|lllllllh||||||||llll|H||i||||\| CFOOOOOG IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABAIXPUR MP. Criminal Appeal No.‘$ \\ /99. / / 6, APPELLANT {IN JAIL; / : Ramaharan Panika @ Tubewell: s/o. Mohan Hanika, age 30 ‘2 years, R/o. Pamkaparé Digma, PS- Amblkapur Dlstrlct- SarguJa, MP. -Ver SuS" / RESPONDENT . The State o; M.P. through PS— Amblkapur District- Sargu Ja, MP. z / CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S. 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINA PROCEDURE / / L XI-HC—78 mm,m,m o .¢%.épg;.mox./.éz//aqm 200 0! mm(W) W wm WWW i ‘ matwm WWEWW éHWm JJ for fhe appelianf. A‘dvoca‘re Genei'al wifh 5hri 6D. Waswani, Dy. Govt Advocafe for fhe Sfafe. balls: 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C‘ appellanf Ramchamn fhe Iegalify & correcTness of the Judgmem‘ senfence dafed 315’ May, 1999 passed in Sessions Judge, Sarguja offer holding The cammi'rfing murder of his wife namely Secfion 302 of I.P.C. and sen‘renced to f, is fha‘r on 28.3.1998 Sarpanch of Village 3) sen? a wriffen cammunicafion (EXP-2) To e 51'a‘fion Ambikapur 1‘0 The effecf fha‘i pired on accouni- of consump‘rion of poison in fion, The Sfafion House Officer lefi' for the iving nofice fo The Ponchos prepared fhe y of deceased Chandramoni. From fhe place ion one sTeel bowl conTaining whiTe fluid and er. He also Took inTo possession fhe earTh ‘ 1 Is; ; : \ i, ? ‘ 1 § H i §IVI$ION BENCH: Ho‘N'BLE MR. L.c. BHADoo a HdN'BLE MR.V.K. ‘SHRIVASTAVA, \ 5.9.2006 \ i Mr. D.N. Prqiapafi, Advocafa: \ 1 Mr. P.K. Verma, Addi‘riona! Gow‘. Advocafe & 5hri D.K. Gwalre, ‘ u ,Oral judgmenf dic‘l‘a‘red on Per L.C. Bhadoo‘ J. By fhis appegl under Secfiow Panika alias Tubebe!‘ has quesfioned of: conviction and order of 5.T.No.207/98, whereby !earned accused/appellanf guil‘ry for Chandramoni, convic‘i‘ed him undei undergo imprisanmenf for Iife. The prosecu'l'ion case, in bri Digma namely Sanfosh Manda! (PW ‘rhe Sfafion House Officer, Poii Chandramani, wife of Ramcharan e The night On receiving fhis inform scene of occurrence and offer Panchnoma (Ex.P-4) of “the dead bo of occurrence, he Took info posses one polyThene bag conTaining pow P.T.O. XI-HC-78 i mmmm w$e}‘e whife fiu‘ld Was spread and 1he piain son! under tx.F-5. Dedd‘my‘was se1nf for posf morfem examina’l’ion 1'0 fhe Governmenf HospiTaL Ambikapur wider Ex.P-9, where Dr. MK. WW§WI§W éSWanézT AZF‘ 4‘ Iain (PW-8) conduded fhe posfmor'rem egaminaTion on The body of deceased and prepared The posTmorTem reporT E*.P-10. The doctor noficed cerfain abrasions on The neck of deceased and o§ined The? The mode of deafh is ‘ ‘ asphyxia resuifed by sfrangulm'ion. Viscem cued skin of neck were also preserved for examina‘rion. The S.H.O. prepared ‘rhe 5H? p‘lan (Ex.P-14) cf The place o1 occurrence and based on The pcsTmorTem reporT, regisTered The FIR (ExP-IE QAfTer compleTion of invesT accused/appellanTf in 'The CourT Ambikapur, who in Turn commiTT Ambikapur for Trial. The prosecuTian in orde accused/appellanT examined 1V1 wi‘h Judge recorded The sTaTemenT of which he denied ThaT he used amani was ill and she was being TreaTed in injuries on The neck of deceased, he has i). gaTion, charge sheeT was fiied againsT The of learned Chief Judicial MagisTraTe, ed The case To learned Sessions Judge, r To esTablish The charge againsT The yesses. Gn The oTher hand, learned Sessions accused under SecTion 313 of The Cr.P.C. in To beaT & harass deceased Chandramani. r e However, he has sTaTed ThaT Ch The GovernmenT HospiTal.‘ AbouT sTaTed ThaT he had noT seen injury oniThe neck of deceased. He has furTher sTaTed ThaT in The morni g he saw ThaT The poison meanT for killing louse was lying in The mouTh of Chandramni. He informed This facT’To his broTher-in—law. UlTimaTely, The ac used has sTaTed ThaT he is innocenT. Learned Sessions Judge a er hearing The AddiTional Public Prosecui'or for The 5TaTe and learned couns l for The accused, convicTed and senTenced ‘ RIO. XI-HC-78 HW,W,W Wmoovooo.cootoo .o FrT 200 WW(W) WW§WW égwm 1 mmwf%asn%31 pg? 1+}? w x éccused haged on The circumsf ‘rial evidence, as menfioned above in Para—1 of%1’his judgment ¥ We have heard Mr. DN. Prqjapafi, Advocafe for fhe accused/appellanf and Mr. P.K. Var-ma, Addi'rional Advocafe General wifh Mr.' Vaswani & Mr. ‘. Learned counsel for- ‘rhe accdsed/appellam has not dispufed The faci- mani was homicidal in nafure. Apar‘r from Gvmllr'e, for fhe Sfafe. Thai The deafh of deceased Cha u s ' > fhaf, Dr. MK. Jain (PW-8), who onducfed the postmorfem an fhe body of deceased Chandramani, has sfafed Thai fhere were abrasions on The neck of deceaséd in The Size of 1' x 1cm on ihe leff side of neck, They were 8 in numbers and in his. opinion The cau e of deaTh was sTrangulaTion. Therefore, in view-of evidence of docTor ( -8), iT is esTabiished ThaT The deaTh of Chandramani was homicidal in na As for as The involvemen of accused/appellanT in commiTTing The murder of Chandramani is concern d, There is no direcT evidence in This case, whole case resTs on‘The‘ circums anTial evidence and in order To convicT an accused on The basis of circumsT Tial evidence, The seTTled law is ThaT‘“ fhe circumsfances from which fhe co lusian ofgui/f is To be drawn have nof on/y fa be fully esfab/I‘shed bm‘ aiso fha a/l fhe circumsfances so esfab/ished should be of a conclusive mfure and cons; fenf only wifh fhe hypoThesis of fhe gui/f of . fhe accused. Those circumsfance should nof be capable of being explained by any ofher hypofhesis excepf fhe g ih‘ of The accused and The chain of evidence musf be so comp/eTe as noT To ewe any reasonable ground for The belief consisfenT wiTh The innocence of T e accused If needs no reminder ThaT legal/y esfab/ished circumsfnnces and noT mere/y indignafion of The courT can form The P.T.O. a n P Tu XI-HC-78 EW,W,W Wm a1 200’ WW(W) WWW , mmm WW%‘WW i mmaf%aan%n (’4’ émnEEHW bbsis of conw’dion and fhe more 5 fat/s fhe crime, fhe greafer shou/d be fhe céu‘e fake” f0 scrufinize fhe evide e lesf suspicion fakes fhe p/ace ofpr'oof'. The prosecufion has fried esfabhsh The charge against the aécused/appellanf on fhe foHowing c r'cums'rances; \ i a. There was no issue ouf of The wedlock and on accounf of fha‘r *he accused used f ‘ harass and beaf fhe deceased. ' b. The deceased was s en along wi‘l‘h fhe accused in The house. c. ‘ The accused has n T expiained The circumsTances abouT The deaTh of deceased. d. The explanaTion giv n by The accused ThaT The deceased died on“accounT of con uming poison meanT for killing The louse, found To be false. As for as The firsT circums ance is concerned, The wiTnesses namely Phuleshwari (PW-4) & PhulmeTh ( -5), who were The neighbourers of The deceased, have Turned hosTile and n T supporTed The prosecuTion case ThaT The deceased used To come To Their ho es and disclose ThaT as she had no issue ’ ouT of wedlock, Therefore, her h band is beaTing or harassing her. PW-IO .Rajkumar, braTher of deceased, sTaTed ThaT his sisTer used To complain ThaT on accounT of noT having issu ouT of The wedlock, her husband used To beaT her. She also used To compla ThaT The family members of her husband do noT like her and They used T harass her. In para-7 of his cross- examinaTion, he has sTaTed ThaT h sisTer disclosed The facT of beaTing in presence of his moTher & faTher. Th faTher of deceased namely Ramkaran has been examined as PW-4 and he as noT sTaTed anyThing in his evidence regarding The harassmenT or beaTing by The accused To his daughTer an accounT P.T.O. f ' P h i i XI-HC—78 mwm mamfgam ,(Ki—- WW‘§WWJ éa‘mm 1 ’ issL§1e cu? of fhe wédbck in The presence of his parems, buf PW-4, fafher' of < decé‘eased has nof suppom‘ed fhis ve r‘sion of PW—IO, therefore, The evidence of PW-lO is nof fuiiy reliable, particularly in fhe circumsfances, when PW-4 Phule‘shwari‘di PW-5 Phulmefh have no? supported fhe case of fhe prosecution on‘l‘his coun‘l. Accordingly, fhe prosecufion h£ nof been able to prove fhis circumsiance agaiinsf The accus.d beyond reasonable doubT ThaT The accused/appellanT used To harass or beaT The deceased on accounT of noT having issue ouT of The‘wedlock. As far as The 2'” circumsT ce is concerned, There is no evidence on l record'ThaT The accused in The aTeful nighT was in The house wiTh The deceased. The accused in his sTa‘T menT under SecTion 313 of The Cr.P.C. has sTaTed ThaT in The morning‘he saw ThaT The poison meanT for killing The louse was lying in The mouTh of deceased From This admission of The accused, iT can be held ThaT The accused was in T e house and his explanaTion is ThaT in The morning he sawvThaT Chondramani as lying and poison meanT for killing The louse was lying in her mouTh. He h noT sTaTed anyThing abouT The injuries on ’ The neck of The deceased. Now The quesTion remains fo consideraTion is ThaT as To wheTher based ‘ l on This circumsTance iT can be h ld ThaT The accused was The only person l, responsible for causing The neck inj ries. l of 301‘ having is'sue ou‘r of The wed ock. PW-4 has furfher si'a‘red Thad" he saw fhel :dead body of his‘ daughter, The re were nai! marks on The neck, bu‘r he has nofi enquired any'rhing from 1he ace used. PW-10 haslsfafed fha‘r fhe deceased had: informed abouf fhe maH'reai-men‘r by fhe accused on accounf of not having P.T.O. XI-HC-78 Em, W13, W WW .o. “2H 200 WW<W> ma? Hf%a 311w Pb r” WWW wmm her. In The fafefu! nighf, fhe fa‘rher-in-iaw of deceased namely Mohan was aso in fhe house aqd he is fhe person who Informed ‘rhe Wlage Kofwar (PW- 7) namely Pursho‘Ham Thai’ his daughfer-in- [aw has died on accounf of consuml - ofher famdy member-5,, who were have heén The au‘rhors of crime, aannof be ruled out. Accordingly, we are a‘f The considered opinion fhai' based s WW#WWK %an%mw%¥1 j In The evidence WWWTM acctvsied bm ofher' family members of fhe accused were aiso na‘r likmg The decelased and they used To harass ng palson Therefore fhe poss:blhfy Thaf The keepmg grudge agamsf The deceased may on This circumsTance The prosecuTion has noT been able To esTablish ThaT The accused is The only person who was The auThor of crime because as per seTTled law regarding The circumsTanTial evidence The prosecuTian is reqwred To esTablish ThaT The circumsTance is so conclusive in naTure and consisTenT only wxTh Therefore, based on This prinmpli The accused/appellanT was The au he saw and disclosed ThaT The de ToTally false, as whaTever seen beyond ThaT There is no circums‘ inflicTing injuries on The neck of The deceased puT poison in her mouTh and ThereafTer he cooked up a false sTory. As far as circumsTances \la.3 & 4 ThoT The accused/appellanT had noT which deceased died and ThaT accused’had explained The ci‘rcumsTances in informed ThaT The deceased died on accounT of consumpTion of poison meanT for killing louse, was found To be false are concerned, as has been discussed earlier ThaT The accused‘in his . 1 The hypoThesis of The guilT of The accused. a, iT is difficulT To reach To a conclusion ThoT Thor of The crime in quesTion. The facT which ceased consumed poison connoT be said To be him, he disclosed To his broTher-in—law,gand 'ance which indicaTes ThaT The accused afTer sTaTemenT under SecTion 313 of Cr.P.C. has P.T.O. XI HC 78 HW,WHW,W3I Wm ........... q.o.‘§Ooo§ In 200 WW (W) WW§WWK 1 awaw‘r‘gam éqsxf—r‘cmm sfafled ‘i‘haf in fhe morning he aw fhe deceased lying and poison mean? for killl‘ng louse was in her- mou‘rh and ’rhe fac’r Thaf The poison mean’r for killing lice wasj lying in fhe moufh of dece ed is esfablished from The facf fhaf The Panlchnama of The body of dece ed shows The whiTe fluid was lying in The mailiTh of deceased] one sTeel bowl conTaining whiTe fluid, one poIyThene conTaining whiTe fluid and The e Th‘on which The while fluid was spread were Taken inTo possession under Ex.P 5. Therefore, The sTaTemenT of The accused madeuuhder 5ecTion 313 of CrP. . To The exTenT ThaT he saw The whiTe fluid in The mouTh of deceased is esTcbli edi Now The quesTion remain , as To wheTher The accused/appellanT has Tried To creaTe false plea or mebody else afTer commiTTing murder of Chandromani has puT The poison n her mouTh. As has been discussed earlier, The moTive, which The prosec Tion has Tried‘ To esTablish againsT The accused/appellant is ThaT The ac used used To harass & beaT The deceased on accounT of The facT ThaT she w noT having issue ouT of The wedlock, buT The prosecuTion has noT been able esTablish The same and There is no oTher evidence ThaT The accused/appell nT in any way sTrangulaTed The deceaseduand puT The poison in her mouTh in or er To creaTe a false defence. Therefore, for The foregoing reasons, we are o The considered opinion ThaT The prosecuTion has failed To prove The circumsT ces againsT The accused beyond reasonable doubTs and There is no evidence on record which] poinTs Towards The accused ThaT he was The auThor of crime in quesTion and Therefore, The finding of The Trial courT canvicTing The accus d/appellanT under SecTion 302 of The IPC cannoT be susTained. -or r 4») § xi P.T.O. XI—HC—78 3am, am, W mm .......... o ..o....o 00 111 200 mm (W)