%% agoW m (W) W @ 111 200 mam wwéwm mummy WWIWW *Wm APPELLANT RE$PONDENT w. . Meh’ml @ Mahettru Ram Yaxlav, S/o. Shri Tiharu Yadav, aged about 45 years, R/o. Lakhauli, RS. Arang, Distt. Raipur (CG) Versus State of Chhatt‘lsgarh, Through Police Station Arang, Distt. Raipur (CG) APPEAL UNDER SECTI HON’BLE HRI L.C.BHADOO J HON’BLE Present: Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, 00111861 for the appellant. Mr. Akhil Mishra, Dy. Gcbvemment Advocatc for me State. I.A.N0. 1. This is an application fog oondonation of delay in tiling this appeal. 2. It has been mcntionod in the application that aiier conviction, the accused] appefant handedover the certmcd copy of the judgment to his sister Basanti who is anyilliterate lady and has ORAL JUDGMENT ‘4w April zoos) \L 7 [y / mm,m,1%mgt Wm DlVlSION BENCH: W . ¥ WW,W,W W m vi 200 mm (W) m$tfa=1f$ Hm mmm Wm%m ‘1, mm misplaced the copy somewhem. Thcrforc, further action cannot bc taken for $ing the appeal. Thereafter, she left the village to earn her livelihood and when she returned back, she contacted the appellant and then sister of tlhe appellant contacted the counsel after five years, h‘om Whom he came to lmow that the appeal has not been hled. t the appellant and his sister both axe illiterate. Therefore the de y has occurred. The application is supported by the mavit of sister of accused Basanti. 3. It has been mentioned 4. Having heard counsel the parties, considering the fact delay of 2120 days is condoned. mentioned in the application, 5. The appeal'is admitted r consideration as the accused is in jail since 28th July 2000, th by he is in detention for more than seven years. With the cons of both the parties, the appeal is heard many and dispOSed of. 6. This appeal is directed against the jud§nent of conviction and order of sentence dat 11m Match 2002 passed by the Learned Seventh Additional D strict 8a Sessions Judge, Raipur, in S.T. No. 362/2000 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the accused/ap llant guilty for commission of the oh‘ence under Section 302 of e IPC, for committing the murder of a r e e e WW,W,W 6% W m wt 206’ mm (W) mmf‘a‘w W mmsm‘ amm bib/ WW f§QTm $Wé§n§¥r of Mahasamund and collected Rs. ll against the price of paddy i.e. day i.e. on 27.07.2000, in the morning, it came into light th t Jankn Ram was lying dead near the house of one Shankar parked. Receiving the report, hruv Kumar gave merg intimation EXP—1 in the police station was registered. Dming the inv sh'gation, the Investigating omcer Ieceived the information that Janku Ram by piessing the ne k with a towel after taking money, which Janka Ram mceived, the paddy. The accused gave which he used for strangulatio. residence on the patent): In I 5100/-, and one red colour to‘ vide Ex.P-3. One letter written ' at the residence of deceased ‘ ‘receipts were seized under Ex seized.‘ After giving notice EX.P pay a e116 of Rs. 2000/-, in dc undergo RI for two months. in brief, is that, on the date of 7. Case of the prosecution inciaent i.e. 26.7.2000, Janku Ram @ Janak Ram (since deceased) sold the paddy in the market 5,846/- nom‘the Surya Rice 18,846/— and themafter, the Surya Rice Mill as sale price of morandum Ex.P—2 that the towel a and the money were lying at his mrsuance of that, amount of Rs. vel stained with blood were seized 5y Deepak, son of the accused, left was seized under EXP-6 and the .P-5. Other documents were also -7 to the panchas,‘ inquest Ex.P-8 \ N \ t \ \ Janku Ram sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. and to fault of payment of fine, to further andrakar where his tractor was ng on which crime No. 39/2000 accused committed murder of i a e m e @ . WW,W,W m 200 mm amm W mmaw‘ q m>m (W) mmifwm ‘ %sifanm was prepared on [the body of Janku Ram. Site plan Ex.P— 13 was t prepared. Body of Janku Ram was sent for post mortem examination to Primary Health ‘ G.P.Chandrakar conducted the cause of death is asphyxia (suEocation) (caldiorespiratory arrest) could be homicidal as nail marks over face were pmsent. The First Information Report EXP-16 W to Forensic Science Laboratory Raipur under EXP-21. The l tter written by Deepak, son the accused Ex.P-21A was sent to the handwriting expert alongwith admitted handwtiting of Deep and the report of the handwriting expert Ex P 42 was received regarding blood stained towel 8. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was nled in First Class, Raipur, who in turn, committed the case to the Sess learned Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur received the case on transfer for Trial. v Centre Arang where Dr. post mortem and opined that the s registered. Seized articles were sent for chemical examinatio e report of Ex.P.43 was received 9. The prosecution in order accused] appellant examined the Court of Judicial'MagistratT ons Judge, Raipur horn where the o establish the charge against the 'venteen witnesses Statement of the accused/appellant was re orded under Section 313 of the Cr P C in which he denied the material appearing against him in the prosecution ev1dence and s ted that on account of groupism mm w: 200 mm (13W) @ mm ar—L 200 3mm (W) mam mmm WW#‘WW %aifcm3néa of being explaincd by any other hypothe except the guilt 0f the accused and the ch of the evidence must be so complete as not to leewc any reasonable ground for the b consistent, udth the innocence of the a d. It needs no reminder that legally establis d circumstances and not merely indignation o the court can forsm the basis of conuicuon crime, the greutar scrutinize the evlde plane ofproof. " mafgam wér shouw not be the more seious the d be the care taken to lest suspicion takes the 13. In the present case, th prosecution has tried to establish the crime against the accused n the following cimumstances : that the curmncy es of Rs. 5,100/— and one towel stained with blood accused from his ho so re seized at the instance of the that the accused 1e a letter in the form of suicidal note which was written y his son at the instance of the accused in oxder show that the deceased has committed suicide. e f c e s n 1 t e . [g3 WW,W,W m m Fi‘zoov 3mm (WW) gamma—{m Hm mm @W “WWW 4, amm‘m 111) that the mceipt Ex.P- 18 85 19 regarding the receipt of sale of paddy were throwrl‘ by the accused in the residence of mama; the deceased. 14. As far as the first circun 1stance (that the currency notices cf Rs. 5,100/-‘a.nd one towel stlajned with blood were seized at the instance of the accused from his house) is concerned, as per the vidence of the Invesh'gating C mcer, as also the evidence of P.W.-4 Dhruv Kumar and P.W.-11 Rejendra Chandrakar, it is established that the money of Rs. 5100 - and the towel were seized at the instance of the accused from 's house and further held that there is no clinching evidence that money was the same which the deceased received after s g the paddy. In para 20 of the judgment of trial Court, it ha held that there is no clear evidence that the currency notes were of the accused but the accused has not given any explanation amount of Rs. 5100/~. In th circumstances, it can be presumed by the accused and he con led the same in the pataav of his house as the same is clearly ntioned in the memorandum by the accused, The hnding of the the house of the accused at instance, was actually the money of the deceased which he eived after selling the paddy. No specific marks 'or any ide tion marks regarding the fact that e e ' e a e 's c n ’ a e a%§% -8, The currency notes were of the eccased, has been adduced by the pmsecut'lon. Merely,»because n the previous day, the deceased ‘ received Rs. 5846/- as a sale rice of paddy from the Suxya Rice Mill and Rs. 5100/- was seize from the house of the accused at that the money recovered h‘om the house " of the accused was same money which n the deceased received &om the Surya Rice Unless the pmsecuh'on produce legal, admissible and clinchjn evidence to establish that in fact the currency notes of Rs. 5 100 wwas the same which was received by the deceased hem Surya Ri e Mill, it is di$cu1t to; leach to the conclusion by drawing infexen e mm the circumstance that the money may be the same which as received by the deceased after selling paddy on the previous d y. This amount is not such a huge amount, which cannot be fo d in the house of the ordinary citizen. Therefoxe, merely on th baiss of said recovery of currency notes of Rst 5100/ —, no legal inference or presumption can be raised that the amount recove d from the accused was the same which the deceased was posse ing after selling the paddy, before his death, As far as the towel concerned, no doubt, blood stains were present in the towel and towel belongs to the accused. As per the FSL report, there was b ood spot but there is no serologist report to establish that it was human blood and that too of the A blood group of the deceased. T erefore, this is also a weak «of evidence and the accused c L of the deceased. his instance, it cannot be infe d e ' . i e WW,W,W Hi 200' 3mm (W) mm $$$ WWW # # WW WW $WW ‘ ¢c11mstance (that the accused left a 15. As far as the second cij letter in the form of suicidal note which was written by his son at order to show that the deceased has 1ed, recovery of letter EXP—21 A, been wn‘tten by the deceased is is that inorder to mislead or to. committed suicide, accused got it 1d thereafter he left the suicidal note 3 Ahilya Bai. P.W.—3 Ahilya bai has ;he left along with her husband to ag from work, at about 4-5.00 p.m., her mother-in—law told that Mahasamund to sell the pad Thereafter she stated that wh‘ saw one paper chit lying inside the gate. There was rumour in the m was lying near the house of one .e showed that letter to her husband re. The same was handed over to the the instance offhe accused in committed suicide) is coocem suicidal note alleged to have concerned, pmsecution case establish thgit the deceased written from his son Deepak a1 in hont of the house of P.W.- stated that in the morning, : work. When they were returni her father-in-law had gone to dy but he did not return at night. an she woke up in the morning, she village that body of Janak Re Shankar Goutia. Thereafter st and to the persons present the police. 16. In the first instance, in the accused got that letter dro concerned, there is no evident been able to establish the fac )rder to establish the fact that infact pped in the house of the deceased, is :e to that en‘ect. The prosecution has t that the said letter EXP-21 A is in WWW WWW 17. As far as the third circum 19 regarding the receipt of sa accused in the residence of the 1 material available on mcord to 1 and 19 regarding sale of paddy residence of the deceased. There the involvement of the accused i , the nuding of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the ccused under Section 302 of the g [PC cannot be sustained. mwm -—_!D~ WWiwW §§aifaqsm€¥r ,i the handwriting of Deepak Yaxklav, son of the accused. P.W.~17, Mahendra Singh Thakur, in the first instance does not knew the handwn‘ting of the accused and them is no evidence to establish that the accused got it written from his son Deepak and thereafter he dxopped it. Moreover, even Deepak has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish that infact the accused was the instrument for preparau‘on of the said letter EXP-2 1A nom his so and thereafter, he dropped the letter at the residence of' the deceased 1'11 order to mislead thxe investigating agency to establish that the deceased committed suicide, this Circumstance is also not established. There is no other cii with the crime in question i.e. m ncumstance to connect the accused stance (that the receipt EX.P- 18 65 1e of paddy were thrown by the leceased) is concerned, there is no :stablish that the receipts Ex.P- 18 ‘was thrown by the accused in the i is no iota of evidence to establish h the crime in question. 18., For the foregoing reaso WW,WE,W Wm in 200 warm (13W) urder of Janak Ram. n HW,W,W Wm v1 200 m>m (W) ‘mm-W W W WW wm mafsam $Wé11é¥r _\\__ 19. In the rcsult, thc appeal iiled by the appellant succeeds. Impugned judgment ofconvicmm and sentence passed by the trial Court is set aside. The appellaxit is acquitted of the chaxges leveled against him. It is stated that thie appellant is in jail since 28th July 2000. Therefore, he be set at liberty if not requiied in any other r casé.///\\ Sdl- P, 1 R 5d].. L_C.BHAD00 Judged 3? / /‘/H Ty. Sharma "XV WT Judge