® APPELLANT: (Zn Juil) RESPONDENT: HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS&ABK. BILASMJR CrmmQl Apoeal No.30 of 2001 Mohan Lal 5idar, S/o ©uSioram5idar, aaed about 38 years, ft/o Vili^e Tarapur, Tnma Kot^Qli.Rdgorh. Versus The 5tate of Chhattisgcrh, throygh the District Ma9istrat€,Rai9arh. {Crimlnol appeal under Sectlon 374 of the Code of Cr'iminal Proccdure, 1973) Present: Mr. H-S. PateS, coynsel for the •appellGnt. Mr\. Ponkaj Shrivostavo, Panei LQi^yer for the State/resjx?nd@nt< Singls Bench: Hon'ble c. T.P. ShQrma. J OftALW&^INT (21-11-2008) 1. Tnis oppeai is dlrected aqainst the ju^ment of convsctjon & ordcr of sentence dated 24th Noveniber, 2.000 pa^sed by the 1st Addltiona! Se^sions Judge, Ralgarh in Sesslons Tria! hto.23/99 whereby learned Additioniol 5es^lons Judge crfter hoiding the appeSlant 9ui!ty for commi^sion of offence under Section 304 Part-II of the X?-C., sentenced him to underao RJ. for 3even years. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, Is that on 16-10-98 Soneram (since deceQSed) ^as posted a^ security 9uard at Vlllcge Nondelj, Distt, RGJ9arh. The accu^ed/ appeilant as^ayJted Soneram and Soneram i^os founid in injyred condition near the ho'use of Jamindar^ Soneram was shifted to Vlilacie Nandeii and from there he ^as shifted to K.©.HospitaS, Raigarh. From K..&. Hospitai, Rcii9arh he ^as shifted to Sector-9 Hospital, Bhi-ld on 15ml0-98 ^here he dled on 16-10-98. Inqyest over the body of th©dcceased was prepared ynder ExP-12 and the body ^css sent for outopsy to'@overnment HospitQS, Dyrq vlde ExP-14. Dead body of the deceased was examined by Dr. JP, Meshram (PW-14) vide ExP-16. Injuries <& presence of bbod inside the peritoneol cwity were found. Injury over liver wos also found and cause of deoth was shock asa result of hoemorTha9e due to abdominai injury. After inquiry report wos submstted and on the bosjs of th©report, FJ.R. WQS iodged vsde Ex.P-11. [^ 2 3. After compietion of investi9ation, charge sheet wos fited before the Chief JudJciai Magistrate, Raigarh ^ho in turn committed the case to Itie Court of Sessions Jud^e, Raigorh, from i^ere learned 1st AdditJonal Ses^ions Judae, Rd9arh receiyed the ccse on tran^fer for trial. 4« In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appeiiant, the prosecutlon has examined as many os 18 ^itnesses. Statement of the accused ^as recorded ynder Section 313 of the CrP.C. In ^hich the occused denied th@ circumstarsces oppearing cyoinst him, pleacled innocence anc3 faise implication, .5. After affording opportunity of hearim to the parties, learned Additionoi Sessions Judge has convicted & sentenced the appeilcGnt in the aforesaid nr.orsni@r. 6. I hcsve heard leorned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned Judgment as also the record of the trioJ Court< 7» Learned counsel for the appelicnt submits thcst th@ prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reGSonable doubts ond it has not adduced any eredible evidence again^t the Qppellant. Learned coun^el further submits thctt except Farjyon Khon (PW-10), no witne^s has supported the case of the proseGution. F.I.R. hos not been iodged against the accysed/appeilGnt. At the time of inquest Gnd autopsy, nQ.me of the as^aiiant was unkrsoi^n^ Evidersce adduced ors behalf of 1fie prosecutlon is not sufficlent to ^arrant comiction ogalnst the appeilant. 8. On the other hond, learned Ponel Lcwy'er oppeanng on behalf of the State/ respondent hos supported the judgment impugned and syfomitted thot the occused/oppeijant has assaulted the appelbnt and cau^ed dar^erous jnjuries os a resylt of which the deceased died. Evidence. of FanyQn Khw (PW-10) i.^ sufficient for convicting the appcliGnt. 9. Injyries & death of the deceased are not disputed by the defence, otherwise, same is established by the evidence of Sanat Kumor (PW-2), FQriyan KhQn (PW- 10) <& Ramsagar Tiwari (PW-11) whlch has been corroborated by Dr. J.P. Meshram (PW-14), who has stated In his evidence that on 17-10-98 he conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sonermi ond found superficjat injyrie^, injury oyer liver* & presence of blood inside the peritoneal cwity, the deceased died os a resylt of abdominal snjury and ccuse of death i^as shock due to hoemorrh^e, 10, As regords compJicity of the accused jn the crime in questbn, FQrlyon Khan (PW- 10), driver, has stated In his evideriice fhQt Sonercm toid him that accysed Mohan ...^s"' /y^ j ^|gg8|. j % " "^ ^ '^:%A^ ^ has assauJted him with fists & kicks, Soneram ateo told him that previous; day he hos given Rs.100/- to the accu^ed, the accused has not returned the money, wd when he demanded the money the occused assajlted him. In his cross- ©xamination,this witness ha^ denied the suggestion that deceased was mt in o position to taik ond he was unconscious. Other ^itne^ses hcive not ^ypported the case of the prosecution substQntiaiJy. 11. Ramsanehi (PW-6) 'hos stated in his evidence thot Soneram toid hm that he was assoulted by the persons of Torapur. Presence of Fariyati Khan (PW-10) WQS admitted by other^ witnesses who have not support-ed the CGS€of the prosecution in detaiJ. Fariyan Khan (PW-10) has specifically 5tcted that the decca^d hos mode ora! dyinq declaration and ^tated thot he wos Gssaulted by MohQn with fists & kicks. Defence has cross-exomined this witness, but it has not been cble to show anything to discredit his testimorsy. 12. Evidence of sin^le witness Fariyon Khon (PW-10) irsspires confidence Gnd it is •trust^orthy, same is sufficient for drawmQ inference ogainst the cccysed/ appellont. On the ba^is of the evidence of Fariyon Khan (PW-IO'), the Court below has convicted the appellant under Section, 304 Part-II of the. IP<C, and sentenced him to yndergo R.J. for seven years. Conviction of the appellant is sustGincsble under the low» 13» As regards the question of sentence, taklng into consideration the noture of injuries and deoth of the deceased, sentence imposed upon th@ appeJlc^t is neither unjust nor improper. 14, In the resuit, I do not find any substance in the appeai, same is liabie to be dismissed orsd it is hereby dismissed. 5oma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge