^SS^-i -5.: AP F SAL- OT F R I c. "I 111'& ?• et.49 Ns'ne ^?^--?T5~$..^rg^T Father's nsme •^i3)3TS"''^c^r ( Resj'aence An^f^^-vy?' 'W;'^' •^'X l. CF0000062928 •! ^ C Seatenced to •^E<TC-tX '^Sff 1Cder section •307^ ^ffi-^ ^•5^'^^ S"zt/^ ^^ ;; ai-^Uiii^i It is expigined to the .prisoner that if he states he wishes to be: represented by s legsl prsctitioner the appeliste Court will not proceed with the case for seven days unless the legsl prac-tition&r sppesrs csrlier, If the legaliprsctitioner does not sppear within seyen days he insy hot hesrd st all. if the prisoner ststes that he does not -r;ish -to be represented by legsl practitioner the court msy proceed st once with the-case snd wlll not be obiiged to givs s hearing to sny legsl prsctitioner who should sppear. JS-^9-T, 1 . Dste of Applicstion'for copy of Judgement- - *^?=^-/^'- - - Dgte on which copy rece ived-'-'"-//- - Sete on which Appesl sent- - -&ri-f-—Q^Q^S- ~ — ~ - - - 4. Whether the prisoner wishes to be repre:sen-ted or not-—s^——— - Name n^^TC-e.'f?*^'"'97^^3')^" Jail ymyry Dated . 3, ^ ^ 2—IL!~fC.;<!J99-~ No. n^ Confined In No- s;l&9o - Forwarded to the to gethsr with s oopy of judgement or order psssed in the. cs ,-c for favour of trsnsmission to the proper Appellste court. /I : /-^rty^T •^ssTT^sieiyf -?T%,^ ^ate of re'ceipt in- - -- - -Office-—- - - - &-l-tPVV- dste of rcceipt o^ j-ecord to sccojBipsriy the- Memo of Appeal to the Appel: • court- - - - • No. 6( f C-'S • CT- f^'-"'^- 'Forwsrded to the- >-&^AC<y^—-^ <JLA/^/VC>A- r\o1^ ^^-s_ Da te d o s-- \ - 2-crs'e ^ Dste of receipt in Appellste court- - - - - - - A rB.^i-eK-u-iK^^SSK^g^-c?.^)»•£";•;sii'y(";";KIRSi'S~B^i5SS'?u- HIGH COHRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIHINAL APPEAL No. 751/2000 Lodhari Ram @ TtilsX State of H.P. For tbe petitioners For the respondent: Sbri Ambika Erasad Jaiswal.Adv. Dr.N.K.Shukla. Dy.A.G. ERESENTs- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S.GARG ORAL ORDER (12-12-2000) Impugning tbe correctness, valiolity and propriety of the judgnent dated 01-10-1999 passed in Sessions Tria.1 No. 54/1999 by the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Raigarh, convlcting the appellant uader section 307 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprlsoament for 4 years, the appellant -^°.s preferred this appeal. (2) The facts in ^ nut-shell are that on 22-12-1998 at about lO.p.m. when the present appel- lant and his father Slngharam were sltting in thelr house, the appellant made a complaint to his own father that because of the complaint of hls father, he is likely to go to ja-tl, ttie father did not say anything . Taking an exception to it, the appellant iaad h.i.t his fatber ori haad with a B*5a*aa. whlch caused an injury on the head. Tbe said injury was 1 x .5 cm r-'*^^ Bt K -2- ."";' Another eontuision was 6 x .5 em. The victim was inunediately referred to the Hospital where his injuries were Fepaired and he was refei-red to the Radlologist. Accordlng to the report Ex.P-12, tte Radiologist found a fracture on the head and ultitnately observed that the injury was dangerous to llfe. Spot map was prepared. Plain JLOJ-^S^ _ _ S^tyt • and stained DaMus was recovered from the a^swU-aat.. The weapon of offence was recovered. The statement of witnesses were also recorded and on conclusion of the investigation, the challan was filed against the accused. As the accused denied commission of offence, he was put to trial. (3) After assessi.ng the evidence and hearing the parties, the le arned trial Court found in favour of the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the accused, as referred to above. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment. the appellant has filed this appeal. (4} Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Judgment o£ the trial Court is influenced by conjuctures and surraises while in £ac*, there is no legal evidence available on the record to connect the appellant with the alleged crime or to record A finding of guilt against the accused. After taxing rae through the evidence, he has subniitted that the learned court beiow has ralied upon the statements of witnesses which otherwise are inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel^-^-' tt -3- for the State submits that £rom the statement of the witnesses and the medical report coupled with the statement of the Doetors, it is proved on record that the appellant was author of the injury. (5) I have heard the parties at length and have perused the records. (6) Singharam, the victim has not been examined as a witness probably as he had expired. Roopan (PW.2) and Bhinsarin (PW.4) wi£e of f^ Singharam; Vt- who are said to^the eye-witnesses did not support the prosecution case. According. to Roopan, he did not witness the incident nor he knew as to how his father suffered injuries. Even he denied the fact that the report was lodged by him. Bhinsarin (pW.4) wife of the victim and mother of the present appellant must have been in the horns of dilenmia an<3 fini|ing ^'f^.sJll^S;, in favoui- o£ the ywsyaoii, ' she did not support the prosecutjon and ststed before the Court that at the time of alleged incident, she had gone to do some labour work. The prosecution in support of its case, has examined P.W.l Parameshwar who has simply prepared a plan map. P.W.3 Udaydas who says that he was informed by PW.2 and PW.4 that the accused had hit the victim Singharam. P.W.5 Mularobai has also not supported the prosecution case. P.W.6 Kashi Ram is a witness to certain sel- zures. P.W.7 B.S.Tbakur, is the Investigatlng Officer who had made certain seizures & recoveries and had prepared certain memos. PW.8 Dr.Banodha, has certified the injuries of the victim. ^---^' .4- (7) It is not the prosecution case that i>arring P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5, there were any other eye-witneses A11 the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported the prosecution case. The statement o£ P.W.3 Udaydas so £ar as it relates to the informa- tlon received by him would not assume any importance unless the person who gave him the information, appears in the court and says that such information was imparted by him to Udaydas. The statement of Udaydas can be used as corroborative evldence to show the immediate conduct of the person who fed him the information. Unless the person who ^ave the informa- tion to Udaydas comes and says before the Court that he himself was an eye-witness and had supplied the information to Udaydas, statement o£ Udaydas would not assume any importance. Virtually it would be hear-say and is inadmissible in evidence. (8) The recovery o£ certaln articles sueh as blood stained baton, plain and stained earth would only show that somebody had beaten someone, but it would not lead to the only irresistable conclusion that it was the aecused who caused injuries ' to the victlm.S.tngharam. In absence of any positive evidence to connect the applicant with the crime or to show that the applicant is the only person who can be held responsible for committing the alleged crime, no finding o£ guilt, could be recorded against the appellant. l1./ -5. (8) The trial Court was absolutely unjustified in convicting and sentencing the appellant. The findings reeorded by the learned court below deserve to and are accordingly quashed. The appeal is allowed The accused is acquitted of a11 the charges. He be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other offences. ---——___, Sd/- - R.S. Garg Judge - JUUUE, - - 12-12-: /Rao/