^ 'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & 'BLE SHRS SUNiL KUSVIAR SSNHA, J. kPPLI Criminai Revision No. 73. of 200i 1. 2. 3. Smt. Heera Mati widow of iate Satyug Khandekar @ Bharka, aged about 30 years, resident of viilage Amora (Takhatpur) Tah. Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisaarh throuah P.S. Takhatpur, Dlstt. Bilaspur. Ranga son of Devanand Patel, aged about 24 yesrs. tentha @ Gaukaran son of Deepram Patel, aged about 40 years. Soth resident ofviiiage Bhilai, P.S. TakhaSpur, Distt. Bi^aspur (C.G.$ iON U/S 397 READ WiTH 401CODi Present,: Shrl Maiay Kumar Bhaduri, iearned counsel for the petitionsr. Shri Akhii Agrawal, leamed Panel Lawyer,'f6'r the Stafe/ respondenf No.1. Uiilj J.i: (11tn -September, 2008) 'he fotiowing order of the Court was passed 8y aiiovving l.A. No. 2380/2005, the copy ofthe F.S.L. report fiied aiong with this application is taken on record. rCTr."' /£.•^•\ f 1 'wes '(!.,. 1 Isv^y / '^awais''"' 6/ 2. Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, iearned counsel for the petitioner is heard on admission. 3. Petitioner Smt. Heeramati, widow of deceased Satyug Khandekar @ Bharka 'nas fiied this revision petition against the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 09-11 -2004, passed by the Special Judge, Bilaspur, in Special Case No. 89/2004 4. Poiice Takhatpur, District Bilaspur after compietion of the investigation of the case registered on the report of PW1 Taran Kumar, brother of the deceased charge-sheeted accused persons Ranaa and Bantha @ Gaukaran for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the i.P.C. and Section 3(1 }(X) of Scheduied Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocittes) Act on the accusation of their having committed murder of deceased Satyug Khandekar Bharka in the intervening night of 9th and 10th March, 2004. 5. The accused persons abjured their guilt and pieaded false implication to the charges framed by the trial Court for the alieged commission of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(2)('V) of Schedyled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 6. At the triai, the above charaes aaainst the accused persons were sought to be proved on the evidence of PW1 Taran Kumar, PW2 Ramji, PW3 Heeramati Bai, PW4 Bundkunwar Bai, PW5 Vijay Kumar, PW6 Lataram, PA/7 Munna @ Anand Kumar, PW8 !'i Prasad, PW9 Santosh Kumar Sahu, PW10 Mus. America Bai, R/V11 Dr. Chandel Ram Bhagat, PW12 Mukesh Verma, PW13 Shiv Kumar, PW14 Puneet Ram, PW15 Bishun, PW16 Gajendra Kumar Soni, PW17 Uttam Singh Gaur, PW18 S. Ekka and PW19 L. Tigga. 7. The triai Court on a close scrutinv of the evidence of the above-named witnesses examined bv the Drosecution found that there was no eye-witness account available in the case to connect accused persons Ranga and Bantha @ Gaukaran with the commission of murder of deceased Satyug Khandekar @ Bharka; the alleged incriminating circumstance of the deceased havins been seen last alive in the company of the accused persons could not be estabiished; the evidence in regard to the seizure of the weapons from the accused persons was highly discrepant; and no report was produced by the'prosecution that the weapons seized from the accused persons were stained with blood/ human biood. The trial Court, in view of the above infirmities in the prosecution evidence, found it quite unsafe to record the conviction of the accused persons and therefore passed the impugned judgment of their acquittal, 8. Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, iearned counsel for •the petitioner/ complainant vehemently argued that the triai Court has erred in discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on flimsy and untenable grounds; the F.S.L. report though was received in the police statlon much before the passing of the impugned judgment by the irial Court, but the same was not produced before the triai Court and a photocopy thereof has been filed by the petitioner/ complainant in thls revision petition s i|»e Kss :' !fc/: t ^: f.St'^^ ^;s^ III i along witn I.A. No. 2380/2005. Learned counsei further submitted that the incriminating circumstance of seizure of the weapons of offence at the instance of the accused persons which were found stained with blood by itseif is sufficient incriminating circumstance to hoid the accused persons guilty of commission of murder of Satyug Khsndekar @ Bharka. 9. Admittedly, there is no eyewitness account avaiiable in the case to connect accused persons Ranga and Bantha @ Gaukaran with the commission of murder of deceased Satyug Khandekar iharka. 10. The incriminating circumstances sought to be proved by the prosecution against the accused persons were that deceased Satyug Khandekar @ Bharka was last seen alive in the company of the accused persons by PW7 Munna @ Anand Kumar; Tangdi and Lathi were seized at the instance of the accused persons; the inimical background between the accused persons and deceased Satyug Khandekar @ Bharka and the fact that the accused persons in the past had extended threat to teach a lesson to the deceased. ,; 11. So far as the incriminating circumstance of deceased Satyug Khandekar @ Bharka having been seen iast alive in the company of accused persons Ranga and Bantha @ Gaukaran is concerned, the prosecution relled upon the evidence of PW3 Heeramati and RA/7 Munna @ Anand Kumar. PW3 Heeramati though in para 2 of her examination-in-chief stated that Munna @ Anand Kumar had !ijls.i totd her that accused Rsnaa and Bantha Gaukaran had detained ner husband deceased Satyug Khandekar @ Bharka, in para 3 of her cross-examination when she vi/as confronted with the case dairy statement (Ex. D3), wherein the above fact has not mentioned at all, the witness could not explain the.material omission. That apart, PW7 Munna @ Anand Kumar in his evide.ice before t'ne Court has not even said a single word about his having seen the deceased detained by the accused persons. 12. In this state of evidence, the trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution could not establish that deceased Satyua Khandekar @ Bharka was iast seen alive in the company of accused persons Ranga and Bantha @ Gaukaran. 13. The oniy remaining Incriminating circumstance against the accused persons was in regard'to the seizure of Tangdi and Lathi as weapons of the offence. A perusal of the F.S.L. report which has been filed by the petitioner/ complainant in this revision petition wouid reveal that though Tangdi was found stained with blood but no blood stains vvere found on the Lat'ni. 14. There is no material available before us to further establish that the blood stains found on the Tangdi were of human originaj'sd of the b!ood aroup of the deceased. 15. Thus, in our opinion, the seizure ofthe Tangdi and Lathi at the instance ofthe accused persons has no incriminating vaiue. 16. T'ne mere fact of the accused persons having extended some threat to teach a lesson to the deceased even if is held to be proved, wili not by itseif be a sufficient piece of evidence to hold the accused persons guilty on the capita! charge of murder. nimmi 17. Forthe foregoing reasons, we do not flnd any infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of the respondents accused persons Ranga and Bantha @ Gaukaran. 18. The revision petition filed by the petitioner/ complainant f against the impugned judgment of acquittai, thererore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summanly^__ __— - - -~^ Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge 3. 'o, <-