XI—HC—78 H? 200 HW,W,W Wm mm<W> ‘Wam y"/ci?n 311%“W wwwm DN§S§ON BENCH: Hon’bie Shri Justice L.C. §hadee 3; gan’bie Shri Justice DhirmEdm Missma. CRIWNAL APPEAL i‘ w‘a .QPPELLAN? WW§WW $Wm éo. 234%.? 29m}, Andhu alias 39m: $/c Birbai Chouhan Aged about 48 years. R/o Sonmundat Disirict Raigarh, CG REsPoNaENT Varsi Siate c" MP. {Now CG) 8hr; RK. Jain Advocai Shri $udhir Bajpai By. mm‘u . {Bated LC. Bhaawod The accusedi’appeaiani judgment of convictisn and passeci by Additiana! Sessic No. 130/1g98 wherebv he has ihe mdiam Pena! Code 3% Maheshram and sentenced ‘ pav fine of Rs. 1000A in < undergo R! for six months. IUDGMEN‘? 21 s3-‘2%$? x has preferred th§s appeal against "ihe order o? sentence dated 253.12%0 ns Judge, Raigarh, in Sessions ma} Veeen heid guib’w under secticn 302 of )r committing we murder of one o undergo émprisonment for life and Jzefaul't of paymeni ef fme to urine“ P.T.O. e far the accused/appeilam. GA far resoondenb’ Szate. y XI-HC-78 33W, Wm,W i)x @ 7o ..‘-o.ooooo.o...o.o.o ‘ ' Wm (W) mamm 1 '1ammm mmwm Case- accused Andhu alang wiih h the sister of the deceaseo, Kejaioai and Mamta were aiso residing in that house. On 28.4.i9Q8 1 a‘ about 8 pm. Te} Singn‘and Manes‘n were taking meat in the daughter Laxmi‘oai raw-8 to bring a accused Amhu‘ deceased Mahesh er and after éaking iiquor Ancéhu and Mahesh brougnt axe from ns aces; anc;‘ a’iiemptee to afiack amused Andhu. I<e§abai intervened bui accused Andhu snatched iha axe fmm Mahesh and a‘éiackee him wi‘ih ii on his head. as a resuit ef which, he feH down. Thereafiea . caused by sitting on the c‘n es‘i: of Mehesh nresseei hie chesi piece of wood and gave hm died. Merg intimation Ex. P-22 was giver: ”av one Keshav Prasad er; ‘(otwaii PW-iG Hirabai was informed . Keiabai and Mahestz and the same was reduced in to writing under Ex. P-i2 which was signed by the oeeeie of vicinitv i.e. PW-5 WWEWW ' é§WW the prosecution, in brief, is that deceased as aiso £5 Wife Rajkumari whc happeris ic be were residing n ‘Ehe same muse. muse m” Teisingh, at that the accused Aadhu came and asked to his house fer takma feetle m we ‘* eMahesh :0 accompany him meamvhiie, he asked his quaftw of iiquor. Thereafter. and Tejsmgh censumed iiqu Mahes‘n staged auarre§ind. bv a beating as a resui‘t of which Mahesh 2§.4.1998 in police station about the irieident by Mamtzi Santesn. PW~6 Ramnatn and PW-E’ Kariikiam. PW-13 Naveen Kumai Nande registered the Merg No. 39/??2198 and after giving rotice Ex. prepared inquest report Ex. Thereaiter. dead bodv was Government Hospitai. Raig conducted the \ P.T.O. P-1 to the F’anchas. he P-2 on t’ne dead body of itliahesn. sent for oost mortem examination to arn where Dr. ’3K Pate} PW-ti post mortem and prepared the goost mortem report XI-HC-78 (LT/ ,o HE 200 ‘ mam? wwwm E L_x. D , -20 in which he opine: cccipitai regien arzd fracture poiice custodv the accused pursuance thereof one axe whit-e amour vest (Baniyan) \1 A§ter comnsetion of ir: ;‘*‘in the Court of' Chief Judi cammitte'd E‘ne case to the C whem £eamed Additionai S § same on traysfer for trial. . in order to estabHsh prosecution has examined a the accused undei' section 3 which he has denied ihe r prosecution case and pieadi in the case. He examined Nehruiai DW-2 in his defenc stated in his evidence that sustained by the accused ar his head, sweiiing and oain riuht knee. DW—2 Nehruiai accused was the driver of ve 274.1998 to 304.1998‘ they from Raigarh to Raipur. \ WW§MW ' %a1%w3w%¥r \ that cause of death was injury on the of occipital bone. Gn 1.5.1ES8 white n gave memorandum Ex. 23—11 and in was seized under Ex. P-4 and one Ias seized under Ex. P6. restigatiom the charge sheet was fried cia! Magistrate, Raigarh who in turn :ourt of Sessions Judge, Raigarh from essions Judge, Raigarh, received the the charge against the accused the s many as 15 witnesses. Statement of 13 ofthe Cr.P.C. was aiso recorded in tateriai appearing against him in the ad his innocence and faise impiication Dr. Anand Mohan Gupta DW-t. and e. Dr. Anand Mohan Gupta DW-1 has an 1.5.1998 he examined the injuries d found that there was a contusion on on the right wrist and bruises on the has stated in his evidence that the hicie of one Kaiiash Agrawai and from were at Raipur as they took the truck P.T.O. WWWEW) XI-HC-78 ¢ ..¢.oo. xx 4 (L77 EW,W,W .‘ ...... “a 200 WW<W> {nanmm mmwm Learned Additional counsei fer the reseective accusediappeiiam as mentie WW§WW ' %3I%trm Counsei for the accus aii the witnesses have mm; ‘ connect the accused with m ‘* ‘thai the weapon of ihe offe Science Laboratory, Raipur found on the axe. However, E A of the accused but there is r of the deceased and thus accused with the crime in qui \ On the he ?esp0hdeht/$tate supported Ccurt. other PW-2 Keshav Prase supported the case of the pr the fateful night. he was cal to the piace of incident, he 1 biood was ooziha from his PW-8 Ramnath and PW-i Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties convicted and sentenced the hed above. ediappeiiant submitted that in this case mi hostiie and there is no evidence to a ctime in question. He further submits 1ce i.e. axe was sent to the Forensic and as per the report no hiood was aiood was found on the vest {Baniyan} o report that it was of the blood group there is no evidence to connect the astion. nci, counsei for the the impugned judgment of the triai appearing d has turned hostiie and has not osecution. However, he stated that on ed by the accused and when he went saw that Mahesh was tying there and PEN-5 Santosh, Kartikram had not witnessed the incident. They have simply stated that mother of Mamta informed them that the accused Andht had committed the murder of Manesh and therefore, document of Ex. P42 was prepared. Thus, it is cieat \i\\\that these persons had not witnessed the incident. PW-o’ Laxmibai. .\ mouth and nose. \\ P.T.O. ’ XI-HC—78‘ EW,WW,W mm mm<W) WWW @awmm aRmHa%aaéw the daughter of the accused has stated she cfoes not km her maternal uncie‘ PW-9 turned hostile and not su; PW-1G Hira Bai is aiso not ii stated that Mamia, Kejabai k ‘ that accused Andhu has e ocu§ar or direct evidence to question. Weapon of offenc accused W.e¥e seized undei memorandum Ex. P-‘H‘ give report? no blood was found c the vest (Baniyan) but origir‘ FSL report whether it was t btood group of the deceased the accusedlappeitant with circumstances the judgment in the resuit, the app conviction and sentence pa Accused/appeiiant is acouitte is stated that the accused is at liberty forthwith if not requi Ace'rr ” L.C.BHADOO Judg WW wW §3WW Sdl- has atso turned hostile. She. however, wv as to who committed the murder of Rajkuman, wife ot the accused has tported the case of the prosecution. te eyewitness to the incident. She has and Mahesh came and informed her ssautted Mahesh. Thus, there is no conhect the accused with the crime in e Le. axe and vest (Baniyan) of the Ex. P-4 and EX. P—5 based on the n by the accused but as per the FSL n the axe and the btood was found on i of the biood is not mentioned in the he human biood and that too, of the Thus, there is no evidence to connect the crime in ouestion and in these of the trial Court cannot be sustained. x eal succeeds. lmpugned iudgment ot‘ ssed by the trial Court is set aside. d of the charge leveiled against him. it in detention since 1.5.1998. He be set red in any other case. Sd/— DI-IRENDRA MISHRA Judge P.T.O. m 200