F06 1 6 I 'IHE I URT JUDIC T PUR ‘N HGH CO OF ATURE A JABAL i5335 \ ‘ o 196 f 9 Cr A. N. . o * ir. a 2 ears,' Acuse (I a on o Lchn Sgi’i ui a dnt Ngri cltvate: nd? resie of a; P. S. Sihaba, Tal hsi Dhmatari, a sridt pP: Dit Raiur.M. i “ : State f Mah Prash 4 “16 ’ ” i> CRIM1NAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2 ) _ mg.“ w““W V OF THE wDE OF CRIKINAL PROCEDURE , 1973 L, k g4 h) C00001 o ‘ J Appellant: ‘Tathram' ged 6 y / cd n Jin s £ ahcha inf/ V” VQXSuS 7 RespGndent o dya de 4> ‘ @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI56ARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon‘ble Mr. Justice Prifinker Diwaker Criminal Appeal No. 1309 of 1996 A‘PPELLANT Tir'm‘hr'am, son of Lachchhan‘ §ingh \ Versus RIESPONDENT S'rm‘e of Madhya Pradesh }’ Shr'i Ravi Bhaga‘r, counsel for the appeilam‘. Shri Ashish Gup’ra, Panei_Lawyer for The 5mm. dRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER 5ECTION 374 (2) OF THE CCDE OF ‘ ‘w , . CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGEMENT (19.01.2011) A . This appeal is directed agains'l' The impugned judgmem‘ and order‘ da‘fed 2.8.1996 passed by Addifional Sessions Judge, Dham’rar'i in Sessions Trial Na. 478/1995 canvicting The) accused/appeiiani under Secfion 307 af ihe Indian Penai Code and sem‘encing him i0 undergo rigorous imprisonmem‘ for 5 years wifh fine of Rs.500/-,jn defouif of poymen‘r of fine io f:ur’rher undergo rigorous imprisonment for six mom‘hs. 2. Brief faci's of The case are ’rha‘i on 24.5.1995 an in’rimm‘ion (Ex.P—1) was given To ‘ihe police bypDr. P. Mishra (PW-1) Thai injured Daljeef Singh (PW-7) was$roughf io 'lhe’ hospilal by few persons, who had susfained 5-6 injuries on his stomach. Eased on fhis infima‘iion, cm enquiry appears +o have been made and on 25.5.1995 FIR. (EXP—8) was regisfered against fhe accusediappellan’r under Secfion 3Z4 of fhe Indian henal Code. Sfa’remem‘ of ‘rhe vic‘iim was recorded on 25.5.1995 in which he has sfafed fha‘i on That day in befween 10 — 11 pm fhe accused/appellant had sfar’red quarrelling with him and also abused him and when he fried f0 s‘iop him, he assauh’ed him with screw driver which he was hiding. He has fur‘rher' s‘rm‘ed 1ha’r bofh of ’rhem had fir-3T consumed iiquor and}, Thereafter, fhe inciden‘f had Taken place. Af+er inve‘s‘figafion dial/an was fi!ed on 3.9.1995 under Secfions" 307 % andi 324 of The Indian Penal Code. i 3. i So as To hold The accused/appeiian‘r guiiiy, prosecution hasi examined as many as 10 wifnesses. Sfa’remen’r of The accused/appellan’r was also recorded under Sec‘rion 313 of The Code‘gf Criminal Procedure in which he denied The charges leveled againsT. him and pleaded his innacence and false implication in The‘case. 4. AfTer hearihg The parTies The Trial CourT has convicTed and senTenced The accused/appellanT for The offence as menTioned above. Hence This appeal. 5. Counsel for The accused/appellanT submiTs ThaT a very improbable sTory has been puT forTh by The prosecuTion where The only eye wiTness To The incidenT namelyDevkaran (PW-4) has noT supporTed The. prosecuTion case. He submiTs ThaT Two differen’r versions have been given by The vicTim/injured and on ThaT basis The accused/appellanT oannoT be cgnvicTed for any offence. 6. On The oTher hand supporTing The impugned JudgmenT iT has been argued by The STaTe counsel ThaT convicTion of The accused/appellanT is in accordance wiTh law and There is no infirmiTy in The‘same. u.“ 7. I have heard counsei for The parTies and perused The maTerial available on record including JudgmenT impugned. w- 8. Dr. P. Mishr'a (PW-1) has sfa‘red in his evidence 'fha’r an 24.051995 af abouf 9 am injured/victim Dal‘jed Singh was ibr‘oughf To The Primary Healfh Cenfre, Nagri and he 1:0und six iinjuries on his person. He has furfher sfafed 'iha‘r the smeH of iliquor was coming from The mouih of fhe injured. He has fsm'ied Thai bu'i for ihe injury Na. 1, oTher injuries were simple iin nature. He has further sfa’red fha‘i when The injured was Iunder medical observa’rion, his father came There and fwcefuliy fook him from The Hospital. Dr. Jaikab Das (PW-2), who had medically examined The injured on 25.5.1995 at Christian Hospi‘lal, Qhamiari, found four injuries 'on the body of fhe injured. He has sfaTed Tha‘i pa‘iien’r was also opera‘ied upon. Omprakash Som (PW-3) is 1'he seizure wifness of EXP-6 from whom screw driver was seized. Devkaran (PW—4) is one of The eye wifnesses fo fhe inciden’r has no‘r suppor‘l'ed The prosecufion case and has been declared hos‘iile. N.B. Singh (PW-5) is The Sub InspecTor has done The parT of invesTigaTion. KiroTibadhai (PW—6) - Head ConsTable who had recorded The sTaTemenT of The injured/vicTim namely DaljeeT Singh. DaljeeT Singh (PW-7) - injured has sfaTgg in his evidence ThaT on 23.5.1995 when he was reTurning from The bus sTand Nagri aT abouT 10 pm, he saw The accused/appellani' abusing his nephew near Durga Chowk and, ThereafTer, he sTaTes ThaT iT was his broTher who was being abused by accused/appellanT TiraTh and Then hei'aNs'ked him, noT To uTTer any abuses and ThereafTer, The accused/appellanT sTarTed’beaTing him and gave 5-6 blows wiTh some sharp weapon on his sTomach and Thigh. He has furTher sTaTed ThaT aT abouT 2 am in The nighT he regained consciousness and Then he came To know ThaT he w; i ‘. susfained injuries on his sfomach. In ’rhe cross-examinafian, he has sided Thai he and The accused/'appeiianfr are The old friendsi and used To consume iiquor Together and on fhe da‘re of inciderh in fhe evening near Rajabada bus sfand he me? wifh ’rhe aceused/appeiian‘r, bhfh cf fhem have consumed iiquor‘ and they wen? To Sahu Ho’rei and fhere also fhey consumed iiquor'. He has: fur'fher‘ s’ra'red Thai afTer consuming liquor boTh were under jThe effecT of inToxicaTion and were noT conscious. He has furTher' sTaTed ThaT when he reached home, he became conscious and. There his famiiy members have informed him ThaT There was some quarrei; Shesh Narayan 50m (PW-8) anoTher imporTanT vili’mess has noT supporTed The prosecuTion case and has been declared hosTile. Bhanuram (PW-9) -— seizure wi‘i’ness of EXP—6 has denied ThaT any such seizure was made in his presence. 9. MinuTe examinaTion of The wiTnesses reveals ThaT injured DaljeeT Singh (PW-7) has given Two differem‘ versions in his evidence. In The examinaTion-in-chief he has s‘TaTed ThaT on The daTe of incidenT when The accused/appellanT was abusing his nephew and Then he sTaTes ThaT he was abusing his broTher and Then he asked him noT To uTTer any abuses, and TghiereafTer, The accused/appellanT has sTarTed beaTing him giving 5-6 blows wiTh sharp weapon whereas in The cross~examinaTion he has sTaTed ThaT he and The accused/appellen‘i used To consume liquor and on The daTe of incidenT also They consumed liquor in Two differenT places andf‘Th'ereafTer, boTh of Them became unconscious and Then aT home he was informed by his family members ThaT There was some quarrel. This inconsisTenT sTaTemenT of The injured/vicTim creaTes doubT as To wheTher i V ‘ @ on fhe date of inciden‘r he was assaul‘red by ‘rhe accused/appellanir or‘ not None of The eyz witnesses To fhe ihcidenf has supported The prosecu’rion (Ease and, fher'efor‘e, +he enTir'e prosecu’rion case becomes doubfful. Though in The medical reporT injuries have been found on 'rhe bady of The \/iic’rim but merely on fha'r basis i’r c‘a‘nrm be said fhm‘ if is fhe eccused/appellmf who caused ’rhose injuries to The vicfim. i0. Considering fhe ‘io‘ialiiy. of The fac‘i‘s, This Cour’r is of fhe Eonsidered view Thai on The basis of evidence and maTerial collecTed by The prosecuTion iT would noT be safe for This CourT To uphold The conVIcTion of The appellanT under SecTion 307 of The Indian Penal Code and The appellanT Is enTiTled To benefiT of doubT. 11. In conclusion, The appeal is allowed. Impugned judgmenT daTed 2.8.1996 is hereby seT aside. Appellam‘ is acquiTTed of The charges levelled againsT him. Sinee appellanT is already on bail, his bail bonds sTand discharged; / i‘ Sd/_ Judge u; J Ii i ’ _ff Pritinker Diwaker