e ta..,. '•^^, /..^ ''r;:'''-^1' w 3rcT ^|A||<7]><4, »Tfltl'l<o, (sftflK-ty C^r. A-.^o-l\U6 /&S~ "WTCW sb^lcb •--••••••••••--••••-••-•••-•---•••••• ^ 200 sn^T iraq? (ijdf^«<<{ti) ail^l.w R-fi+ WITSIK^t sb^ll'* ^aiWHfpt sii^r DB: HONtBLE SHRI DHIREHDftA MISHRA AND HON'BLE SHRI T-P. SHAftMA, JJ AFFBLLANT riN .TAIL.l yukltinaravan auas Narayaa, son 01 Jai4nt.h., nged 36 years, occupation Agn^ulluic, R/o vulage Ghuucuapui', P.S.ILakhaiipur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) vElt^US RESPOnDENT 13-2-aoos Stal Sta1 Actvoc&te ymt. Savita'liwan, Shri D.K. Gwalre, Dy. Gov tor me appeilant. ^t. Advocate, for th.e state. lliis cnminal appeal is| coaviction aad order ofsentenct 164/2001 whereby. leamed Ambikapur, Sarguja has convi<t read wifh Section 34 of I.P.1 imprisonment for life with fine fine, to further undergo R.I. for '2.. <jase ot prosecuUon, ui Iieactinan of tfae viuage. Ttie ai| consumuig liquor wtiereas Uie| forbad him from abustag ttie he stopped fhe appeUaiit and b| at about b.3U p.ia., tie gave suc) luade troin iron rod, eucl ot'whkth ctit<4^41l tTRcif ^ t^y'1 <f^t-l^R i? STf'PT 3D^T of Chhattisgarh through PoKce ion Lakhaapur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) directed agauist fhe judgment of dated 26-10-2002 passed in S.T. NQ. 4U1 Additional Sessions Judpe, ^ted fhe appeUaat uader Section 302 and sentenced him to undergo Rs. 1000/'-, ta defaiut ofpa^riaent of f5 raonths. <tt bldef, b[def, is fhat deceased Phuleshwar was )peUant used to abuse viu^ers atter deceased being head of tiie village v(Uagers. On the date ol uicident also, scause ot ttiis animosity, on /-3-^UUi 'essive tslows wiUt a Kadua (aweapon is fciend ui a circular sliape). GRPRJ—FS/2-.^____d7—50.000. J 3=ST ^lil^.ti^ fnfiWW, [^<ftWy. @ KWrtl sbHtcb' ^ 200 sn^T vsv (ipf^g^sf) <RI^[.W RilT* wrsii^r 'sKW 'Raiwdto STI^I «hi<iifi<Biiwn\ tf ^S <F>t^l< ^r 3ff'PT an^r 3. Chandan Singh (P.W. 1) 8-3-2001 at about 2.50 am ags tbr the scene of oceunTence, p( tf. of the deceased aad seflt fhe Healtti Centre, uaaipur viaei conductecl post jnortein ancl memoranduni of the appeBan|t was taken uito possession VKI( appellant was taken into posi for examination and Dr. A.R.I tbat t&e iajuries present ove| caused by fhe above weapoi^. Kaduwa, liowever Jie actvi conth-matioa. TIie Investigatuif P-15. <}ousin ot me cteceasecl lodgect report on 4aist ttie appeuant. The Police preceded jrtonned iaquest Ex. P-4 on the person (lead body for post mortem to Rriinary Ex. P-13. Dr. A.R. Jayant (P.W. 7) Igave his report of Ex. P-10. On the Ex. P-5, weapoa of offence Kaduwa Ex. P-6. Blood stauied clothing of the •ssion VKle Kx. r-7. Kaduwa was sent Jayant ui reply to t&e queiy, opinea the liead ot~ the deceased could be L. Btood like stauis are present over iea tor cnemical exanunaUon tor g Utticer also prepared site plaii ot Ex. investleatiou ^. Atter complemig Court ot Cluet Juclicial coininitted fhe case to the Uie leamed Additional Sessiorts for trial, st^gatioH, charge sheet was ffled in fhe M^gistrate, Ambikapur who in tum, Se^sions Judge, Ambikapur, froia where Judge receivea tne same on transter 5. During trial, prosecuticjn ^Uierealter stateinent ot ttie act- examined 11 witnesses in aU aad •used was recorded ia which he denied GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007— 50.000. ]i:?pr-f| 3^q- rffjillciq, 9Tf)«'IS,fslciiyy W^v{\ **^|cb ••^ an^?r 'wv (iyf-i<!i<ff) SII^I.'^iT R-li«b '(P'll 311^1 WiW 'S^aiWHfei sii^i ^i*il<n4li HIH^* Tf f^^ •(.^•t^K ^r sif'n an^i the evidence appearilig againi pleacled innoceuce anct talse nn 6. The trial Court aft^r Jies p nim m me prosecuUon case Emct lUcanon. ;a^uig leanied counsel for the parties, convicted and seutenced the ap^ellaiit as luentioned in para 1 ofthe judgraent. 7. Homicidal deam of Ph) omerwise, trom tne evidence ol witaess ol t&e uicKlent and statt Sonbhadra (P.w. 6) before wh( confession and Dr, A.R. Jayaijtt mortem. and tias provea tus one lacerated wound of size 5" sKull, oue laceratect wouncl ot 4 and one lacei-ated wouiid of sizt eve brow ao.a au ttie bones fi-actured aad he opuied that iiaemon-liage as a result ot iiomicidal m. uature, fioiaiciclal repprt [ilesliwar is not ui dispute. tiveu Ravindia. Sillgh (P.W. 4) who is eye- ^ment of CIiandan Stngh (P.W. 1) and pva Vae appeUant made extrajudicial (P.W. 7) who has conducted post of Ex. P-10 m which he has fouiid |x 'Z' on nglit teniporo panetal side ol ^ize 3" x 2" on occipital region of skiul 2" x 1" on lett side oflbrehead near jui wnicn ui.iui5r was present, were he deceased died due to iiiti^cianial flacture of bone and the same was ieath ofphuleshwar is estabUshed. 8. Leamed counsel for the ^ii based on fhe evidence of P.W.I deceased and P.W. 6 Sonbhad^a being son and brofher of fhe witnesses. The court below shdi ppeUant subniitted that conviction is 4 Kavuidra yuigfi wtio is son ol ttie who is brother of the deceased and aeceased, t&ey are tiigniy uiteresteu uld not have based the conviction on GRPRJ—FS/: 37 — 50,000. ji^! i' XI-HC—78 'FS^ '*\w<ft^, wS\w'ie, ^'ftw'y, ^TTERW *Nlch •Wi, 200 31I^[?^ R-fi+ '^STT 3H^T sh*l|ch an^r''ra^ (Ti?f5g^>^ TOiiwofrosn^i fhe testimonv of witae^ Sonbhadra as mey have] troin Amar yai. It was Panchu Singh, it is c^j unsoundness of mind .^ categoricaUy stated in. p^ tied with. cUEiin. He Iiad stone upwards and taKe tnis witness, it is clear 1 Tnind at the relevant examuiing flie condition convicted fhe appeBaa protection unaer yecUc consequences oftiis act < 9. On fhe ofher haai ttie unpugnea juaginent duly proved from. fhe wituess of the tncident Sonbhadra who aie w: confessed before theia th He further submitted exaaiiaed bv Uie detence appeuant's hand and leg Jinowledge Uiat ttie Dli qi!*iI<'i<H*i 'I:nTraf ^l^zt <f^R^.i< ^sifaT sii^i ^ses of memorandTun Chandan Siagh aad stated fhat the seizure was in fact affected fu|ther argued fhat troin the evidence of P.W. 3 cftar that fhe appeHant was suffermg from tt ttie time ot incid.ent as tb.ls wltaess nas lira 5 that hand and leg of the appeUaiit were also stated that fhe appeUaat throws the is in. on Jtiead and tnus troin ttie evidence ot fa.at ttie appeUant was a person ot unsouncl Itiine, even fhen fhe trial Court wifhout ]offhe appeUaat, proceeded with the tadal and I: t&ouga me appeUant was enUUed tor In 84 of l.P.C. as he did not know the flue to the iinsoundness ofnund. )1, leanied counsel for fhe State ST-ipportiiig argued Uiat Uie case ot Uie prosecuuon is sta|teuient of P.W. 4 Raviadra Smgn, w&o is eye and. F.W. 1 C&aaclaa Kuigli aad P.W. t> ttnesses of extra]udicial conlession as he jat he has inurdered Phuieshwar by Kaduwa. Itfaat P.W. 6 Sonb&adra was also cross- '), however he has denied the suggestion that ]were tied with chain. He has also denied any jit&er ot t&e appeUaat reiaauis disturtied. ^fvf ^^•i.l saa XI-HG—78 ^SET ^I-MI^, ^iTflu'ls, fsj^i^y MWv\{ **41* WI. 200 311^1 ^I R-fi'b 'craiT sn^r ^•qi^i 3TCRT TRq; (lyf.jsl^tl: TCiTWdfi^ an^i because the appellaht is never cliased tum. tor Deatti of unsound nund. He has stated fhat he 1U. We nave lieaixl perusect ttie reconl as also Ig^niecl 11. P.w. 1 Chaadait siiji extra]uclicial contession. l Ex. P-5 and recoveiy of] nieiiioraactuin stateinent o| that immediately after the| he had muidered Phuleslnt 12. P.W. 3 Panchu Sing stated tn iiis depositioa consKteniig tlie improveiiK ol U-2, tb.e tnal Court Iias 'l'tus witness lias also coudinon ancl tie betiaves ttie toregonig paragrapli. 13. P.W. 4 Ravindra Smi Jie is eye-witness ot Uie incident, he was sitttng i^ fiiouse belore iiim.Me wa assaulttag his lattier withj cbl^id-tftH 'WTcTf '£f^(<st^nt^R ^3lRt*T3II^I counsel tor t&e parties. We fiave Uie mipugnea judgnient. igh aad P.W. 6 Sonbhadra are witness of i]&ey liave also proved. ttie inemoranclum ol Kaauwa victe Ex. f-b on uie basis ot Ex. P-5. T'hese witaesses bave also stated lincident, the appeUant had conlessed that nt7ar. ;|i is a cluld aged b years, nowever ne lias |that he witnessed the incident, however fnt maae Dy tum trom tus diary statement ]not reliecl upon t&e vei-sion ot uus witness. cla4ned Uiat tlie appellant is kept in chamed IIQ ttie abnonnal tastiion as inenUoned. ui .th, who is son of the deceased, claims that ulcident. He has stated fhat at the tim.e of ifi tus shop. The appeuant entered in his js holdiag Kaduwa, thereafter he started Kacluwa over lils liead. Atter seelng the T5Sr'<ll'MI<rt<4, ffTfi+f'IS, RtC'il'My VW^t *MI* ^ 200 an^yr ^raw (Tpf^g^T) SII^I.TT h-U^ WT3IK?T WW WIWHfttlSD^T !nl GRPRJ— FS/2 viUa uicident, he raa towaids fhe vi}le to Panchu Singh and Sonbhad^a cross-examination, fhis witnes^ wimessed fhe incident. Tjtis stateinent and clauned that tte this iinportant fact is inissing i4 ige ana narrated about tlie uicident i. His tather died on fhe spot. In me has stuck to 'Ssis cJaica tnat he Iias w]ttness faas unprovea upon lus earUer Jhas Iiimselt' seen ffae tncldent, fliougli his diari' stateinent. 14. yo tar as Uie exu-a jud| Ctiandan Suigll is conceniecl, tuid t&at ttiis witness Jtias stateiaent that the appeUant 1iim aiid Iie has stated it tbr th.^ 6 Soubhaflra pafa extfa 15. Suiujarly, P.W. coiitession. f'roia perusal ot we obsei-ve that fhe aUeged appeuant in t&e potice velucle \ the police station and farttier ttus witness tias nownere jucticial comession betore nim. ib. r'rom. close scrutuiy ot Chandan Singh and P.W. 6 S( fheir version that the appelia[nt inaterial improveinent trom. fti{ Bx. U-3 m. wfiicii ttiey did not ^l'H^'sft'T tTFMf ^f t^'^' <f^R^K ^T aifTT 31I^?[ ja^cial contession laade Detore V.w. l fi^om. his diary statem.ent ofEx. D-1, we nc|t inenUonea uus tact ui tus earlier ifaacte extra judicial contession betore first time in fhe Court. is also tlie wltness ol extra jiidicial 14 ofthe deposition ot'this witaess, jucticial coutession was inacte by Ue hen me appeUaat was being taken to :, ui fiis ctiar^7 stateinent ot f;x. U-3, Uiat t&e appellaiit m.ade extra ntore tJtie evideace ol above witnesses t-'.W. l snbliadra, we are ot Uie opuiion ttiat niade extra judicial confession is sir earUer stateiaents ol E.x. U-l and. tnenUon Uie above lact aud, Uierelore, ,7— 50,000. '3^51 "i||<||<rt^, ^Tfl'M'KS, Rj^Wy '•IIMdl sbtltcti ^l an^ ira^ (ipf^gqg) siltw.^ii Ri-li'h WITSIRTI sbW^ 'reiro ^ife aitSr ^i^^l-1 'HTR^f ^f 'f^^- <f^^t< ^TsiRpTsn^ f we are of the opini<5n t&a confession, the appenaat c; inurclenng l-'&ulesnwar. ouly on tne Dasis ol extra jucticial itnnot be tastenea witti me c&arge ol 17. The sole eve-witness deceased. He has also m.ade| statement of Ex. D-4 and haj assaultuig his faftier. This statement ot tix. U-4. '1'n.us witness, it is clear ttiat ne is J.W. 4 Kavtaara yuigll is son ot ttie jnatenal un.provem.eat trosi tiis cnary stated fhat he tias seen t&e appeuaiit tact is not inenuonea ui liis ctiaiy froni perusal of fhe stateinent of this an eye-witaess. riot 18. In view of tbe above opiruon tnat Vae tnal cour); appeUant based on fbte state^nent Ravindra. Singli and P.W. 6 S( have extended benefit ofdoutl' aiscnssion, we are ot t&e consiclerca was not justified in convictiiig the ofP.W. 1 Chandaa Singh, P.W. 4 ionbhadra aad ttie trial Court ought to tto Uie appeHant. 19. In ttie resmt, t&e appe; luider Section 302 ofl.P.C. are set asiae. Me is acquitted| forthwifh ifnot required in ai| Sd/- DHDIENDRA MBHRA Judge atid is auowed. ConvicUon. ot t&e appeuaut sentence unposect unaer tliat secUou ot ttie aDove Gnarge. He be set at liberty y ottier case. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge GKPRJ— FS/246—2/2007 — 50,000.