__::»XBH&28^ C-78 *41<4WI Eh^fch s^r "4i<iici<<, ®Tfl<H'is,Riitiyy ^-.^..a.s.s.s/ ^PT 200 >. sii^i 4^q> (lici?^sf'^Er) 3:n^r?n'f^.iicR (TSir3TTOTshKlcti 1. ^StTrwgf^ran^T APPELLANT: [lu Jail) - Versus - RESPONDENT: Divisioa Bench: Hoa'ble Mr. L.C. Bhadoo and Hou'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, JJ. 10-4-2008 Mr. Abhay Tm'an & Mr. A, Mr. Sandeeep Yadav, respondent. <tii<)[i']41-i tii>«-il'i¥te^'<Ri(-cii< ^sri^q-gn^T Mohar Sai, S/o Biucho Oi-aon, aged about 35 years, Caste Oraon, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Jamhari, P.S. Shaakargarh, Distt. Surguja, C.G. TIie State of Chliattisgarh, through P.S. Shaakargarh, Distt. Surguja, C.G. {Criminal appeal uiider Secti^n 374 (2) offfae Cdde of Criminal Prdcedure •|K. Rrasad, cotmsel for the appellant. De^uty Govt. Advocate for fbe State/ Oral judgment dictated on| ^J; - Dais. This appeal is directed agaiast ^he judgmeat of conviction aad order of seiitence dated 8-3-2002 pas|sed by the Sessions Judge, Suiyija, Ainbikapur ia Sessions Trial No leamed Sessions Judge after bd [157/2001, whereby aad whereunder [ding the accused/appeUaat giully for coiumission ofoffence under Se<|:tion 302 offhe I.P.C., for committiaj P.T.O. 6,°/ yif '°/ ^ 'XI-HC-78 3^ -^WW^, fST^WM, Rc-tl<Hy,< & ^--5<Y-^ :'r^, (^ *11*1df Sh*1|cb WT 200-^ 311^1 Mach (liclt^q^<T) 3nssT°F)T' :-('4r2:TT^?TsbHI°ti 9. 3. STcTrwHficTsn^T the miu-der of SuMunaniya imprisoiunent for life. Case of the prosecution, ia bri^f, Bai (since deceased), wife of df attend fhe marriage iu her vitla^e inarriage aad tafcing her nieals, p.m. Maghe (PW-2), husband <|)f nieal at fhe niarriage place left wife Shouki and Bhiasari. Aflfcr Irom his son about his wife, hi|s gone towards the kitehen gardeB( time, Faiyya, ShouJd & Bhiasari woiaaa is lying at the comer off|ie place canyiag laatem ra his he|nd there, blood was oozuig froin the| was also lying fhere, by that tim^ tirda Maghe (PW-2) gave Mei^ iatir^ Station Shankai^arh on 6-3-20^ fhe first information report (Ex.| at 10.15 a.m. The Investi^ occun^nce aiid after givias preparcd iaquest Ex. P-2 on fl| Sukhinaniya was sent for post-] Priiaary Health Centre, Shaalcai) 6) conducted post-iuortem on fh| °bi<<f<i<fl-( tii*i<rtT^'tec^l'<F3i+(ii< ^Sll^TTSn^T Bai, sentenced him to uadei^o ;f, is that on 5-3-2001 Siildunaniya omplainant Maghe (PW-2), went to Jamardihaaa, after attendiaR the she left for her house at about 7.50 Sukhinaaiya Bai, after taking his For his house along with Faiyya, his reaching his house, he enquired son replied that Sukhmaniya has to answer the call of nature, at that caiae and uifonncd Maghe fhat soinc road. Hearmg fhis, he went to fhe and saw fhat his wife was Ivinj right temporal region aad one stone SukTiTnatuya was already dead. n^tion No.4/2001 (Ex.P-7) in Police 01 at 10.10 a.in. and based on fhat ,f-6) was registered on fhe saine day ^ting Officer left for fhe place of ijiotice Ex. P-1 to 'iie Panchas, he jie body of Sukhmaniya. Body of iitortein examination under Ex.P-ll to jarh where Dr. (Smt.) J. Kujur (PW- |e body of Sukhxnaniya aad prepared P.T.O. II? "/ ,XI,HC-78_- XI-HC 78 4 3^T "i|l<i|ld^, (S.'J1^'l<s, fsjcll+iy G..^.. tm-f^TT 8i»<T^ 311^1 M^tb (lcft^s1^) • CTT 200 STT^T^ ;:dT3TI^TShHI°b Slii 4. o. 6. ?RTT8iiTHf?ff3T1^?r post-morteia report Ex.P-19. Officer came to know that the Siikhiaaniy?.. Durmg invest^, » ^ Ex.P-3 regardi^he place where aad ia pursuAnce of that fhe seized under Ex. P-4. The Laboratory, Sagar for fi-oui the place of occuirence iinder Ex.P-12. Clothes of the The Patwari prepared site plaa examiaation scs puring iavestigation, the Investigatinj ^ccused has comautted fhe muider of ^tion, the accused gave memoiaiiduia ^.e kept the axe, the weapon of ofifence, axe and Lungi of the accused were laxe was sent to Forensic Science Blood stained soU & plaia soU also a triangular stone were seized deceased were seized iinder Ex.P-13. Ex. P-5. After coinpletion of uivest^atio|n, accused in the Court ofJudicyi who in tuin coiiunitted the ca^i for trial where fhe prosecutionj the accused examined six witnt recorded under Section 313 ol xnaterial appeariitg agaiast hifai stated fhat he is tanoceut, ht cnme. Leamed trial Court after convicted and sentenced fhe ac We have heard Mr. Abhay Tiws on behalf of fhe appeBant aad Govt. Advocate on behalf of fhe qwf^ft^ iqTlRT)-'^'te^l-T^TRK ^Sff^IITSn^T i, char^e sheet was; filcd agauist the Magistrate, First Class, Ambikapur, e to the Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, iu order to establish charge agam.st ;sses. Statement of the accused was the Cr.P.C. ia which he deiiied the in the proseciition evidence and has been falsely impUcated in fhe hea|ring counsel for lespective parties, tused as aforeiuentioned. 4i & Mr. A.K. Prasad, leamed counsel |Mr, Sandeeep Yadav, leamed Deputy |State/ respondent. P.T.O. ^ ,® ^ylf /°/ X]^HC-78 3^ •-tll.illcl-M, 8>Tfly'l(S, RrtKHy KTTl-fcTI Sh*1|ch ^ 200 Sii^i 4a<*> (4,C<I^'5<^8T) a'TT.??!':?)! ?T9H3T[^Tait<iq) 7. E^TW'ElfNaTI^T appeUajat Mordover I^eamed counsel for fhe deafh of Sukhinaniya Bai. stated in her evidence fhat on ^ on fhe body of SuMunauiya Bai, size of 2.5" x W x '/2" on right right eyebrow and oblique in size of 5" x 4" x l' on right to r^ht ear & eye. Skin 8& present, right teinporal region, inaxiUaiy bones were fi-actured. aad caused by blunt & hard fhat iiienibrane of braia was haeinorrhage iu the rigb.t Cause of death was head iajury was hoinicidal ia uature. In J. Kujur (PW-6) it is establishe4 was hoinicidal ia nature. natlure tenntoral chdek le|tj; obj^ct teinp^ral vielv As far as coiapUcily of fhe ac| concemed, conviction of the Jangu (PW-3) who has claiined of tlie F.I.R. (Ex.P-6) lodged b^ F.I.R. was lodged it was not kuol Siikhinaoiya Bai, fherefore, uiikuown person. ^PTfrPfl'-T WR^ft'ff teiA d^RSK ^srf^ffl'an^T have not disputed fhe horuicidal [t|over, Dr. (Smt.) J. Kujur (PW-6) has f-3-2001 he coaducted post-inortem |ttiere was (i) au iucised wound in the p|arietal region which extendiag up to and (ii) a lacerated wound in the region which was exteudiag up were cruslied, clotted btood was [e|ftjaw, bones beneath thc right eye & |Injiuies were aate-inortem ia nature j^ct. On openiag fhe body, she found ruptured, fhere was a subdural region aad clotted was preseat. ^s a result of haeinorr'hage aud death of fhe above evidence of Dr. (Snit.) fhat fhe deafh of Sukhniaoiya Bai ac|cused ia the crmie ia question is ac4used rests oiify on fhe testunony of Uimself to be the evewitness. Perusal Maghe (PW-2) reveals that tffi the iva fhat as to who attacked deceased t|he F.I.R. was lodged against aa s .® ^yv. :fo, P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3:5T •<ii-i|ici''4, tSTfly'16, fsini<dy HI^MI a^-frei b..J:L.. ^/-^ .*- WT 200: 311^1 M^cb (yfi^'sl'^'ST) sn^r «RTfsiwe TTS1T 311^1 sb^lcb 9. ??HTW;Bf5cT3:n^T Jaugu (PW-3) has stated in his date of iacident he was goiag to | tuae, he saw fhat fhe accused axe as a result ofwhich she feU down, being fi-ightened, he Police caine ia tlie viUage to inv^s to fhem that he had seen fhe acit: disclosed fhls fact to Leinta, anybody. In fhe cross-examiiia1|i< SiLkIunaaiya was going, fhe backside of fhe axe, he saw the seeing fhis he becanae frightene<|l agricultural fleld, but he did cross-examination hc has stateld house of Maghe where the body at that tune, he, Mohar Sai, vfflagers were ttiere, being Kamii. When he was going to Hindu Uraon, it is incorrect to forest and he went to his hous^. Hiadu Uraon fhat Police has is why he is running away. In ttds fact to anybody, on the n|E anybody, on Thursday he mfit>i n<t>t codae «hi'i]It-i<fl-lHitii?iTiT'te^<Ri<-<;i< ^SfRlTTSn^T ^vidence ffaat at about 7 p.ni. on fhe Isee his children in his house at that tffas attackiug Sukbinaniva Bai with sus|tained injury on teiuporal region aad ^sai away froia. the place. When the inv^stigate icito the matter, he disclosed :used comimtting fhe crime. He also ap|art fi-oni that he did not disclose to iualtion, he has stated fhat he saw while a<t;cused attacked the deceased froin fncident froni a distauce of 50 yacds, ene<|l aad went to his house through fhe raise any cries. In para 6 of his that next dav PoUce cam.e at the |was lymg aad iaquest was prepared, ]Maghe, Faiyya, Patarsai and other filgpitened he raa away to his village ^illage Karmi, he did not come across 4ay that Hiadu Uraon inet liim in the It is also iacorrect fhat he said to in fhe viilage for investigation that Yiflage Kanni also he did not dlsclose njext day also he did not disclose to Gt>rraed Lexnta aad Lemta, ia tura, P.T.O. \{a, c/o/ •M^ ••h r.^'r ',A Sl-HC-78 3sr^r(Fn?ra', »T(1y'i6,Rtciiyy @ /^\ *11*1CTI ai^Tcb --^^ • -• 1 ' —3.<:-->.^ ^ 200 3i\^[ 4d* ('i^l'i^S'T) 3n^i?iTR-iich ((''nsn^TgiiiR; B^Sii 10. 11. ?CTW:tl1?(T3l1^T uiformed fhe Police, but he hu^ PoUce. He did not disclose this ielf dal not disctose this fact to fhe f^ct to anybody except Leinta. Tfais wt(V Froin ttie evidence ofJangu (PW| the viUage for iavestigation and Sukhm.aniya Bai, he was presen^ without disclosiag that as to Sukhnianiya, he ran away. suspicious about his evidence, attackmg fhe deceased, then PoUce. The incident took place) Thursday aud as per his ev^ Tliixrsday. Whereas, Lemta stated ia para 4 ofhis examiuatifin iuvestigation iu fhe viUage, accused Mohar Sai wlule Therefore, fhe evidence of Lemt^ has stated fhat he did not disclolse fact to Leuita only, that too on Tl !n view of the above contradictoijy (PW-3) why Jaugu reiaam sUenl about his evidence that whether the deceased, Had he saw fhe whv he reiuauied silent for fov JaQgu. He is fhe only soUtaryl evewitn.ess, therefore. explicit qirafefr-r wraf ir'te^ (^FOTI: ^iSlf^TSIT^T |-3) it is clear that the Police canie in |ffas prepariag inquest on the body of in the viUage and as per his version, livho has conuuitted the inuader of conduct of the witness creates Ibecause when he saw the accused tv he did not disclose this fact to fhe on Monday, he reinamed sflcnt tiU Idence, he disclosed to Leinta on has been examined as FW-1 has i-iu-chief that when PoUce came for (PW-3) disclosed that he saw ]attacking deceased Suldunaaiya. falsi&es the evidence of Jaagu who fhe fact to PoUce, he disclosed the tursday. wb|o latitin Jajagu evidence of Lcmta (PW-1) & Jaagu for about four days, creates doubt (n fact, he saw the accused attacking a|ccused attacking the deceased, fben 4r days has not been explained by wituess claimed him.self to be the teliancc fnnnnt hp plnnprl—on—fllC ^fa, c/t>y •jyv ^l P.T.O. '(I-HC-78 3^? •^WKff, VnS\WI<e, RlMI'Hy ./" NIHcTT Sh^lch ^...Tt •/ ^ 200 3(1^1 4ach (4cli,^c)<^ET) ^STECT' RKT STR'T a?HW i^SE-E i:ic;ma 12 ??(ITWfff?ff3n^T evidence of this witaess. In accused is based on the te; because of the above infinnity are of the opiaion fhat fhe accused uader Section 302 sentence imposed upon fhe ac _^n". •tii'iifci'fl-i inTrrrffffe-^|'<Ri<-i;i< ^3lf^fT3T1^T |fhe circuinstarices, convictioa of the :^tuuony of this witness. Theiefore, ia the evidence of Jangu (PW-3), we fin|ding of fhe trial Court convicting the I.P.C. caaaotbe sustained. oftbe In the i-esult, the appeal of tti^ appeUaat succeeds. Couviction and \te, -/of > 1^»< •:fof •used under Sectioa 302 ofthe I.P.C. are set aside, fhe accused is a^quitted of the said chai^e. He be set at Hberty forthwith if not requir^d in any ofhex ca^ SdA ~:__ Sd/- T.P.Sharma L.C.BHADOO judgg Judge 'f- P.T.O.