and fherzforg, he was hmiing animasify agains‘r fhe decgased and he wanted 1’0 kiH him. 3m, Thar-e is no chnchina ‘ Legal evédenca 1c as'm'biish fhai‘ fact if is sef'Had iaw fha? when fhere is ocufar & dinching circumsmn‘rim ev§dence and based on t'rm‘r The accused can be connected wi‘H1. fhz crime, in i'haf case if fhe mofiya is rmf proved, fhs same cannof E3 fam! To me prosecu?ion case. 14. In View of fhe foregoing discussion, There is ocuicr and cijnching kgai circumsfan‘ria? evidance 1‘0 conhac'f The u y ascused/qppeiianf WHI‘. fhs murder of deceased Nuvmfan Bare+h, therefore, fhg finding of ‘the his! Courf 'l'c i'hqi' A effec? is czar-rent as fine same is based on ‘i’he iegai euidence and cannot be inferfered wiTh, as There is no reason before ‘H‘iis Courf +0 fake .a differan‘i view from fhe frini Ceur+. p. <Jl In fhe resui‘i', we do no? find‘ any infirmii‘y in i’he finding ei£ i-.rim i court Tize appeai is wi‘mou‘r merit same is iiabie h; be dismissed and i'i' is accardingiy dismissed. L:, ‘ 4 Sdl— ’ ii Wiie’ 1* Sdl- L.c.BHADoo Satish K. Agnihotri _ Jydge eéé;-11—aoc>s Judge ,,,.. h _f_€:‘—1:—2a65 Roshanl—