fl!;l '! CFOOOOOS7491 ^-_.-__.___„_.__.. ___._ J, (::i3^ZS^vS'f:I^^KS': s.^^.'-:[ ^^^^^-:^^:";£^^^%"^^^^ ^xs glSVSSIi ^^^^^1^!1SFL;;?'-.'' •"^ "•:'^-kl ^R^I^i^^^i^^y, ^'^. 'i^^ill^. f.i. 1M THB 'SSSa QQWI: • 6F MAEffiA' 'ffl .FASAIiP^R. GBSlSM.':£E>FE&E:'SO.:1 ;' /?^-&;::'' •;or89,:: :• . :' :: : • ' ./ .1: .'•--."- •' ' •/' ; .aBBell.aBts. s- l.QulsaMram. soB.ofpsnIlErsB.agea C> ^ yeafB, " ^..i ' • ..^ .:/ K ,3'ay Vsssr se'a of Si&sltu-siaa' aged 'sbstit'Se, ysars. / 3<;,Gfiso,tea{jia,6al W'B &uKalt?aa aged • ../''';/:., •'.:" ':•' '' • ';'; '•'. ""-' ':;-' ''" • aboW^W's'esss^' . ' \ • ^. ',' .' . MI' )'es:i.i3eEit,':()f. Ka&gr 'Ghah^ • foEtcs St.atloa. l^lwsa^'/Sabsi.t'ab.sxsVwESt,'^ .;/•"—' • . •• ..'•'•" ••:' '••'. :' • •' ";.•'-••' '^' mstflet Ealgsf&.^.i:>.): •.;':1 ,^ • J' (te .Tall^- .'.-:^' ,':''.'::' :':'. .1.'- ;-:: '•s'ersus. : •: • ,-:. . , • -'. .: ;^ -. Be;SBoHaeBt_i- ' "E&s S-fcate.of: Macihya'- Pradest;!.. ^•.3 sB ISfiSa3-j3S^MJiesd3^.3^.G®^.^..5*^^ ^'-"?..':.;'.n^~'^"'l^?3^^ :^-^ua'gBent.';;sft3'y@^s3j®^e^Sa^e^(M.S^8^:-^^ "-^': Sti^l&KEarl^'^iBa'iSa^^^nsI^'Se'ssi.gas,.,^^ ^•&*^^'--l!15^^1S;6s^::flX^®'l^iiiSM^'^ ws.. 3MaB* i'li'Bsf IIM IM ^,. ::i:i.'!';: r'-ni—H HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH s BILASPul Vs. JUDGMEN-1 ! YOGENDRA SINGH KANWAR Digitally signed by YOGENDRA SINGH KANWAR Date: 2025.02.20 16:06:03 +0530 HIGHCQURTQFCmiATTIS^A]KH:BnASPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. 716 OF 1989 DiAaluram & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI FAKHRUDDIN, J & ynri M.K.. cnatterjee, counsel tor uie appeuants. Shri J.D. Baipai, Govt. Advocate/Addl. Public Prosecutor and Shri Akhil Mishra, Panel LaVv"/er for the State. JU D GM ENT tii Heard. 2. T'his appeal is directed against the judgment delivered in Sessions TTial No. 45/1989 bv the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, on 17-6-1989 whereby appellant DLikalurani was convicted for fhe commission of an ofience punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing fhe murder of ms son Kailaimar by aammistenng poison ana sentenced to undergo imprisoninent for life. Appellants Chandrama Bai and Jai Kumar were also corwicted iinder Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for sharing the conunon intention with Dukaluram for com.mitttng the murder ofRajkum.ar ancl sentenced- to zinaergo unpnsonment tor Iite. ll 3. Appellant Dukaluram had expired in tfae year 1992, hence the appeal of Diikaluram. has abated. This appeal is considered only so far as the unpugned judgment relates to appeUaats Chandrania Bai and Jai Kiimar. 4. Admittedlv appeUant No.2 Jai Kuraar is the son of appeUant No.l Dukalurain and appeuaat No.3 Chandrama Bai. Deceased Raikumar was the brother ofJai Kuinar. 5. Brieuy stated the prosecution stor^' is fhat on 17-4-1988 there was a Panchayat ia vulage Kaharchua relaang to iUicit relation of Chaadrama Bai with one Naakiram.. In that Panchayat, deceased Rajkum.ar had said that his m.0tfaer Chandraina Bai had illicit relation with Nanldram. The wife of RajkLunar had also con'oborated the stateinent of Rajkumar in the Panchayat. The Panchayat had imposed a fine of Rs.500/- agaiast deceased Raikum.ar and his wife, since the allegations macie by Uiem were tound to be talse. A docuiaent Kx.l-'/y was executed in fhe Panchayat. The appeUants fhereafter frequentlv quarreUed with Rajkumar on this issue. On 2/1/1989 the appellants again quarreUed with Rajkuniar and in fiirtherance of the commoft. uitention of fhe appeuants, appeuant Dukaliiram administered poison i.e.--*alummium phosphide insecticide to .Rajkiimar. Thereafter, fhe appellants tied Rajkumar to a tree and beaf him.. Sukaluram. (P.W.3), uncle ofRajkmnar, freed Rajkumar and tooli: htm -to Gerupani in the house of Madan Qond, father-in- Taw of fhe^deceased. Raikumar narrated to Madan Gond fhat .1 ,!;-'B''uflB!l"i',<U;i;!4MlSi-'WIL!J>)'<'c"l-"t ^ Dukaluram had administered some bitter Uquid to hlm and thereafter Dukaliu-am, Chandraina Bai and Jai Kumar had tied hun to a tree and had beaten him.- Soon after making this statement, RaikLimar became unconscious and died on fhe sam.e day. Madan Gond lodged fhe first information report, Ex.P/17, on 2/1/1989. Post mortem on the body ofRajkumar was conducted bv Dr. ShaUendra Upadhyaya fP.W.6), who did not find any extemal iiijury on fhe person ot Rajkum.ar. He opined that cause of death was asphyxia due to some poison. T'he stomach, portion of smaU intestine, large intestine, a piece of liver, spleen, right and left kidneys, right and left lungs were preserved and sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar for chemical analysis. vlde Ex.P/22, it was opined that stomach, large and smaU iatestine had contained iasecticide aliiminiiim phosphide (sulphas). One rope was seized at the instance of Dukaluram vide Ex.P/6. One bamboo stick was seized from fhe appeUant Jai Kumar. After completion ol' the investigation, fhe appenants were prosecuted for committing murder of Rajkuniar ta fLtrtherance of fheir coainion intention. 6. The accused/'appeUaats abi'i.ired fhe guut and clatmed trial. / The prosecution examined as many as 14 witaesses tn this case. Leamed trial Judge relytng upon the evidence led by the prosecution convicted the accused/appeUant Dukalurain under Section 302 of IPC and accused/appeUants Chandrama Bai and Jai Kiim.ar under Section 302 read with Section 34 ot' IPC and sentencecl uieni as atoresaicl. 7. Shri Chatterjee, leamed counsel for fhe appeUants, has maimv contencled ui tHis appeal Uiat so tar as appeUant dal Ki.un.ar is concemed, fhere is absolutely no evidence against him. T'he testmiony of P.W.2 Madan Gond clearlY shows that the deceased had told him. that poison was administered bv Dukaluram. in fhe house at Kaharchua. So far as fhe ston' ol assault after Urtng Raikumar to a tree is concemed, no extemal injury whatsoever was found on the person of Rajkum.ar. He also argued that P.W. 11 Aiaar Sai in cross-exainination in para 10 on being questioned by the Court had clearly stated that appeUant Jai Kiimar was not present in the house at the time of occiirrence, thus, leamed counsel for the appeuant contended that there was not even an iota of evidence agatnst appeuant Jai Kumar to connect J-um witn uie murder of Kailcumar. On the other hand, Shri Baipai, learned Govt. Advocate/Addl. Public Prosecutor and Shri Mishra, leamed Panel Lav,T-»7er, oppQsed- the contentions and. stated that ftiere was / common intention and pursuant to fhe common intention the poison was admmisterea. 9. So far as fhe question of deafh of Rajktunar due to poisoning is concemecl, as per Uie testun.ony ot ur. Hnauenclra upacuiyaya .,|J?.W.6j, who conducted the autopsy vide report Ex.P/11, and the »- Wy report of FSL Ex.P.22, there remains no doubt fhat deafh of KaiKumar was clue to aamuustenng poison msecticide alumimum. phosphide (sulphas'j and was thus homicidal. Leamed counsel for the appellants has also not assailed this tlnding of tfie trial Judge. ^iaiteiii 10. So far as the couiplicity of appellants Jai Kumar or Chandrama Bai m. administering the poison to Raikum.ar is concemed, the evldence of Madan Gond (P.W.2) has to be looked into. Madan Gond (P.W.2'1 is the witness to whoru Raikum.ar had narrated that in the house at Kaharchua his fafher Dukaluram. had adininistered some bitter liquid to him. and had fhereafter tied him to a kafhal tree with a rope wifh the assistance of Chandraiua Bai and Jal Kum.ar. So far as fhe story relating to tying the deceased Rajkum.ar to a kafhal tree by a rope and thereafter assault by tfae appeUants is concemed, it is worthwhile to note that during post m.0rtem exainination no extemal injur\' was found on fhe person of Raikuiaar. So far as fhe dying declaration of Raikum.ar ruade before P.W.2 Madan Gond is concenied, it clearly unplicates only appellant Dukaluram. and none else. The testimonv of Am.ar Sai fP.W.ll) in para 10 also clearly rules out the coiuplicify of appellant Jai Kumar in admmistering poison to / deceased Ra1kum.ar. 11. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the evidence led by the prosecution, we find that there is evidence only agauist Diikaiurain regardm.g administering poison to Rajkiimar. So far as appeltant.jai K.mnar is concemea, we do not ttnd any evidence to bring hom.e fhe guilt of appenant Jai Kumar iinder Section 302 read wifh Section 34 IPC. 12. Shri Chatteijee, leariied counsel for fhe appeUant contended that he has instructions' to appear only for appellant No. 2 Jai Kumar however he submitted (tiat the appeUant No. 3 Chandrama Bai who has been released on probation on 19-8-2000, is also entitted to be considered on the same footing since evidence against her regarduig administenng poison to deceased Raikumar is lacktng. We have gone through f&e evidence and fhe material on record. The dying declaration relating to admmistering poison even if is taken to be true, it is against Diikaluram and so far as Chandrama Bai is concemed the prosecution has failed to prove fhe case beyond reasonable doubt. Viewed from this, in fhe ends ot justice, we glve benetit to appeuant Chandrama Bal also. 13. In fhe resmt, so tar as appeUant no.l Dukalurani is concemed, his appeal abates and is dismissed accordingly as abated. So far as appeUants no.2 Jai Kuinar and no.3 Chandrama Bai are concerned, the appeal is allowed. AppeUants Jai Kiunar anct cnandrama Bai are acquitted ot the charge under Section 302/34 IEC/' 14. Before parting, we record our appreciation for the assistance rendered bv leamed counsel for the parties. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge -3ty ;*'jsg; '- C -A Sdl- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmii!<h Judge iande/-