000060797 in: ‘Apgwai mm ~‘;———-~——-‘~ « t pmon Divisibn MBench ( Jmih I F p pcr AppHluze (‘w l l MH nut pmLLLd wxl‘ J) ‘ 1: Imus; ai ail 2x the m ; m m u 'Cx ! 0: u am :hm Lt: am FFOLtCU AX OliCC m any icg‘l pmmuomr who she Lr wmhcs m be rrprescmcd or FJUDK‘IM mcmmm Amb‘lm u copy nl‘ wdgcmenz 0r urdcx puxcd m m: uuc { ; II IIIIIIIIII II ' k - R alk ‘ d ) ri ; f, n p ’ Lawyer r the espondentIStat fo re. ' (9 - L.C.BHADOO, J B his appeal unde Sectio Code t ase/appellahl has u of the ipugned dgmen date ereby the ned t A sesn udg Aapur ater holding the accusedlappellant guilty or committing the murder of his wife Phoolmania conwcted him under S tion 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo lmpns nment for life Case efrthe prosecution is that at about 7.30 p.‘m., in the evening of 17.09.93 the accused and his .-2 Vijay Prasad and they consumed purchased a bottle-of wine from P. 7( of te Crimina roced tioned the legalirand eorretness ’3 09 ased i ST e 19 16 ps n N 304 wh lear Firs ddition l sios Je mbik f 'e Phoolmania ,(sinee deceased) ORALJUD MEN‘T 0.03.20 6)’ y t r r he ccud qe m lut d ' 342) h l Pure s ly c xx—Hc—22 W _ ,W mam“ m C1 A Q1» 2.1 § mm 3W1 mm? ma 'W’vr im 37W 31m 311% fg‘z”?m DMSION BENGH: HON‘BLE SHRI L.c.BHAa00 8. HON’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, JJ CRIMINAL APPEmL No. 213a OF 1996 Appellant Ganpat ‘ Vs; Respondent : Stan of Madhya‘Pradesh / Shri Praveen Das, learned co §el for the appellant} Shri U.N.S.Deo, learned GA; Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, learned Panel XI~HC—-22 WW - WWI§WW WEW %W3né¥r ' from his wife Phoolmania’ on which she repiied that the lime was at the house. At this qqarrel started between them and- they came out of'the house of Vijay Prasad and the aroused assaulted Phoolmem'a on the 'fidelity of his Mfe and tom there both re, the accused attacked his \Mfe Phoolmania and letther. P.W.-7 Avtaar who was going for grazing“ buffalo in the forest, saw one per on sleeping and then he went to the ‘ forest. In the moming at 6.00 a.m. n' he was ramming from the forest ‘ he saw thatGanpat was not there nd the Iady who was sleepingaat night > was still lying there. He did not sa any thing to her and then he retumed to his house. Thereaner Parsad' to him and'he‘disclosedthe same to him and based on that Parsad gave the report P-14 in police $ation Chalgali to the Assistant Sub lnsp ctor M.R.Ratre who went to the scene, to the panchas P—1 he prepared. oanchnarna P—15 and the bod sent for post mortem along with Constable Ram'Dayal Paikra to D Arvind-BhattP.W.-S and Dr. Kalpana ‘Tonde who conducted‘the post m rtem and prepared the post mortern , r‘oad. The accused was doubting't of them went towards the rivulet.” m e c e ‘ of occurrence. Aner giving noti ‘ report P-9. While in- police c stody the accusediappellant gave . n memorandum P-3 and in pursuan e of that weapon of offenceclub was recovered. The clothes of the acc sed i.e. Iungi, underwear and baniyanr were taken into possession under -5. The weapon of offence-stone was recovered under P—6. The blood st ined soil and plain soil were taken into . possession from the place of oc rrence under P—7. Patwari K.P.Jaiswal prepared the‘site plan P-1.1. After completion of the investigan‘on charge sheet/was tiled in the Court of Ju cial Magistrate First Class, Ambkapur who in tum committedthe case t the Sessions Judge‘ Ambikapur from ‘ [new e h y s XI-H-22 C WW ma v>n ,3- ‘ where the First Addmanal sessions Judge Amblkapur reaewad the ¢a on transfer for hial The prosecution in order to establ ’ the charge against the accused. examined twelve witnesses On’ t e‘ ather hand statement oi t accusedlappellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the C which he dented the prosecution dence appearing againa hi and stated that he is innocent and has be n falseiyimplrcated in the crime fr he We have heard Shri Praveen Das, leamed counsel o t accusediappeliant and Shri U N S D wrth Shn M P S Bhatia on behalf of the State Having heard the counsel for the pa 'es and atter pemsing the evide we are of the considered opinion tha the prosecution has utterly ed connecting the accused with the com issron of the murder of Phooa for the follamng reasons . As per the prosecution c on 17.09.93 the accused t deceased purchased one bottle of wine from P.W.-2 Vjjay Prasad and consumed th same and thereaiter they started quarreling. Whereas Wjay Prasad has stated in his evidence t that in the night of 19.093 accused Ganpatand his wife came to his house and purchas d tobacco for one rupee and 'both were in a drunken conditlo and they started quarrelling on the ground of lime At this ac used Ganpat slapped his Wife two- three times on which he PW-2) asked them to go to their house and they went towa s north side [HtsW se i h he r P C m ' i m . enc fail in imma a , 'and he 3W HEW; g Crc WW > Q. . m 1&1 2w m - Wawéwm mmai'mirw %arf«aw31r%¥1 J‘k- ii. This witness has not stated that the accused and the daceassd purchased wine from ’him nd thereafter they consumed the‘ wine. He had stated that the were In drunken condition and that they came on 19/09293 and the prosecution case is that the incident happened in the in' waning night of 17‘“ and 18‘" of September 1993. This witness has further sta ed in paragraph three that in the next day morning he camet Vknow n'om the Patel Ramjeet and Sarpaneh Shiv Kumar that anpat has murdered his wife and has thrown the body it mea s that he came to know on 20‘“ of September 1993 whereas th report was lodged by Parsad on 1 9 O9 1993 . Parsad has. been examined as P.W.—6. who has stated that Phoolmania was his sister a she was married to the accused three-four months before th incident. He stated that Bandhu P.W.-1 informed him that theiie' was a quarrel between his sister ' and brother in law. When h _ was going that side Ram Avtaar met him and informed him hat body of a lady ms lying at r Dhoura Dand and when he went there he sawthat his'sister was tying dead There was bieedi g from the mouth the teeth were broken and there were injurie on the body . Whereas P.W.-? Ram Avta r who is said to have informed P.W.-6 Parsad, brother of th deceased, had stated that thre'e’ ,7 years backawhen he went to raze the buffaloes in the forest he [new l ' ' ' XI—HC-22 Ea W, Wm WI Wm m Rwzigizgg WWMW®€R $Wm From the above‘ prosecution eviden there Is no dotinito evidence that PW 1 Bandhu and PW—2 Way s w the accused and the deceased together in the evening of 17.09.93 b cause Bandhu P.W. 1 has not gwen any date whereas P.W.-2 Way has ated that in tha even‘mg of 19’0933 the accused and deceased came o his house to purchase tobacco Moreover from the ewdence of Ban hu It appears that he Informed the very next day moming to P W-6 Par d but he reported the matter on 19‘” of September 1993. However no e anatron in this regard has come >forward in the prosecution case as to why the matter was reported on 19‘” of September 1993 at about 16.30 thevmorning’ of 18‘” of'September 19 Moreover from the evidence of the d ctor who conducted the post mortem on 21.09.93 had stated that no deti opinion can be given regarding the cause of death as the body of Phool ania’ Bai was decomposed that too, in advanced stage therefore he was not able to ascertain the injuries on the body. Oniyone injury was asce ained as the mandibte bone of the deceased was broken. Moreover t e club, stone and clothes of the accused which were recovered from he possession and at the instance of the aocueed there is no Forensic Sc ence Laboratory report or Serologist Report that biood was found on thes amcios to connect the accused \Mth the crime in question Therefore, for the foregomg reasons we are of the considered opinion that the prosecu ion has utterty faded to connect the v accused wth the death of Pho lmania and as such the nnding . [stained whereas Vijay Prasad has stated that they came to his house on 19.09.1993. whereas Parsad came to know in h 9 . n XX—HC—22 ‘ 2W i man W mmm afa'cr of the triat Court convicting the vacc ‘sed for cdmmission of ihe offence under Section 302 of the IPC cannot e sustained. kin the resuit, the appeai is ailowe and the conviction, and sentence imposed upon the accusedlappellant, nder Section 302 of the IPG are set a. aside and he is ecciuitted of the char e. The accusedlappeilant be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any her case. i _ Sd/— ‘ c sai- , L.C.BHAD00 3 DMDRA hdfm ' 1 i” Judge ' rt , ,. u ! ,Judg: "\ e Mew