IN’TH" HICF COUvQ’T JI‘ JUDICA'I'UKE‘ AT JABALP CR IMINAL APPEAL Naggim ze U$ Will” llmmmtmtl M 062559 m O 1i2g~' AppbL /3 374(2) Cr p c. 1973 APPELLANT: Shamsam: Ali son of Emtiaz Ali, Caste -= Mugalman, ageé 41 years, r/o Gram Dharseeva, P‘$aDharsaaVa, District Raipur, at present - r/o Luthra Sharee£ , Bilaspur, Mali. V/s $‘Dte of Madhye Predeqk through Pa o .Dha rse&va , D istt. Ra ipur. IaiggziggrPWL U/J 374f2) Cr x: c, 1973 F \§\ " HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 300 of 1999 APPELLANT Shamsoor Ali, S/o lmtiaz Ali VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh 1 \ ‘ \ ‘ Shri S.P. Sahu, counsel along with appellant. Shri Akhil Mishra, Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State. l CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. J U D G M E N T (06.04.2010) i." § With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally. The present appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 12/01/1999 passed by V‘h Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 263/98, whereby convicting the accused/appellant for the offence under section 306 of IPC and sentencing him for three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. u 2; The brief facts of the case are'that on 7/1 1/1997 FIR (EXP-1) was lodged by Lal Khan (PW-1) alleging in it that his brother accused/appellant Shamsoor Ali got recorded the land of his mother in his name and used to pressurize her mother for demand of money and used to harass her. He has further alleged that his mother has expired because of torture given by the accused/appellant and therefore, the action be taken against him. Based on this report, offence under section 306 of IPC was registered against the accused/appellant. 3. In support of its case the prosecution has examined 21 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge leveled against him and pleaded innocence and a false implication in the case. This apart, one defence witness has also been examined by the accused/appeilant. ;4. After hearing counsel for the parties, ‘the Trial Court has Convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above. l Hence this appeal. l l 5. Counsel for the appellant submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, the offence under section 306 of IPC is not made out against’the appellant. He submits that the deceased committed suicide because of her poor financial condition and fortthat the accused/appellant cannot be blamed. He further submits that there is no evidence on record to bring the case within the ambit of section 107 of IPC and in absence of ingredients of section 107 of IPC, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under section 306 of IPC. .‘ , 6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment, it has been argued by the State counsel that the appellant had tortured the deceased to such an extent, where she was left with no other option but to commit suicide. He submits that even after the burn incident, the appellant has not made any effort to save his mother and that shows the cruelty on his part. 7. i have heard the parties and perused the record. Lal Khan (PW—1) lodger of the FIR has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Abdul Karim Khan (PW—2) is the witness of the inquest (Ex.P—3), has not made any allegations against the accused/appellant. Gulab Bi (PW—3) has also not supported prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Dr. Smt. Manglurkar (PW-5) has medically examined the accused/appellant and has given her report vide Ex.P-8. She has stated that the accused/appellant has suffered burn injuries on his right hand. Salam Beg (PW—6), Gayasuddin (PW-7), Khalil Khan (PW-8), Moinuddin (PW-9), Mahmud Aalam (PW-10), Vasuiddin Quereshi (PW-12) and Balla (PW—14) have also not supported the prosecution \ <29 case and have been declared hostile. Habib Khan (PW—11) has not made any allegations against the appellant. Govind Khan (PW-13) is an inquest witness. Smt. Rajo (PW-15) has not made any allegation against the accused/appellant. Shri Sanjay Kumar Dadu (PW-16) has conducted the post mortem of the deceased and has stated that the i deceased died on account of -burn injuries suffered by her. Prakash Kumar Masih (PW-17) is the Patwari, who has prepared the spot map. Santu Ram (PW-18), Baliram Yadav (PW-19) & Smt. Khatun Bi (PW-20) have also not made any specific allegation against the accused/appellant.’Vishwas Chandrakar (PW-21) is the Investigating Officer. i “F , 8. Considering the entire evidence available on record, under no stress of imagination the accused/appellant can be convicted for the offence under‘section 306 of IPC. In the result, the appeal is allowed. lmpugned judgment dated 12.1.99 is set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Appellant is on bail. He be set free forthwith if not required in any other case. 9. Appeal is thus allowed. Sdln L. Pritinker Diwaker Judge \ ‘ l ‘