HC—78 ^TT^T ^r f<-iich TT8TT '3TT^T 5ti<-li<=t) --<?' ~3^ -^WW^, t$x0^jl<S, is|^iy^< 5? Nl^dl di^llcb _^-{\l ^^ \ Q\ •"^ 200 3^?r'^5^ C'<3^5^F) '^TTW^ftn 3?H^[ APPELLANTS: (In Jail) RESPONDENT: {Appeal under Section 3 DJvlsion Bench: Hon'bSe IVIr. L.C. Bhadoo Hon'bie SV!r. Dhirendra JV!L 11-7-200T IVir. Rakesh Pandey, <=M^t<n41i TnT^f ^fe^ <P»i1^i< ^3TRm37T^r 1. Padmalochan, S/o Ghansai Dhobi, aged about 40 years. 2. Loghan, S/o Ghansai Dhobi, aged about 30 years. 3. Dadu @ Sstram Dhobi, S/o Baiakram, aged about 27 years. 4. Ganjha @ Laghansai, S/o Sukhsai Dhobi, aged about 22 years. 5. Ganjhu @ Balakram, S/o Sukhsai Dhobi, Aged about 47 years. All R/o Village- Rokbahar, Poiice Station- Farsabahar, District: Jashpurnagar (Chhattisgarh). - Versus - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Poiice Station: Farsabahar, District: Jashpumagar (Chhattisgarh) 4 (2) ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973} ^nd thra. JJ. cour oel for the appeiiants. Mr. Aki'" Mishra, Papel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Oral judgment dictat^d on Dals. I-HC—78 'sn^r^T f<Ti)ch ^T^IT 3?T^?T $r>^jch 3^5T ^|<4|<?>^, ^^^1(5, {s)<^iy^< O^-^- ^l^ ^l^ldl *^1<4» 0\"^ 200 W^?T V^^K (^f^^) '^HW^f^T 3:n^?T L.C. Bhadoo. J: - This appeal is directef against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28-6-2001, (Fast Track Court), Jashpui learned Additional Session passed by the 3 Additionai Sessions Judge <nagar in Sessions Trial No.217/2000, whereby ^ Judge after hoiding the accused/appellants guilty for commission of offejice under Sections 148 &. 302 read wlth Section 149 ofthe I.P.C., sentenced undergo imprisonment for jeach ofthem to undergo RJ. for one year and to ^, respectively. Case of the prosecuti when deceased Girdhari alc|ng with his servant Ratansai was returning from his agricultura! field to his deceased and the accused Glrdhari wlth axe & Lathis, the spot. The matter ^ Purushottam (PW-1), son-| informatlon report (Ex.P-1) for the scene of occurrenc4 Ganjha under Ex.P-8 and o|- Ex.P-9. Ciothes of accused under Ex. P-11. inquest Ep the Investigating Offlcer. TI|i °M^t<n<ti'1 ^M^ ^,'fe^ ipal^K '^'^tRR^n^T on, in brief, is that on 1-8-2000 at about 6 p.m. ^ouse, on the ground of animosity between the 'persons, all the five accused persons attacked a resuit of which Girdhari fe!l down and died on as reported in Police Station: Bagbahar by in-iaw of the deceased, whereupon the first <vas registered and the investigating Officer ieft Site plan Ex.P-3 was prepared by the Halka Patwari. One axe was selz^d from accused Padamlochan under Ex.P-5, one axe was seized from Lochan undsr Ex.P-6, one axe was seized from accused Setram (Dadu) un|jer Ex.P-7, one Lathl was seized from accused ie Lathi was selzed from accused Ganjhu under Dadu @ Setram stained with biood were seized c.P-12 on the body of Girdhari was prepared by e body was sent for post-mortem examination to Primary Heaith Centre, Velunga under Ex.P-14, where Dr, Shailendra 'C—78 37T^?r ?7T ^I.ch 'cT^TT 'SflfT^T ^FRN^ ^HW ^. ^Wv\{ sh^lcb T^cT^I-MI^, ^>Tfl'(-14l<S, isi^l^^ -^> GsH'^-fo^ c^ 3Tri?r V^K (^f^5^) ^ 200 '^rrw^ft^'sn^r Upadhyay (PW-9) psrform^d P-14A) and opined that intracranlal tension which death was homlcidal in n| investigating Officer. Seiz^ Forenslc Science Laborat received. As per the report| autopsy, prepared the post-mortem report (Ex. cfause of death was on account of increase of |was the result of multiple jnjuries on head, the ature, Slte plan Ex.P-16 was prepared by the :N articies were sent for chemical examinatjon to |:ory, Raipur from where report Ex.P-22 was biood was found on the Lathis. After compjetion of accused persons in the who in turn committed the learned 3rd Additional Sess transfer for tria!. The prosecution in persons examined 10 witn< recorded under Section 31; appearing agalnst them, pl faisely impiicated in the cri defence. Learned trial Court convicted and sentenced th' We have heard IV appeilants and Mr. Akhil State/respondent. <=hl^|{d^T1 ^i^^^Fs^ <Fai<^i< '^'^f^r^n^T Investigatlon, charge sheet was flled agalnst the Cj^urt of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jashpurnagar, ^ase to the Sessions Judge, Raigarh, from where ^jons Judge, Jashpurnagar received the case on |order to establish charge against the accused ^sses. Statements of the accused persons were of the Cr.P.C: in which they denied the material ^aded innocence and stated that they have been i|ne. They have examined six witnesses in their after hearing counsel for respective parties, ^ accused/appeilants as aforementioned. |r. Rakesh Pandey, Jearned counsel for the i^llshra, learned Pane! Lawyer on behaif of the rc—78 ^T^T^T'f^N 'cT^TT ^iTcRT ^TTT^ L» © 7^ -^i^i^^, ^Tfl'y^, (s|^>iy^< <^.-6- ^ • ^^^ | 01 ^ww sh^llcb •••••••••••••••••--——•••••••"•("••".^ 200 W^T ^^K (4<^f^<^T) '^nw^f^T ^TI^T Mr. Pandey has Moreover, Dr. Shailendra he conducted post-mortem notlced as many as eight Girdhari was increase of in homicida! in nature. evidence of Ratansai (PW- persons attacked Girdhari established that the death n|ot disputed the homicida! death of Girdhari. Lppadhyay (RA/-9) has stated in his evidence that |on the body of Girdhari on 2 August, 2000 and lincised wounds on his body, cause of death of fracranial tension and head injury, the death was Ab|ove medical evidence is corroborated by the \2), eyewitness, who has stated that the accused 1 with axe & Lathis. !n view of the above, it Is K Girdhari was homiddal in nature. eviaence As far as invoivemeht crime is concerned, Mr. Rs argued that as far the & Patras Kujur (PW-7) is| inddent and as per their e^ Learned counsel further 2) is concerned, perusal cjl object between the accus| faisely Impiicated in the c< reiiance. On the other hand, the judgment ofthe tria! C<|>urt. Having heard !earri< svidence. Ratansal (PW-2 or)i^I<n<i1i TTT^f ^fe^ ^T^R '^'^iRlH^TT^T of the accused/appellants in commission of the kesh Pandey, learned counse! for the appeilants, of Bindumati (PW-3), Rukhmani Bai (RA/-4) concerned, in fact they had not witnessed the idence when they came, Girdhari was lying dead. that as far as the evidence of Ratansai (PW- his evidence shows that there was no common d persons and the accused persons have been me. The evidence of Ratansai is also not worth arbued 4r. Akhil Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer, supported d counsei for the parties, we have perused the has stated in his evidence that on the fateful day when he along with Girdhiari was returning from the agricuitural field, he was ahead of Girdhari, when tjie reached near house of Teli, Girdhari reached in ^TT^T ^T R"li<=h 'cT^TT 3Ti^T $(->^i<^ /(/ (£) ^SSf -q|4|<^q, ^Tfi^^l^, fs|^»|<rl^< 0| ^;..b..:....i^I..< Nl^dl sh^lcb ••—"•••••—••••••••—•—-•—•--••-•••^ 200 a^T T^F ((ic<flc<<^) '^TTW^TT 3'?1^T wlth w9ien inforrtned front of the house of with axe on his head, there^ tlme, Girdhari was airead^ stand, Lochan caught hold] Thereafter, Ganjha, Ganjhi Dadu attacked Girdhari After seeing the attack, abused him and said that house of Girdhari and infori|n< Bindobai, they came on th^ already dead and the accus|e< of this witness, defence ha{ discredlts the evidence of examlnation and has they were returning from stated that he v^as about 1| made in front of the housel went and informed Bindobfei Rukhmani have corroboratfe< scene, they saw that Girdh^ri Padalmlochan, Perusal of paras 2, ^ attacked Girdhari on his h© <=bi^(<n41Ti ^i^<n1 ^fe^ <Fai^i< '^^tf^r^^T s, he saw that Lochan attacked Girdhari ^fter, Padamlochan came out of his house, at that lying on ground, when Girdhari attempted to |of him and Padamlochan attacked him with axe. & Dadu came out from the house of Ganjha, axe and Ganjha & Ganjhu attacked with club. he tried to intervene, the accused persons |hey wi!l kii! him aiso, therefore, he went to the his son Vasudev, daughter Rukhmani & wife scene and saw that by that time, Girdhari was >|ed persons were attacking. In cross-examination ^ not been able to elicit any circumstancs which witness. Thls witness has withstood the cross- stated that he was along with Girdhari, agricultural field. He has further categorically PO yards ahead of Girdhari when the attack was iof Padamiochan. He has further stated that he N & Rukhmani about the incident. Bindobai & t^d the said fact that when they came on the ^ri was already lying dead. trtis cate^orically trte & 6 of the evidence of Ratansai (PW-2) reveais that in fact, in the first instatice, accused Lochan canrie out ofthe house and d wlth axe, thereafter, Padamiochan came out of the house and attacked Gi|'dhari with axe on his head, thereafter, Ganjha, ^HC—78 ^n^¥r?7T^i.ch ^T^T 37T^T $t)^ic^ —^- 3^£T-q|<q|0<q, ^ITflyO^, fcj<»i)|y^< CJS^. <o^<^^0( ^ww ^W^ -•--•••••-••-•••••• ••••••••".•^•......-^200 3TT^?T T^^T (^1^<^) '^TTW^ftU ^TT^T Ganjhu& Dadu cameoutft with axe and Ganjha & Gan ^m the house of Ganjha, Dadu attacked Girdhari ihu attacked with Lathis. frdm Therefore, from the accused persons formed common object, al! of them| instance, Lochan came Padamlochan came and persons namely, Ganjha, of Ganjha, therefore, forma| persons has not been the evidence of Dr. Shai( injuries found on the body caused by axe. There was| Upadhyay (PW-9) which e^ with c!ub. esNbiished. Therefore, involvem^ has not been estabiished 9 recovered from Lochan, Hence, conviction of Ganj instance, there is no evidej' GM^f<n<fl'i ^!^<nf^f fe^) ipal^K ^ 5tf?F[ 3TT^T iibove evidence, it cannot be inferred that all the lunlawful assembly and in furtherance of the made a conjoint attack on Girdhari. In the first his house and attacked Girdhari, thereafter, attacked, and thereafter, these three accused G^njhu & Dadu said to have come from the house ;ion of uniawfulassembly by all the five accused Moreover, the post-mortem report and il|endra Upadhyay (PW-9) establish that all the |sf Girdhari were incised wounds and those were no other kind of injury noticed by Dr. Shailendra tablishes the assault made by Ganjha & Ganjhu nt of Ganjha & Ganjhu in the crime in question syond reasonable doubt, whereas, axe has been >adam!ochan & Dadu and the corresponding injuries viz., eight incised ^ounds have been found on the body of Girdhari. la & Ganjhu cannot be sustained. In the first ce that aii the accused persons formed unlawfu! assembly and ali ofthem aftacked Girdhari with a common object. In the circumstance^ the prosecution has not been able to establish offence against Ganjha SE Ganjhu beyond reasonable doubt, whereas, involvement of accused p^rsons Lochan, Padamiochan & Dadu in the crime 3^er ^n?n^<^ ^^Ff^, (ci0iy^< WEI^IT sb^lcb CL^^.^ £^0\ WI, 200 3TR{?r ^^? (ydf^^) ' ^s^^ 'R-ii.eh '^^I^i^¥T^1lt^ w. ^"^nw ^f^ ^H^T Sorrta in question has been accused psrsons Lochan, clear, cogent and legat ev them with axe on the body ' ofdeceasedGirdhari. esteblished beyond reasonable doubt. As far as ^ Padamlochan & Dadu are concerned, there is (dence on record regarding the assault made by |of the deceased which was the result of the death !n the result, (i) the appea! in respe(j;t and sentences undet I.P.C. are set aside. set at liberty forthwitlj (ii) the appeal in res? succeeds. Their cor of the i.P.C. is con sentence of life Conviction and I.P.C. aresetaside Sd/- L.C, Bhadoo Judge <^§€if<n<iliHi^^ii '^^^1 <Fai^i< ^''^RPI^R^T of Ganjha & Ganjhu succeeds, their conviction Sections 148 & 302 read with Section 149 ofthe They are acquitted ofthe said charges. They be i, if not required in any other case. }ect of Lochan, Padamlochan & Dadu partly liviction under Section 302 read with Sectlon 149 1/erted into Section 302 of the i.P.C., however, im|)risonment imposed upon them is maintained. imposed upon them under Section 148 of the a|nd they are acquitted of the said charge. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge sentehce ^