,^,-ij^ w HIW COURT OF CHHATraSSARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Apoeal No. 1001/93 Panchram son of Mehttar Satnaini, Agriculturist, aged 43 years, resident cf vii'iage Kukda, P.5. Palari, District Raipur, MP (Now Chhattssgarh) The State of AA.P. Chhattisgarh) (Now Shri Abhay Tiwari, counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the State. Hon'bie Shri R.L.Jhanwar.JJ (16.04.2010) 1. Chslienge in this appeai is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence do.ted 22.9.1993, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar in Sessions Trial No.199/91, whereby and •t.!he"eunder, the iearned Additional Sessions Jud9e whiie acquitting 8 other co-accused persons, convicted the appellant for commission of cuipabie homicide, omounting to murder of Jawahar cnd ViiTia! under Section 302, 302 of tiie IPC and sentenced to RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Date: 2025.02.07 12:29:04 +0530 •^q Xq ps+snpuoa OSJD SDM |oui!/^ J.o Apoq posp j.o Xsdo+ny •sjnj.au Ul |Dp!31UIOL| SDfW L|+OSp pUD ssunrui [04.0,. g^ SD ;<uciu SD punoj. puo ^/<j •xg spiA (£-/V\<j) jDM0^6y tUDjqsauog •jg Aq pa+onpuos SDM j'oijomo^' j.o Xpoq posp j.o Xsdo+ny 'yg/d "s<3 PUI:> Vfr/d ')<3 3P!A JDzog Dpo|og '|D4,idsoK '+Aog aq-i. 04. Xsdo+nn joj. 4.uss ajswi gsipoq posp atll "Z2/d 'X3 PUD 92/d "><3 3P!A ps^odsjd SDM joui!/\ puc ^OLp.wof j.O Xpoq pDSD SL|+ J3AO ^.ssnbui •>j g/j -xg puD g/j -xg spi.A psjods^d som dciu 4.odg -9 g/j •^3 puo y^ g/d •^3 spiA psp^ossj gtsm Sjayy j+DLjsg 'y6/d "X3 3P!A psp^oss^ som ouos Dijauiouzoy ")j6/d 'X3 3P!A pa6po| g»M 'y'I'J 'psp-ioss^ S°M ttjSjio^j j4.oi|3Q ^/j 'xg sp!/\ '(l-Md) IPqDUISJJ -X|31Ut5U ]OtUI/\ pUD JDljDWDf J.o ^aUi+oiu SL|+ Xq psSpoj sow, Sjayy -uoi+ipuoo ps^npui ui punoj. SJSM suos.jsd 344. 44.oq j.o ssipoq pDSQ '}VWl/\ pUB >IOL|OMOf J.O japjnU! pa+j.iiuuio^ puo suodosM Xjpoap Lj-l.im psuiJD s^sm /3ij4. 'Xjqiussso ]nj.MOjun J.o 4.3arqo uoiuiuos >)i3Lj4. j.o ssuDjaq+jnj, ui puo |CIU;A puo JD^OMOJ' ^o j3p.inui 3ij+ p3,.4.!lUtU03 '+ssfqo UOIUU103 J13LJ+ SUIACLJ Ajquissso |nj.mojun uo psuuo'. suosusd pasnsso-os jst^+o +t|6js LJ+IM Suoji) 4.UD]|addo 3ij+ Q66T •JS<:10+'0 iS2 j-° ^°P W3W U0 "loiu!A Pti° -ioi-pAWf ^o Xjiuio^ 81)4. ij+im Xj.lUIUS 6UIAOL) SDflA |OUI!/^ pUD joijOMPf psscsssp 3tj4. j.o jnoqqgiau '4.uo||sddo +u^ajd 344. +DI^+ si ^auq ui ^DS uoi+nsssojd •g •/-l.]j"'6a|ji ps4.+ituiuo3 .'(qajsi)+ puo psuoi^usuisjoj.o so +uo|jsddu su+ pssua+uss puo ps+siAuos soij mojsq +jno3 '+uoijsddo 3LJ4- j.0 Ut-'l+SIAUOS JOJ. 4.U3!3!j.J.nS asuspiAS 6u!i|3ui|3 puo a]qjpaj3 Xuc 4.noi|4.jM 4.044. puno^6 31)4. uo pauSndiui si UOI+^IAUOS aqj^ '2 •X|4.us^^n3uo3 un>) o^. ps+ssjjp susm sssus+uss sLy^ •/|SA!+3adss^ Sj.l| JOJ. ^.USlUUOSI^dlUi pUD Sj.!] joj. +usiuuosudtU! oSjspun "'^^ .f^w-^\ J *<la-tet i' *''''iTK.3¥'S <M ^e^y Saneshram Agrawal (PVV-3) vide Ex.P/5 and found as mony as 10 fatai injuries and death was homicidal in nature. The accused was taken into custody. He made disclosure statement of metal axe, torch and lun9i vide Ex. P/14. AAetal axe was recovered from the accused/oppeilant - Panchram vide Ex. P/18. 2 Kukhari on the spot were also seized from Panchram vide Ex. P/19. Kukhari and sword ws.re. aiso seized at the time of search of house of Panchram vide Ex. P/24. Other accused Radheshyam, Santram and Ronu were taken into custody.. They made disciosure statements of weoipon, which were seized at their instance. Clothes were seized from Ponchro.m yide Ex.P/33. Nails of the appellant were cut aid seized vide Ex.P/34. Ciothes of the other accused persons we.re seized . Finally F.I.R. was lodged. Ouring the course of investigation, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of victim Bholadas was recorded vide Ex. P/42. Seized artic!es were sent for chemicai examination vide Ex. P/45. Clothes and weapons were seized from the appellant Pdnchram stained with humnn biood and so.me· was confirmed vide report Ex. P/47. Statements of t'ne witnesses were recorded undei* Sectlon 161 of the Code of Crimina! Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). 4. After comptetion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicinl /Aa9istrate First Class, Baloda Bazar, who in turn, comrnitted the case to the Court of Sessions, Raipur, from where the learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. 5. . In order to proye the guilt of the accused/appellant, prosecution has examined as rnany as 15 witnesses. The accused was ^ examined under Section 313 of the Code, where he denied the circumstances appearing against him, innocence and false implication in crime in question was ciaimed. 6. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the iearned Additionai Sessions Judge while acquitting 8 other co- accused persons has convicted arid sentenced the appellant as sforementioned. 7. We haye heard Shri Abhay Tiwari, learned counsel for the o,ppe!!ont and Sh.ri Rajendra Tripathi, !earned Panel Lawyer for the State, perused the judgment impugned and record of the Court below. Learned counsel for the appellant vehementiy argued that aithou9h this is a case of double murder and 2 sons of Premabai (PW-1) have been brutally tnurdered, but only on the ground of bruta! rnurder of 2 persons, liability could not be fastened on the appeSSants, without any cogent and clinching evidence, who were the neighbours of the deceosed and having inimical relations. He further argued that prosecution has examined Premabai (PW-1) mother of the deceased and Usha (PW-2) sister of the deceased persons. Evidence of 2 persons is not sufficient for creating suspicion and drawing an inference that the appellant has committed culpable homicide amounting to murder of Jawahar and Vimal. In the present case, 1+ie weapons snd clothes of the appetiants stained with human blood have been recovered at the instance of the appellant, but it is not sufficient to connect the / •s^n+au ui inppjtUo'Ji SOM 44.03? puo |ouii/i, puo .roipmof j.o Apoq ay+ ^aAo punoj. sjsm ssunru! |04.oj. uis+joui s+uc sijj. 4.DIJ4. paiosAa^ vptuyi\ 'g/<j -xg puD ^/^ -xg 4.^ods.i Xsdo+no puo (g-/y\(j) |Dmoj6y uiojLjssuag •jg j.o aauspiAs 3i|,. Xq paL]S!]qB+S3 si 4.1 'puoi^ jaij+o ai|4. uo '+u'?||sddc ai]4. 40 J.]Di|3q uo ps+ndsip A||CT+UD4.sqns uasq +OU SDtj |DUII/\ pUB JDljOmOf p3S0333p aUrJ. 0+ SSUnfu! JB+DJ. LUS^dOU) a+uD j.o 4.|ns3>i o SD ij+nap |Bppiuioq 'ssos j.uassjd sij4. uj •^ •P^OSSJ UO 3|qD|IDAD piJS+DlU 31)4. pSUIUIOXS SADlj Sftt 'Sai+jnd SL|4. ^O j.|OL|Sq UO p33UDApO S4.UStUn6jD 3t(+ 34.D133uddl> 04. JSpJO UJ •oi •4.uc|jaddD sij4. j.o asuo+sui au^ 4.0 ssi|4.0j3 puo suodosm .(.o XJSAOOSJ j.o ssuspiAa SL|+ Xq ps+ojoqojiioo A]|Dj4.uc+sqns si (2-/^<j) D'^sn puo (T-Md) pqoirs-id j-o ssuspiAg -suosjsd g j.o japjniu p34.4.jUiU)03 SSl) pUD 33U3-(.j.O SLI+ p34.4.!UiW03 pDL) OLJM UOSJad 3LJ4. SOflA 4.uo]jadcb 31(4. A|UO 4.oi|+ souSijsj.U! uc Suimcjp ^ioj. 4.u3pjj.j.ns si (g-/V\d) 'oi^sf} puo (T-/Vl.d) roqowaj^ j.o ssuspiAa sq+ ^.oijj. psu'iuqns puo uoj+i+sd si|+ pssoddo 3-1.04.5 344. joj. jSSUnOS p3U^OS[ 'pUOLj JSlj+O Sl|4. UQ •g •SUIBS puu auo som pasosssp sij4. j.o poojq sij+ puo +uD][addD 3tj+ J.O SSlj4.0|3 pUD SUodoSfVi 31(4. JSAO punoj. poojq aij4. 4.01)4. MOljS 04. sauspjAS Xuo pssnppo +OU SDL) uoi+nossoud 'asns 4.u3ss-id aij-i. ui ^ •pssoaoap 3114. o+ pa6uo]sq sau^op puo suodcsm si|+ uo punoj. poo|q S4<. +01^4, 3Aojd o+ uo!4.o6i]qo japun ?] uoj+nssso^id +nq 's+uuijaddn SL|4. j.o ssi^4.o|3 puo suodi3SM sij4. uo punoj. SOM poo|q uouinij 3i{4. w.oij +01)4. aAojd o+ uoi+nSijqo ^apun +ou si ssus^sp 'sssuo+sufnsuio puo ssuspjAs 6ui4.3auuo3 jsi|+.inj. J.o asuasqo uj 'uoj+ssnb ui suius ui 4.u"|| . .^5St:^^, .^'- ,,,^...-.^;.< 'sn :^"~ '^- !f :x: ^ .\.'... •-'' ;'^ L 12. As regards the complicit)' of the accused/appellant in crime in question is concerned, prosecution has substantially examined -riie evidence of Premabaii (PW-1) and Usho (PW-2) mother and sister of the deceased Jawahar and Vimai. Usha (PW-2) has deposed that Jcwahar and Vimal were found in the morning and they did not come back in the night. On the date of incident, at about 9.00 p.m. while she was going for ease in the village along with her sister, she saw all the cppellants were armed with deadly weapons offd they were goin9 towards the place, where on second day dead bodies of her brothers were found. Their activities were suspicious. Most of the persons were hidden their faces by clothes. She narrated the incident to her mother. As per evidence of Premabai (PW-1) on second day, dead bodies of her 2 sons we.re found lyin9 on the iand while she was going towards the spot. Appeilant Panchram and other co-accused persons were watching her and their activities were suspicious. Prosecution has also examined 1.0. LK.Pandey (PW-15), who in detail examination has deposed that he has taken the appellant Panchram into custody. The appeliant made disclosure statement of weapon and other articles vide Ex. P/14. On the basis of confessional statement, he has seized the weapons and clothes at the instance of Ponchram. His evidence is corroborated by the evidence of Kashiprcsad (PW-9). Ali the articles wera seized at the instance of the appellant and t'nose were sent for chemical examination vide Ex. P/45. Presence of human blood on ths clothes and articles, seized at the instance of the appellant, ho.ve been confirmed vide chemical examination report Ex.P/47. Except this evidence, prosecution has not adduced any other set of evidence. If the evidence of Pramabai (PW-1) and Usha v c (PW-2) is accepted then it would show that on the date of incident before the death of Vimal and Jawahar and after their death, activities and conduct of the appeliant and other co-accused persons were full of suspicion cnd this evidence is sufficient for castin; doubt for suspicion that the appellant might have committed the offence. Recovery of weapon and other articies itself is not an incriminating evidence unless same is connected with the offence by co 13. In the present co.se, prosecution has not adducsd the evidenca to show that the appellant was wearing the clothes, which have been sized at the time of commission of the offence and the blood found ovsr the clothes belongs to the deceased. Prosecution has not adduced any other evidence to show that the weapon seized at the instance of the appeilcnt have been used in commsssion of the offence. The evidence adduced on behaif of the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the fact that the blood found on the weapon and ciothes seized at the instance of the appeliant cxnd biood group of the deceased was one and same. In absence of such evidence, it is difficult to ho!d that the appellant and other co-accused persons haye committed the culpabte homicide awounting to murda" of Jawahar and Vimoil. Suspicion, however grave, did not tcke place of !egal evidence and there is 'ong distance between 'may be proved' and 'must be proved'. In the present case, evidencs adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient for drawing cn inference. that the appellant has committed the culpabie homicide amounting tc murder of Jawahar and Vimal. ^ L. •"^ i' / Whii'e acquitting the 8 other co-oiccused persons and convicting the appellant, Court below has not considered the quality of evidence adduced on behalf of . prosecution and thereby committed illegatity. 14. For the foregoing reasons, conviction and sentence of 1+ie appeilant under Ssction 302, 302 of the IPC is not sustainable under the law. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302, 302 of the IPC is hereby set aside. He be set at liberty at once, if not reqwre-d in any other case. Sd/.r~ T-P.Sh. "aroig ige Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge :i-.'vni/Jr1^