-3 ^' IN IHE HEGH COURT OF JUDICATORE AT BILASPI3R ( C. G«) -^ v^\^y\^ ^ ^^ ^UJL ^.OL^- ^ey^^,. ^^Ll_^^g s i&^^g^i -^"ST ^^fc-tODS fjH^^' /.^c 'tS^ /<//, ^^' Crisd.nal ftpT>eal Nb^fcv'<A of 2Q01 ,.2.^>/ Jr^ .^•; ^/' y p-' •• ^ /^- ^l/^^ ,.^>^- - 2-fc-2'Tf ^:T' °^- \fcs^A- 1. Raianath S/o» S&ri DharSai. "^" ^ Caste Kanwar .<^teA^< ^ . 2. S^ Shya^@Khl^ ^ f^ S/o» Dhiarsai Caste Kanwar 3. Anife Sai S/o, Photu Rara Caste t Kanwar^ Age 40 years, Ml are resident of Village Mordapara Deogarh P»S« Sitapur^ Distt» Surguja (C.G») ?<° ,/ <?'• VERSUS x' / ^ Respondeat $ State of Chhattisgarh, Through S.O. Si-bapuc* CRIMINM. ^PPE^E* QHDER SEC'EEOH 374 OF CRCMINAL PEOCEDUl-lE CDDE XI-HC-78 *IIHnTS»»*11'ct» T^ -^w\vw, ^t(1w<o, (sicil^y ^QT.wiw}...^ 64^, ^200 ( 3?ncRT^T^i<=b cW3TT^Tsn*iict) \^ \-..t c^ < ^TM5|<sn ^RTTW ^rf^cT OT^T DB: HON'BLS HOWBLE SHto DmRENDRA MmHRA, JJ Grimin^ Appellants '• Ve| Respondent :| Shri Vineet Pandey, Advocate Smi Akiiil Mislii'a, Panel Laye: .uRA.L (1 Per L.C. Bhacloo, J Today the matter is listed for l^ Counsel for the accused-appl appellants are m detention since ia<j allegation against the accused-appe| tank, that too m a sudden quan'ei, ther| Leamed Panel Lav^yei' also Accordmgly the appeal is Iward feiaUj 2. This appeal is dii'ected z'lgai CM<iI<n41Ti ^iH^tT ^ fe^ <F3i^<iK ^3Tl^T3T|it?r SHRI L.C. BHADOO AND 1 Appeai No. 649/2001 Kaimiam ana omers •sus State ofCliliattisgarh forthe appellants. ', for the State. JUDG.MENT 7-11-2006) earing oa M.(Cri.)P.No;712/2006. sllaiits submitted that m tliis case, acciised-" t about 6 years and 3 months and the only [iants is that accused Shyam Sai assaulted Ragiiuvir with a Lathi cn his head, ^hen the deceased Raglim7iit. was fishmg in the ?fore, the appeal be hsard fmally. . greed that. the appeai may be heard finaily. st tlle JLidgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20-7-200i passed agai3|ist tlle jLicigmenl it ^essions tnai No. 191/2000 wtiereby the leamed Fh'st Additional Sessions J^dge, Ambikapur, afier holding the accusech P.T.O. ^ XI-HC-78 <<l+«ntff»+1ict> 3^ ^i^i^i^, ^Tn<i4iG, Ri<nwH< ^..^..^f€tl..^200 3:n^?T XT^T (<^33^) w^T^rR^i* ^T ^W^h ^s- ^TTW^cTCT^T appeilants guilty for commission o\ Section 302 read with Section 34 o| undei^o iiiiprisonment for life and to| offine, to failher undergo K.I. for six| 3. The case of the prosecution deceased) along witli Nainsai went fish. At about 4 P.M» Durga came] Raiimath, xtoiik Sai also asked then^ that who is objectmg. In the mean) abusmg tliem, tiiese mfo persons atte^ with hands and fists. At that time, Shj head with a bomboo stick, as a anconscious. The accused persons fi| cn the scene of occuiTence, Banwarj The matter was reported by Nainsai i| tliat the Fii'st Infoimation Repoit: Ex. | to hospital for treatment unci^ fl succumbed to the injuries on 20 J^ the police station and bamboo stick-| 18 on production by Nam.sai, post n^ cbi^I<n<{1»i^i^ciT ff te^t <RI<^K ^ 3:rf^R' 3TI^ murder of Ragliubii^ convicted them under I.P.C. and sentenced each of the accused to pay a fine ofRs. 1,000/-, in defaurt ofpayment months. m brief isthatQn 18-6-2000 Ragliuvir (smce to Daroga Muda tarik and they were catching there and asked them not to oatch the fish. not to catch the fish, on which Ragiiuvii' said time, accused Ranmath and .4nuk Sai started caugiit hold ofRaghuvir started assaulting him ^am Sai came abusing and attacked twice on liis r^siilt of which, P.agiiuvii' fell down, became Ki the scene of occuiTence. Banwari Das came Das and Namsai took Ragliuvir to his iiouse. nder Ex. P-l m Police Station Sitapur, based on p-10 was registered. Injured Ragiiuvh' was sent \x. P-16 where during treatment, Ragiiuvir ne 2000. Merg intHTiation Rx.P-17 was sent to tlie weapon ofoffence was seized under Ex. P- onem on the body of Ragliuvii' was conducted P.T.O. (---.. XI-HC-78 ^ *iiH<?ma»*iict» 3^ '<<i<il<n<<, WTn'y'ie, fs|dl'y^< _, cv ^' ^^'"i ^200 J f?T Msith ('ic't3c'<<6t) W^TW^FTRF cWW^Tsbmcb ,("•. ?^<TTW ^rf^cT ^TI^T byDr. M. Nikunj (P.W. 1). He prepar^c he opined that cause of death was con|ia ot mvestigation, cliarge slieet was ti| Class, Ambikapur, whp in fum rynbikapur wherefrom the leamed received me case on translbr. r^d post moitem report under Ex. P-3, m which as a result ofheadmjmy, After completion [cd m the Court of Judicial Magistrate Fii'st cofm^itted the case to tlie Sessioiis Judge, Sarguja ?iiTst Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur 4. Froseoution in oraer to estabiis of accused persons were recorded uiid) the material appearmg against them i| .that they have been falsely implicatecl Uvo witnesses namelv D.W. 1 Human Leamed Fii'st Additional S^ advanced and pemsal of the record; aforementioned. 7. Slm Pandey has not disputed | from medicai evidence ofP.W. 1 Di'.l cM<4?<ri41ti ^iH<nT^te^'<Ri«.i< ^3Tf^T3Tr^r \\ the cliai'ge exammed 9 witriesses. Statements ^r Section 313 ofCr.P.C. in which they demed i|i the prosecution evidence and fiirther stated in the crime. The accused persons examined pmgii and D.W. 2 Ablmiandan. jssions Judge after hearing the arguments c<|)nvicte4 and seiitenced the accused persons as 6. We have heard Slii'i Vmeet Ijandey on beiialf of the accused persons and Slm Akiiil Mistoa, on behalfofthe .St4te. i.te. liomicidal death of Ragiimdr. Apail: from tliat, M. Nikunj and e^^e-witnesses P.W. 3 Nainsai P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3TT^T^T^TPF cW317^Tsb^i<sb \ • ^ *11*1CTt St>HI<»» 3^'<ll<11<'1<(,(9Tfl<'t<16, (<1<'1W^< 4 ^l 200 V .^^ {?TH^€t» ??aTW^fef3TI^T and P.W. 4 Banwari, it is establishe nature. 8. As far as in^'olvement of concemed, leaiiied counsel for the ai Namsai wlio was present on the sce P^agiuivir were fishmg m Muda tanl came and said that thev should not they will go imiiiediately, however came canying club in his hand and of which P.agiimm' started shivei'mj scene of occuiTence. Tiie above e^dd the defence has not been able to el umejiable and untmstwomiy. Tiie at meaicai evidence. As per meaical condiicted post mortem on openmg skuil bone; therefore, the medical e\ P.W. 3 Namdas and P.W. 4 Banwa- that the fincimg of the trial Court to cM<<Id<{1rl WT^ff ^ te^t <Rl<^l< ^3T^T3TI^T d that the deatii of Ragiiuvir was homicidal in he accused persons in crime in question is )peiiants does not dispute tiiat fact aiso. P.W. 3 ne of oceuiTence has stated that iie along with ;. At that tmie, Durga, Ratmiath and Anuk Sai ^atch the fish, on which, Ragliuvii' replied that Raiimath abused. In the meanwhile, Shyamsai ittacked Ragliuvii'on iiis liead mice, as a result ^ he feil down. Tlie accused persons fled the ence has been corroborated bv P.W. 4 Banwari who came on the scene of occuiTenc^ during altercation. In theii' cross-exammation, lcit anv cii'cumstance which make this witness (ove ocular evidence stands coiToborated by the evidence, Dr. M. Nikunj has stated that he of head, he found that there was a fracture of idence also coiToborates the ocular evidence of i. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion ;lie extent of involvement of a'ccused persons m ^- P.T.O. (s^~' XI-HC-78 3TT^T^rRFTRF <W3TT^Tsh*lIch 4. ;^ 3^T'*ii<<i<n<(, Wtny'is, f««'ii'M^< *IT* II a»»i^»s^^ ^ ^2K)OI ^TM^W lvt<3<ltl<s|<*^J 5^<TTW ^rf^cT CT^?T coiiuiiitting murder is established an(| m thejudgment ofthe trial Cowt. 9. Smi Pandey argaed that the there was only one injury cn his attacKea witii mtention to cause aeatil Imaimer in which Raghuvii' was assaulted and h€|ad, it camiot be said that the accused persons ot Kagiiuvn'. 10. On the other hand, Slm Msi.M'|a supported the judgment of the trial Couil. 11. In order to appreciate the ai) respective paities, we iiave pemseci i\ Nainsai were fishing m Muda tank ^ Samiti, therefore; P.amnatii and Aiiul| the tank, on which, RaglimA' said meantime, Kaiimatii startea abusmg. attacked on the head of Ragliuvir appears tiiat Raghuvh' was fishihg m| by accysed persons saymg as to w! started abusing and Shyamsai cam P.agliuvir, all ofa sudden without an} preparation and on a spur of mome- Therefore/m the above cu'cumstam Gt)i^I<n<Tlri HPT^ft ff te^ <F3i^i< ^3Tf^R'3T^RT to this extent there is no iUegality or infii-mity guments advanced by ieamed counsel for tlie ic evidence. As per the evidence, Ragiiuvii' and dthout any riglit and without permission of the objected Ragiiuvir as to why he was fishmg in tliat mey wiil go just now. However, m me in the meantime, Siiyamsai camc with a Lathi, twice, tiieretore, Irom tiie above eviaence, it the tank without any rigiit, whicli was objected ly he wsis fishing, m the meantime, Ramnath ? with a Lathi and attacked on tlie head of preparatioti ancl quaiTel IQOK ptace without any |it, Shyamsai attacked the deceased with latiii. |es, it camiot be said that Shyamsai assaulted P.T.O. ^' XI-HC-78 +11*1^1 »>*IT^» 3^T •<ii*ii<i<i, ^Tn'y4i<o, (s(dl^^< ^^.^•^ff.\^c ^T<-T5(W w^r^rf^ri^ <cW 3TR?T ^TW /) i v S^TW^cTCT^T deceased Ragliuvii' with mtention to ca^ise ghyamsai attacked on head of Kaglim| was also wlth them, it cari safely be ij|ifei Imowledge that hy attackmg on tiie he4 F<agliuvir. Therefore, m the above 4 persons aoes not travel beyona yectiQn| 12. Li the result the appeal paitij persons under S^ction 302 read with S^ them under that section are set aside, S.ection 304-U read witli Section 34 of| undergo 7 years R.L 13. It is statecl that accysed F^amiiall 2000 to 26-2-2001 and thereafter from| and accused Shvamsai was m deteiitioil witji effect from 20-7-2001 till date. A| iip ofthe ^)av€period ofdetention aga| 14, In view of the above judgmeiit, Sd/- L.C, Bhadoo I Judge his death. However, the nianner in wliich, |ii- with latlii, Ranmath abused and Anuk Sai ij|ifen"ed that the accused persons had defmite ^d with lathi they are likely to cause death of tircumstances, oftence cigainst the accused |304PaitUofI.P.C. cM<<T<rt41r< HW^fr ^ fe^ <RI<^I< ^3ri^T3T1^T 7 succeeds. The conviction of the accused ction 34 ofl.P.C. and sentence imposed upon iistead, they are convicted for offence under LP.C. and each ofthe acciised is sentenccd to li ancl Anuk Sai were in detention since 21-6- the date ofjudgment i.e. 20-7-2001 till date from 21-6-2000 to 12-1-2001 and ttiereafter 1 the accused persons shall be entitled for set ast th©sentence iinposed upon them. Vl(Cr.) P. No. 712/2006 stands disposed of. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge y^ .^ ^^" P.T.O.