18 1H£ HXOH COEJ&T OF JtaiCATU&g AT JABAE.reR. Cr.&ppeal So. \'3~^3>/199S. /' Appellaat s Islwar soa of Bukaraa Saha» (In Jsil) aged 32 yearst by oceupa-tioa Agriei.fl.turist* resJ.dent ef ..'''' villag®Mgrlcit P.S. tfehasaaaad, Bistcic-b SiahasaaHad, M. P. Versss* ./"" Respoadent. ; State of Kadhya Pradesb. SriBiinal Appeal_uader sectioa 374(2} of tfae Cr.P.e, JSS'l _^-_1L \ XI--HC-78 3^ •^ww^,9^\wie, Rdltili< *imni sh*ii<h W^ 200 3ii^?i 4ath (*yt3at<<'ST) an^r^rf^iw BW3D^rshHi«h ??aTW?rf?(T 3(1^T qBTqtcpft? IlTIRff ^' tScSt (fSReTC ^aif^Tsn^T DB;- Hon'bleShri L.C. Bhadob. Aa. C.J. & Hon'bte ShrLSynllKumajt- Sinha. J. 2-2-2007:- Smt. tndira Tripathi, coui|isel SHri J.A. Lohani, counsef Shri H.B. Agrawal, S< Advocate for appellant No.2 in Shri R.K, Jain, counsel Shri AkhilMJshra, Panel i forappellant in Cr.A. No. 1253/99. for appellantNo.1 in Cr. A. No.1398/99. Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, ;rANo.139W99. appellantin Cr.A. No.1698/99. ILawyer for the State/respondent. f^r Oral judgment dictated dpDais. PerL.C. Bhadoo. Aa.C.J. Criminal Appeal No.1 No.1253/99 filed by Ishwar, Ramnath &Udhoram are 16198/99 filed by Batdau, Criminal Appeal ind Criminal Appeal No. 1398/99 filed by arisir|gout ofsame incidentand samejudgment .14P/97 & Special Sessions Trial No.29/97, dated 26-4-99 in S.T; No.1 tfierefore, they are being dispo^ed offay this common judgment, The- accused/appellant^ Section 374 (2) ofthe Cr.P.C. judgment of conviction and ord( Speciat. Judge, Raipur where): sentenced accused/ sippellante) Name of the accused Ishwar have prefferred these appeats under questioning legallty and correctness of the sr ofsentence dated 26/4/99 passed by the 3y teamed S^feciat Judge convicted and asunder:- Conviction & Sentence U/s 302! IPC, sentenced to undergo Imprisonmentforlife. P.T.O. 10 P.T.O. \ 9fc XI-HC-78 3^'^rpn?pr, »Tflu'i6,f»fciiuy< HIHCTI aiw^i ^ 2QO 311^1 4dcb (l,c<(ja<S.ff) sn^Tqirfi^eb HW3ff^?rOTN? BTtTTwafcsn^r <tll<(f«<fl-<HIKCfl'¥fel^)'<Pl«K ^3rf^T3TI^T Ramnath Gada & Baldati Udho U/s 302 & 323 IPC, each sentenced lo undergp imprisonment for life & R.t. for 1 year, respectively. U/s 302 &323 IPC, & 3(l)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, sentenced to undergo jmprjsonment for life, to undergo R.l. for 1 year & to undergo R.l. for 6 months, to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment oi fine to (urther undergo R.l. for 10 days, respecUvely. It was also ordered that all Sie sentences shall run concurrently. prosecution Thecaseofthe village Murki, P.8. Mahasamun|d' formed unlawful assembly wittl violence and tocommit mischief, attacked persons of Satnami to 7-8persons, in pursuance Lathi with intention to cause hi^ they committed offence under 427and302ofthel.P,C. i,jn brief, isthaton 11/11/96at4p.m. in tte acciised peTsonsarmed with weapoft, a object to usecrimjnalforce and cause flief, in pursuance of common object fliey cjommunity, thereby inflicted simpte injuries common object assaulted Ramnath with death, and committed his murder, thereby ^ections 147,148,149, 341, 294,323, 336, df The matterwas reporte^ at about 20.45 hours in the nidht the report ofPW-1 Smt.MaB ^al was registered ynder Ex.-P^. occurrence. During the police by PW-1 Smt. Mati Bai on the same day in the Police Station Mahasamund. On lal offencs under Sections 294 & 323 IF>C The Investigating Officer left for scene of ustody, Baldau gave memorandum Ex-P/2 RTO. XI-HC-78 ^ '-7:7 XI-HC-78 3x? '<l|t|lfl<l, ®Tf1y'l(S,fsfdW*l<, *11*TCFT Sh*<|cb TR; 200 3ii^i 4at»>(4clTd'sl';ll'T) STI^T^iTf^IW (iqTan^Tshtiiqi s^fRRBfscrsn^T qallfatfl-f H|t«~ir^f^t<Rf«l< ^aif^Tsn^T regarding weapon of offence taken into possession under stained with blood was seized ,e. Lafhi, in pursuance of that Lathi was :x.-P/3. The full pant of accused Baldau nder Ex.-P/4. Injured Mati, Rameshar, Mehattar, Hefnkumari, Sund^iriya, GovernmentHospital, Mahasartiund examination, injury reports i.e. respect of Ramesshar, Ex.-P/8|- respect of Bhagwat, Ex.-P/12-fA P/13 in respect of Mehattar, Ex] respect of Sundariya, and E^ prepared by Dr. AkHilesh Kum^- IGhasiram, Bhagwat, Ramnath S/o Adhru, Kanwar Ram were sent to the for examination oftheir injyries. After |Ex.-P/6-A in respect of Mati, Ex.-P/7-A in ^A in respect of Ghasiram, Ex.-P/9-A in in respect of Ramnath S/o Adhru, Ex.- I-P/14 in respectof Hemkumari, Ex.-P/15 in L-P/16 in respect of Kanwar Ram were •Tripathi(PW-15). Ramnath S/o Adhru 11/11/96, he was taken tti the shifted to Medical College Hos^ital he succumbed.to ttie injuries 01)1 tustained injuries in the incidentdated fiospifal, ^4ahasamund from where he was I, Raipur on 13/11/96. During treatment, 17/11/96. . Receiving merg -intimatfon notice Ex.-P/IO to the Panchj (Ex.-P/11) on the body of R^ir Satnami was sent for postmort^ postmortem was conducted cjn Arvind Neralwar(PW-16), postfnortem doctor opined that Ramnath head injury. Sto plan Ex.-P/29|ofthe {EX.-P/24 & Ex.-P/24-A}, after giving is, Ihvestigating Officer prepared inquest mnath Satnami. The body of Ramnath sm examinatiori to Maikahara Hospital, the the body of Ramnath Satnami by Dr. report Ex.-P/23 was prepared. The atnami died on account bf coma due to place of occurrence was prepared. P.T.O. ,'-i I XI-HC-78 3^' -!<llld<l, ®T(}«JIS,.Rlcl.iyy *fr»RTTsh+licb ¥R; 200 3| 1^l 4 St ch (4=1?^°l<^y) 3n^T?iTR-li+ (iqTSn^rgRIIR; ?Rnwg)?(T3n^T <*iiotd41^ KiwTfffe^ ^wi ^3rf^f31^T After completion of inves accused persons including 4 Magistrate, 1 Class, Mahasan^und Sessions Judge, Raipur from case on transfer for trial. ^tigation, eharge sheetwas filed against 16 jccused/appelfante in the Coyrt of Judicial I, who in turn committed the case to the ^here leamed Special Judge received the Learned Special Judge| against accused persons ns Kanwar Ram Gond, Sonsai an« Sections 147,148,323 and 303 Trial No.29/97 framed the ct Ishwar, Munna @ Punit Rambharos, Udhoram, Hira( commissionof offence undei SecUon 3 (1)(x) of the Schedu| of Atrocities) Aet, 1989. Ho|l charges. in S.T. No. 140/97 framed the charges |mely Baldau, Ramnath Ganda, Samlu, Ramesh for commission ofoffence under ofthe I.P.C. whereas, in Special Sessions |arges against accused persons namely, |ahu, Parmanand, Tijuram, Bhakka @ i, Santram, Mehtaru and Bharat for Sections 147, 148, 323, 302 IPC and ^d Castes & Scheduted Tribes (Prevention In/ever, the accused persons abjured the . Prosecution in order to persons examined 21 Witness| recorded under Section 313| appearing against them in the[ innoeentand have been falsel^ establish the charges a^ainst the accused is. Statements of accused persons were Cr.P.C. in which they denied materiaf prosecution evidence, stated that they are implicated in the crime. Learned Specjal Judg^ respective parties convlcted ^ Ramnath Ganda and Udho a^ 12 accused pereons. ^ after hearing arguments of counsel for ccused persons namely Ishwar, Baldau, aforementioned whereas, acquitted other P.T.O. :y/ XI-HC-78 sn^T.sErf^ra; tpn'.sn^Taiiiqi s^'aTrat^pr, »Tfl*ris,Rcti+iy. *fWClT Sh*11<sh ^ 2QO 311^1 4SI* ('^ll^'1'^) ??grw (if?tr srfer We have heard learned <;ounsel for the parties. Learned counsel for U homicidal death of Ramnath eyewitnesses namely, PW-1 MeMattar, PW-5 Smt. Hemkum|ari PW-8 Smt. Sundari Bai & me< 16) who has stated that he| Ramnath Satnamion 18-11-9? the body, out of that there we( bone of left hand was fractur< bone, clotted blood was prese|it Satnaml was cumulative effecl death was homicidal in nature, the above ocular and medical. deceasey Ramnath Satnami Ac trie ahd As far as involvementoll Tripahti, learned counsel for of appeltant Ishwar, only two (wife of deceased Ramnath) i Ramnath) have been examin^d the charges against hirri. But Court as they had not stated| recorded under Section 161 Ramnath Satnami With Lathi.l «t>i<<fcl41-<nwvfi VtSCS tRlWK ^3rf^T3T1^7r (e accused/appellants have not disputed patnami. Moreover, from the evidence of Smt. Mati Bai, RA/-2 Ghasiram, PW-3 ^ari Bai, PW-5 Rameshvrar, PW-7 Bhagwat, fical evidence of Dr. ArviridNeralwar (PW- conducted postmortem on the body of f, there were 11 injuries-on various parts of te 6 lacerated wounds, 4 abrasions.radius ^d, there was fracture of parieto temporal in the brain, cause of death of Ramnath of above injuries as a result of coma and his report is EX.-P/23, therefore, in view of evidence, it is established that death of homicidal in nature. . was used --Ishwar accused Ishwar is concerned.Smt. Indira accused/appellant argued that in respect /itnesses namely, PW-10 Smt. Devbati Bai PW-11 HridayRam (brotherof MC^&" by the prosecution in order to estabfish fhey have improved their version before the in Iheir statemerits i.e. Ex.-D/7 & Ex.-D/S Cr.P.C. that accused Ishwar attacked She also argued that the name of the P.TO. XI-HC-78 ssr ::!iT2TRra', ».Tf)u'i(o,f«iciiyy< HFRClT ShWch ^ 3ll^l 4a<«> (4?<'d°<^.t!T) an^TqiTR^i*. (W9(l^lsb4i°b gRTrwgferan^r 'tiiiFtt'fl-i iiHi-iT?'' fs<^! *Ri<?ii< ^stf^q'an^r ^ aceused does nof find place by PW-1 Smt. Mati Bai. Shri Akhil IBIishra, Pai involvement of Ishwar there Devbati Bai and PW-11 Hridav i|i First Information Report (Ex.-P/5) lodged ^el Lawyer also submittedthat regarding |are only two witnesses i.e. PW-10 Smt. |Ram have been examlned byprosecution. frortfi Having freard learned c^ record. We are ofthe consi learned counsel for the accusfe< that PW-10 Smt. Devbati Bai about 4 p.m. her husband wenf betel. She also foHowed him her husband yi»sretuming ofone LibraSahu^ accusedRt thereafter, accused Baldau, husband with Lathi and vicinity stertedp6lting brick ba)| stated that shedoes not know|as police ih her statement Ex.-D/7. vicinity is in 'U'shape which s|tar takes 'U' turn. It is correct t<t place where she was standingl ^unsel for the parties, we have perused the flered Qpinion that ^rgument advanced by i^d/appellant has substance fpr the reasoh wife ofthe deceased, has stated that at to betel shopof Kishan Marar for chewing (p to Jaitstambh where stie stopped. When the sftop and reached m front of the shop ama Gada was standing, he pulled his leg. >, Rama Gada and Ishwar attaeked her his murder. Thereafter.people of [ and stones. In cross-examination, she has to why the above fact was not written by In para-4, sihe has admitted that roadof from their vicinity, thereafter that road say that shops were not visible from the i.e. Jaitstambh. UDho comfriitted sltarts Perusal of her statemk Cr.P.C. reveals that Tn front of| stopped and abused her husb^r Ramnath, Samlu, Kanwal, Ucfio were standing carrying clyb \i) snt EX.-D/7 recorded under Section 161 the house of PardesiKewat, Baldau Sirdar nd. jn front ofthe house of l^otwaFrlshyvar, >, Sonsai, Parmariand, Tiju and Ramesh their hands. They raised cries ttiat he be P.T.O. !«i iiniii; ,'11 T liiiiiiaiiai— 'H' XI-HC-78 3^'-<(wi<l<<, OTflwis, Rlrtltiy HIHWI sh*ll<=h ^]; 200 3ll^i 4aqi ('i,':ll3°l<<.!iT) 3TI^?T9RrR-)i+ (raT3l|<;<lsh>l|tti OTTWflfef 3TI^?T 'hl'ilfa'fl-f yi^<-i1'^'f8I^t'<(5fWI<. ^3ri^>T3TI^?T pullejd beaten, on wWch Baldau fell down and he attacked thereafter persons standing a resultofwhich he became statement, she had not stated withLathi. his leg, asa result ofwhich her husband t1®rhusband with Lathl on hand & head, th^re went near him and hit him witti legs, as uiticonscious andfell down. Therefore, in this Ittat acGused Ishwar attacked her husband aaled Similariy,PW-11 Hridaij his house, his son Chetan ag|ed peopte are beating uncle and[ towards the street, he saw Lathi, thereafter he saw that brother, thereafter Udho & Isl] But, in his police statement his brother, as a result of whj unconscious. He has not stal attacked Ramnath. Therefo^ improvement in their evidence| been mentioned that PW-10 that she was standlng near was not visible. Moreover, th^ FIR (Ex.-P/S) regarding hisinf the evidence of PW-10 Smt. have made Improvement in th|ei does not inspire confidence. Devbatt Bai and PW-11 Hridaly eyewitnesses namely, PW-1J Mehattar, PW-5 Smt. Hemkuttiari Ram has stated when he was sleeping in g|ed about 9 years, came and informed that most probably he died, on which he went t(iat Baldau was attacklng his brother with Ramnath Kotwar was also attacking his |iwar came, they also attacked his brpther. c-D/8), he has stated that Baldau attacked < |ch he fell down ii(n the streetand became (ed in his police statement that Ishwar also ^e, both these witnesses haye made before the Court regarding Ishwar, as has (mt. Devbati Bai has stated ih her evidence J|aitstambh from where place of occurrence name of Ishwar does not find place in the /olvement in the crime in question. As per IDevbati Bai and PW-11 Hriday Ram, they h|eir Court evidence, as such, their eyidence Moreover, the evldence of PW-10Smt. Ram has not been corroborated by other Smt. Mati Bai, PW-2 Ghasiram, PW-3 tfiari Bai, PW-6 Rameshwar, PW-7 Bhagwat P.T.O. fl \ 9^ <<2 / XI-HC-78 35T "iii'yid'ii,- ^Tflu'iA, RtctK-fy *11HCTI aiW*b ^200 3<l^!'14sl* (yil^qt^) 3:(^T^rf^rra; craTai^isbiish gTtffW^fer-w^T «*ii<ifci41-f-Hi*(flT^' fs<Ss <R)W|< ^sfl^Hsn^r and PW-8 Smt. Sundari Bai we are of the considered opin estabHsh beyond reasonabl deceased Ramnath wfth Lath of the IPC cannot be susta eyidence. Accysedf that Ishwar assaulted the deceased. Hence, [onthat the prosecutioh lias not beenable to doubt that accused Ishwar attaeked as such, his conviction under Section 302 |ned, as the same is not based on legal Ramnath Gada & Udho As far as involvement question is concerned, they[ offence under Sech'ons 302 &[ Udho has also been convict^ Castes & Scheduled Tribes have been convicted on the bs 2 Ghasiram, PW-4 Rsmds Rameshwar, PW-7 Bhagwat Devbati Bai and PW-11 Hrid^iy wftnesses, they have stated at & Udtw in assaulting decease(:l statements Ex.-P/1, Ex.-D/1, and Ex.-D/8, ftey have not! these accused/appellants to these witnesses have mad< regarding assauft matfe by RamnathSatnam. Apartfrom| at e time of incident at aboutl Station at 8.45 p.m. had not by ttiese accused/appeflants of these accused/appetlante in crime in have been conwcted for Gommission of |323 of the IPC, in addition to this, accused ^dunder Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled (Preverition of AtrocW:ies) Act, 198&. They isis of evldencg of PW-1 Smt. Mafi Bai, PW- jis, PW-5 Smt. Hemkumari Bai, PW-6 PW-8 Smt Sundari Bai, PW-10 Smt. Ram. In the Court evidehce bf abave tout involvement of accysed Ramnath Gada Ramniath Satnamiwhereas, in their police Ex.-D/3, EX.-D/4, EX..D/5, Ex-D/6, Ex.-D/7 ^tated ariything regarding assault made by Ideceased Ramnath Satnami. Therefore, l^ improvement in their Court evidence [present accused/appellants to deceased |that, PW-1 Smt. Matl Bai.who vres present [4 p.m., who had lodged repdrtiiTfte-Potto njientioned anythmg abbut the assautt twade f<> deceased Ramnath Satnami. Theretfore, ^^^''^'^^iv XI-HC-78 an^r^iT^TRi ^Tsn^rgiffRi 3^ Fi||i(|cl.i), dTnti'ld, RictK-iy Hl^rll gi^flth ^ 200 W^l Wch (i^IflSI^) there is no legal and clirichii|ig evidence regarding iovolvement of these accused/appellants in commjtting murder of Ramnafh Satnami, as such conviction of accused Ramn^th Gada under Section 302 & 323 of the I.P.C. cannot be sustained, ^s also convietlon of accused Udho under Section 302 & 323 of the I.P.(p. & under Section 3 <1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Trjbes (l:prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot be susiained. AGlcused - Baldau As far as invoh^ement is concerned, Shri R.K. Jain,| submitted thaf he is not dispi tiut Jooking to the nature of jnjj evidenG®,the prosecutjon has assaulted Ramnath Satnami offence against the presenf Sectjon304 Part-llofthe I.P.Cj On the other hand, Shri| judgment ofthe trial Court. thisaccused/appellant in crime in question learned counsel for-theaccused/appellant ing involvement of the accused/appellant, iries,medical evidence as'also prosecution |not beenable to establish that the accused vith intentionto cause his death.as such ^ccused/appellant does not travel beypnd |Akhil Mishra, Panel Lawyer, supported the As far as involvement o( the present accused/appetlant in crime in question is concerned, PW-1 S|mt. Mati Bai, who lodged reportEx.-P/5 in the police station, has categorjcally mentioned in the report that Baldau attacked Ramnath Satnami witfi Lathi, as a result of which he sustained injuries. The above version of thls witness stands corroborated by her Court evldence as also Cou|rt evidence of PW-2 Ghasiram, PW-3 Mehayar, PW-5 Smt. Hemkum^ri Bai, PW-6 Rameshwar, FIW-7 Bhagwat, P.T.O. -^\ XI-HC-78 3n^?T,?iT (<-<i+ traT3IR?Tsh*< 3^'9Tf2fRPT, »Tflt<'l<»,(sldltfy 10 HmcTT !h*1ich ^ 200 311^1 4ach (l^fjaf^iT) gTBTWfffersn^r PW-8 Smt, Sundari Bai, PW- therefbre, involvement of the 10 to Mati Bai, her husband Ramnath Satnami. ^ Uts^-L Smt. Deybati Bat and PW-1 1 Hriday Ram, (resent accused/appellarit in inflicfing injury R^imeshwar as also in attacking deceased ^)t<-<-^l bf ^e^»-u-l"»^/]»(<-u.&e.^. Ih order tb appreciate the accused/appellant that the offence under Section 30; accysed/appellant, Dr. Arvind examination has stated that it in the postmortem report Ex ordinarycourseofnatureto ca A- 'Cs^ll^? CM & any •infomatkin that injuries nature to cause deatti. M< on1l/11/96whereas, hedied the Makahara Hospjtal, Raipur| case, the background in whi^ recQrd showsthat in village,| Satnami community and other| of that djspute between the Bhagwat, persons of both bonds to maintain peace an^ Sectionl 16 of the Cr.P.C.. It | of Mati Bai that when she was| shop, thenBaldau and other^ thelr perspn namely Samlu we^ attacked him, on that, they attacked Wm also and tiiifn'll-f iiHrfi' ff fsi^l'<Ri«ii / ^3ri^IT3TI^?T (rgument advanced hy leamed counsel for Iprosecution has not been able toestablish )? of the I.P.C. against the present INeralwar (PW-16) in para-4 of his cross- |s correct to say that he has not mentioned (-P/23 that injuries were sufRcient in the ca^se death. Hence, the doctor has not given jwere sufficient in the ordinary course of ireover, the deceased sustained injuries |ori 17/11/96 while undergoing treatment in Apart from that, ifwe look into factsof the h offence was committed, perusal of the < t«-JtAi-_£ there ws» 2 groups, on the one hand, |community^orithe other hand, on account |wo groups, as per the evidence of PW-7 cotnmunities were asked to submit their bail tranquility under Section 107 read with fias come on record in the police statement |retuming after purchasing biscuits from the were sitting, they were saying that when it in the Satnami area; why Safnami people lattacked her, when her husband came, when Ramnath Satnami (since th4reafter P.T.O. J... \ XI-HC-78 S3f ?rFlRPT, »Tn'M'l<, tScll(<^<, 11 gn^rmf^iw gW3TI^I**<i«b MINrtt a?HTcf> Wq; 300 3)1^1 ysi-s (yJdi^) »wt<-t4l^^tHd1'ff tecft rf^sra SWtWHfeTWCW deceased) came, Baldau firslj pulled his leg, thereafter, assaulted him on hand & head with Lathi. Th^refore, in this backgrpund, when there was alreadysome dlspute betwee eomplatnant party beaten or n the two communities, prior to the incident e Samlu when he went in the vjcintty of complainant party, as a retort]tQtt)at accused Baldau assautted Mati Bai, herhusband Rameshwar and |deceasedRamnalh Satnami. Hence, in this background, jt cannot be sai<) that the accused attackedthe deceased with intention to cause his de^th because prior to the assault, this person attacked Mati Bai & her husba Baldau was not having an' id, they sustained simple injuries. Accused previous animosity particulariy against Ramnath Satnami, who djed c(n account of injuries sustained, as a resuft of assault made by Baldau, M^reover, as has been mentioned earlier, the deceased died after about 6 |days of the incident, cumulative effect of these factsshows thatthe pro^ecution has not been able to establish that accused Baldau assaulted the yeceased withintention to cause his death. However, it can be inferred froi|i the evidence avajlable on record that the manner in which the accusedlassaulted the deceased with Lathi on his head, as a resyltof which par|etal bone was fractured, theaccused was definitely having knowledge th^t by attacking with Lathi on head, he may likely to caus®death ofthe (|eceased. Therefore, knowledge can be attributed to the accused, as s|jch, offence against the present accused/ appellant does not travel beyorfd Section 304 Part-11 of the IPC, as such, finding of the trial Court convicl IPC cannot be sustained. ing the accused under Section 302 of the Intheresult, (D Criminal Appeal No.1 ^53/99 filed by accused Ishwar is altowed. Conviction antfsenteitce imposed upon him under Section 302 P.T.O. XI-HC-78- -3S? -<l l<< l<rt<<,- SrfteTC,- [Sfin 1«^< 12 HI*IMI Sh^ich ^; 200 311^1 tiaqi (i^fgS[^T) an^r^iTR-d* flwsn^Tshtiicti g^awfff^rsn^T <*i'yti-f41-iHliMrtl' il'fy& <Rf+.ii< ^sri^'n'an^r of the IPC are set ai It is statedthataccu bail bonds are dis custody. (2) Criminal Appeal N< Udhoram is allowed accused Ramnath ui jide and he is acquitted of the saidcharge, ^ed Ishwar is already on bail, therefore, his ^harged, he need not surrenderlfe the .1398/99 filed by accused Ramnath & Conviction and sentence imposed upon der Sections 302 & 323 ofthe IPC are set aside. He is acquilted of the said charges. Conviction and sentence imposed u|?on accused Udhoram under Sections 302 & 323 of the IPC Schedyled Castes & as also under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,are set s|side, he is acquitted of the said charges. Accused Ramnath ii are discharged, he n| Udhoram be releaseil any other case. (3) Crimjnal Appeal No:| allowed. Convictior^ Section302 of the convicted under Seic(i undergo R.l. for 10 Section323ofthelR already on bail, therefore, his bail bonds ^ed not surrenderfe the eustody. Accused forthwith unless required to be detained in Baldau is in detentio) sentence, as such, h 1698/99 filed by accused Baldau is partly and sentence imposed upon him under |PC are set aside. Instead thereof, he is !ion 304 Part-11 ofthe 1PC and sentenced to /ears. Hls conviction and sentence under [Care maintained. It is stated that accused since 26/11/96 thereby he has completed e be set at liberty fortKwith unless required Barve to be detained in anylother case. /•&.___" ^_^i_r-_i Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge _-t— sa/- ^unilKumar Judge Sinha V.T.O. .'•• u