.^. CF0000059227 IN THE HIGH COURT OF I.&DHYA FR-WESH AT JABALFUg fl^ Crlm.&ppeal S'3 •7'; Ti. < ..'l^ "'^ y 2. -KSOVV<: c^ <^;"i..i*^ ^5^^ j^^i.il^- /1\ Devi Prasad S/o Pancham Gond, ^^ Aged 47 years, . .^^ ... .- ; . ' ^->/ 2.) Ahibaran S/o Sheoraj Gond, «.- '^' Aged 52 years. 3» •Bhagawan Singh S/o Biran Singh Gond, Agsd 30 years. 4. Harif S/o Suraj Gond, Aged 42 years. 5, Sajaram S/o I-fohar Sai Sond, Aged 34 years. Biran S/o Ahibaran Gond, <• Aged 50 yearss I'land Ku-Tiar S/o Dallp, • Aged 30 yaays. 8.'; Jaduwir S/o Harilal, ) ^-y/ Aged 30 years. 9. Shanker S/o Devi Prasad, ^. Agec. 28-years. 10. Narayan S/o Devi Prassd, Aged 52 years. llo Ramadhar S/o Amritlal, . Aged 3Q years. 12j. Biran Ram S/o Sukhdeo Panika, ^-. ^/ .-"' Aged 44 years. 13* Kangal Singh S/o Harif Gond, ^- •' Aged 30 years. 1A. Sheo'ra-n S/o Harif Gond, -- Agsd 40 years. .^/ 15^ Ramnath S/o Biran Gond, -"' • Aged 30 years. 16. Narayan'S/o Biran Gond, .— 28 years. 17. S.am Singh S/o Harilal Gond, Aged 47 yea.rs. 18; Kripai S/o Biraa Gond, Aged 21 years. All R/® Vills Phaaga, P.S. Khandgva, 'Iahi Manendragarh, Distts Sarguj'a. (I'i?) . Versus ^" ^ r~... APPSLLASITS ;ate of Madhya Prsdesi- RESPOZ-3DEICT ;<*'~%.:2 .^' •'.';;aesyaES"it!s-'t':a- ,,t^S.V. EB{-»'si lilUBBS*2 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR versus Devi Prasad & Ofhers State of Madhya Pradesli Siut. Usha Chaudrakar, counsel for fhe appeBants. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhaa, P.L. for fhe State. CR.A. UHDBR SECTION 374 (2S OF THE CODE OF CR3MINAL PROCEDURE This appeal is directed agamst fhe judgment & order dated 6.7.90 passed by fhe Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh iu. S.T. No. 231/1989 convictmg the appeUaats for the offence punishable under Sections 307/149 of the IPC aad sentencmg fheia to undergo RI for four years. In addition to the above offeace the appetlaat No. 12 has atso beeu couvicted for fhe offence uiider Section 148 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one yeai~. 2. Brief facts of the case are that oa 17.3.88 FIR (Ex.P/8) was lodged by Rau Sai (P.W.-8) aUegmg ia it fhat at about 8.00 a.m. in ftie momiug when he was goiug to his viUage about 12-13 persons includiag accused/appeUant Biran Panika who were anned with clubs, bow aad arrow, have assaulted him as a result ofwhich he sustained number ofinjuries. 3. So as to hold fhe accused/appeUants gtuliy the prosecution has exainiaed nine witnesses. Statement ofthe accused/appeUaats were also recorded under Section 313 offhe Cr.P.C. ia which they denied fhe chai^es levelled agamst them. aud pleaded thetr icuiocence aad false impMcation in the case. .....'^ :I\ "'itfe, "s; ^ .yf f'\'' •-•;' ^' 4. Arter hearing counsel for fbe pa:rties, the trisl Court has couvicted tbe accused/appeUaiits for fhe offences as dentioned above. Hence tlie preseat appeal. 5. Co-LUisel for the sppellaats sub.iflits that appeilants 1, 2, 4, 5,12,15 & 17 have already expa~ed aild the appeai iii relation to them. staads ab&ted. Contention of Siat. Caandralcar is that but for tae coiiipl£dnaEitaad tne ii^vestigating ofScer the ofb.er •'.'i-itrLesses have 'turrsed hostise. Shs subruits that evea fhe corcplaiiiant Iias aot deposed aayfhuig agam.st fae acciised/apoelisjits 011 which basis ttiev can be convicted. 6. On fhe other hand supportiag tae mipugri.ed judg.iaent i't Iias been argued by the State couasel that fae inaaner in which a poor person tias sustained niumber of injuries clearly iiidicatES fh.e iavolveiaeiit of tbe accused/appellaats aad theiefore tJieir conviction is ia accordaace wifh law. 7. I have heard couasel. for the parties aiid penised fhe judgiaent impugaed as well as the iiiaterial avaitable on record. Coinplaiuaat (P.W.-8) Ran Sai has stated that oa the date of incident he had gone to ttie vfflage of bis 'brofher aad when he was retummg froia fhe said vfflage near viBage Funga at Budhra river, accused Bhagwaa Siagh shouted "niudkatusa chor gohar kuda whereupon he said fhat "main mudkatwa chor nahi hun" aiid D.S is Raasai but despits fhat accused/appellaiit Bhagwaa Singh did not stop and was contuiuously shoutmg fhe saiae aad upon heanag this cries nuiaber of vfflagers came there and started saviiig "maaro maaro'. He has stated fhat sozae of fhe persons were holdiae clubs m. fheir hand wliereas some were holdiag bow aiid arrow. He has nirther stated fhat he request thein not to assault acd then thev asked him. as to where hs has gone aad fhereafter accused/appeUant Biran assaulted hun wifh bow aod arrow. However, he has stated tbat he could aot identilv aav of fhe accused persous wlio are present in. the Court. He has stated ffa.a.t on a.ccount of fhe in^i-Lrv sustained by hiin iie fell dowa aad. tliereafter he was also assaulted bv fhe other accused by cluo. ^;' Iii. cross exainination also he has not m.ade aay ailegation agaiast any of the accused/appeUa&ts. SbanXer Lal (P.W.-l) has not supported the prpsecuti.on case and has stated that he coiild not identiiv aay of the accused person. Siamar is the position with. the stateraent of Maa Sai (P.W.-2S brofher of fhe iniiired aad he was declared hostile. Vishwaasfh Prasad (P.W.-3) before whom. the extra judicial confession is alleged to have been niade by appellaat No.2 Ahibharan Siagh has also been declared hostile. 8. Main Prasad (P.W.-4) is tne seszure wi+ness ofEx.P/6, Kapil Dev Siagh (P.W.-5) has done f&e part of iavestigatioa, Dr. K.L.Sethia (P.W.-6) has examined fhe victim. Ran Sai aad has given his inedical report Ex.P/9, has opiaed fhat as inariy as 10 injuries were found ou the body of the victrm uicluding soine grievous uijur)r. tittulieAial.tiMa 9. Sukhnandan (P.W.-71 another important witoess hss aot supported fhe prosecution case an.d has toeea declared hostiie. Lav Kuinar Paadey (P.W.-9) Investigating OiScer has done the part of investigation aud has supported fhe orosecution case. 10. Adiuittedly, no test ideatification parade has been conducted by fhe prosecution aad the victiia has not naiaed aU the appellaats exce-ot a.ccused/anDeUaat Biraa aad on the basis of t'tiis wealc evidence as adduced bv the prosecution it wifl aot be safe for fhis Court to convict any ofthe accused/appeEaats. 11. Haviag thus uadertaken the ininute scrutiav of the evidence available on reconl, fhis Court is of fhe considered opinion that prosecution has utterly failed to prove the fact that it was fhe accused/appeUants who have assaulted the victim Raxisai. There are lot of contradictions and oinissions iii the evidence of the witnesses aad this beiag the situation, accused/appellant are eutifled for fhe benefit of doubt. 10. In view ofabove, fhe appeal is aUowed. iiupugued judgia&nt is set aside. AppeUazits are acquitted of the charges levelled against tliem.. Thev be set free if not reaui-red in any otJier case. ^tVtw^'W1 5<xASe