-^y- r' ^ CF0000057797 IQ the High c©urfeof M»P» at <jafe>alp(aE« [ii^lc ^^ ^^AA Criotinal appeal NO» /l994 Aope3,laat , s- Sanki^^ai <'w/© Rajia allas jangillKa Rawat ageB 28 yrs< ^resiaent: @f In>lidugi Sitaroaiai, E©rbaP.S» KoAa Distt Bilasptir v/s Be_8p©ade^'fc $- State ©£M<P^ Coavictioa a/s 302 2PC a/s 201 IPC w w^ \^' •<A•"^ Senfcenoe^ R«I< £©rlife R» !• fo^ fiv®years (66th seateac® run conGtxrrently ^ 1;1!ll Crtmiaal Appeal tiader s@ctioa 374 (2) Cr» E«C<» CJ -l^ J^ ^ .l^: BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.05 13:01:21 +0530 Xi-HC-22 -^^ -^[izji^zr^ -^iiwi^ • t^-^ray •^f ^T^T^T ftTli<=h ^3^1 s^4-ii<=h ^rf^T ^:, 2. ^c^.:..a..J^± 2®^- -3^1 ^CTWHf^T ^tl^f^frnl ^ITR^if ^ f^Sl' if^l^K '^'37f^TH3T^T DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLEJSHRI L.C.BHADOO & HON'BljE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, JJ Appellant CRIMINAL APP^AL N0.1446 /1994 Narlki Bai Respondent Stal Vs. :e of Madhya Pradesh Smt. Savita Tiwari, learned coi^nsel forthe appeilant. Shri U.N.S.Deo, learned Adclitional Public Prosecutor with Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, P.L. for the respondentjState. ORAL JUbGMENT (31.01.J2006) L.C. Bhadoo.J I By this appea! under Section |374*(25 of the Cr.P.C. the appellant has questioned the legality of the jijidgmentof cohviction and order of (learned Additional Sessions Judge, j. 524/9Iwhereby learned Additional {jsed/appellant guilty for commission of murder of her husband namely R^ju @ Jangalia convicted her under Sections 302 sind 201 of the IP^ and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life and Rl for five yejars respectively on both the counts. Caseefthe prosecution, in brief, is <hat P.W.10 J. L. Lakra received an sentence dated 18.10.94 passed by| Bilaspur, Link Court, Korba in S.T. Ncj Sessions Judge after holding.the accj information on 16.01.91 from some r.^liable sources that Nanki Bai Sahu [Tft^ ^fo^ XI-HC-22- -dS? 2?, ^ft^pT^, l^^rra'y _(ht:..:..^.: ^. ^TT^T^I f<-ii<=h ^li^T '^^ict) ^rfi?f r. 'sn^r •^^Tw^rf^T ^- had committed the murder of her husfc|and namely Raju @ Jangalia about eleven months back-and thereafter bi^ried the body in a pit. On receiving this information a search of Nanki Bai memorandum under Section 27 of th< ^l^fe^fl^ '^[R^ff "^ 'fe^t if^i^K ^ ^rf^pT'yrr^i was made. While in poiice custody Indian Evidence Act was recorded in which she has stated thatshe couldjtell the piace where she had buried the body of her husband. After re|cording memorandum of Ex.P.10 accused/appellant Nanki Bai got reco^ered bones from a place as per the memorandum given by her. The Invesjtigating Officer took into possession one shirt, one full pant and one upper pndergarment under P-12 from a pit from where the bones were recovere<|l under P-11. Under P-13 he took into possession soil from the place fro|n where the bones were taken into possession. Bones were sent for exarjiination to the anatomy department of Nehru Memorial Medical College, paipur from where report P-7 was received in which the anatomy departn|ient reported that the bones were of a male aged between 25 to 40 years ^nd there was a depressed fracture of iefl mandible and floor of ieft eyeb^ll cavity and this may be produced by sharp heavy weapon and may cau^ was prepared. Panchnama P-5 ofthe| instance of the accused/appellant waj te death of a person. Sight plan P-S Ibones which were recovered at the ^ prepared and after compietion of the investigation charge sheet was fileid in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba who in turn conlimitted the case to the Court of Sessions Judge from where leamed ^dditional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. Charge sjheet was fiied against four accused persons nameiy Chhedi, Amina Begun) and Murad Khan. [Tft^ ^n^4 XI-HC-22 .^^-^^^T^', ^:1T<^T^ S^QlK-sy .o^:.a.:.7..^..^./^ j3?T^T'^T ?<-<i5b 3T^T 5h4-lic^ <rlfid 1 4. 6. ^T^I'^Rrr^ ^rr ^FRN"zft;T T!TTOf ^ 'feT^ <M'^K ^T ^rPuH'STT^T The prosecution in orderto establisl| the charge againstthe accused persons examined as many as ten wit^iesses. Statements oftheaccused persons were recorded under Sectionj 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the prosecution evidence appejaring against them and stated that they are innocent and had been fals^ trial Court after hearing the argumen| and counsel for the accused persoj accused/appellant as mentioned abov^ Chhedi, Amina Begum and Murad Kh| Court ofthe charges leveled againstth| We have heard Smt. Savita Tiwari, le^ Shri U.N.S.Deo, learned Addition^ M.P.S.Bhatia, P.L. for the State. At the outset learned counsel for the ^ ly mplicated in.the case. Learned ts of Additionai Pubiic Prosecutor ns convicted and sentenced the . However accused an have beenacquitted by the trial sm. irned counsel for the appellant and il Pubiic Prosecutor and Shri [ccused/appellant argued that there is no evidence on record to connect ftie accused with the murder of her husband. She also argued that ev^n the fact that husband pf the accused/appellant djed or murdere<| has not been proved by the prosecution and almost alt the prosecu^lon witnesses have turned hostile. On the other hand, Shri U.N.S.Deo, ^ and Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, P.L. for the ^ judgment ofthe trial Court. arned Additional Public Prosecutor tate have supported fhe impugned [Tit^ ^P^^ CI-HC-22 . -B"^ ^lFTi^l, i^TCFre, l^^n^iy: .c^.....a...'./A.^..<../ 3:n^T'^i f^iw^n^T 5^^ii<=b ^[^a 7. 8. W^T'^Tra^ Trit^r -^ '^Rfe;pfl~;T 'pn^rf ^ 'feTst <M^.K ^T srf^R a?n^r I Having heard learned counsel for fie parties we have perused the evidence. In the first instance in this case virtua that husband of accused/appellant w^smurdered. Moreover there is no evidence to connect the accused/a ly there is no evidence to establish ppellant with the murder of her husband. P.W.1 Vikram has turned h^stileand stated that poiice people had not got anything identified from hirln. He saw that there was a crowd of the people near the canal where sonjie bones and dirty cloth were kept and the police asked him tosign on tljie seizure memo P-1 and on being asked by the police he signed P-1. Ri and Nanki had never told him anything ^jue @ Jangalia was his co-brother i about Raju @ Jangalia. He did not know anything about the dispute bet^veen Nanki Bai and her husband. Similariy P.W.3 Geeta Bai has also lurned hostile and stated that she nev^r identified dothes in presence impression wherever Ramlal asked he told her that her husband had left th^ lady. Panchnama witness Jagdish P.V1 also turned hostileand not support^d the case of prosecution. P.W.9 Ramlai hasaiso turned hostiie and police he signed the p^ichnamas of |of Ramial Yadav. She put thumb |r. Her sister i.e. accused Nanki Bai s residence along with some other /.4 and Ram Kihilawan P.W.5 have stated that on being asked by the |he bones P-9 and P-5. No enquiry was made from Nanki Bai in his pres^nce. Memorandum P-10 bears his signature but no enquiry was made f denied memorandum of P-12. Thus, 1 the clothes which were recovered, ^ [•om Nanki Bai in his presence. He Ihereis no evidence on record that kere of the husband of Nanki Bai [Tft^'^fe^f XI-HC-22 -S^ -^TR^^, ^RFIS, t^^TRTy MW^I^^I^_..(^..:..^.1^±^ T^ . ' . •3@8—. W^T'^1 ^yli<=h ^TI§¥T ^RNr^f^l -^ 9. y 3:H^T ^"CT^R TrfN -^- namely Raju @ Jangalia. Only the there is no definite evidence that the s; yones were recovered about which ime were of Raju @ Jangalia. In view of the foregoing discussion w4 there is no legal and clinching evid^nce connecting her to commit the murder| fmdings ofthe trial Court convicting th^ 302 and 201 ofthelPC and sentenc«jig iife and Rl for five years respectivelyl appeai succeeds and the accused/aripellant ieveled against her. She be set at lib^rty other case^^ Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^TFrf^frr 'RTR^Tf ^ 'fe^ Tf^gT^: ^^rf^TH^TT^r are of the considered opinion that against the accused/appellant of her husband and therefore the accused/appeilant under Sections her to undergo imprisonment for cannot be sustained. Accordingly is acquitted of the charges forthwith if not required in any Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge [Tt^ ^fe^