Q? x _ IN THE HONRABLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. i 113.]. cm; A. N0: — U LV/zoE. 1:- Agharoo Lodhi Sin. FagooaLodhi aged 40 yrs. \ 2:- Béliram s/o Fagooa Lodhi aged-45 yrs. 3:-Thanu Ram Sjo FagooaLodhi aged # 51 yrs. Mool Chand s/o Agharoo Ludhi, Appsllants:- :- ( 1n jan ) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh. ggspondant:— :a APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE .u «m vm-n‘ var. . «m '——-;,, J W“ aged-21 yrs. . 5:. Sonk‘tinv-va‘r @ Sonwati wlo Agharop W Lodlu, aged- 36 yrs. All by profession — agnicu.}turist,& R19 village Singhcri Th. Khairagarh. Distt- Rajnand goan). C.G. g3: . 1%0 g Page 2 of 9 fhe house of accused persons. The appellam‘s and the deceased persons had some land relcn‘ed dispute wifh each o’rher. Complainam‘ Deona‘rh (PW—5) is son of deceased Ramsharan and grandson of deceased Anandram. On The dafe of incidem‘ i.e. 13.9.2001 aT abou‘r 7.00 a.m. in The morning, Anandram & Ramsharan were ploughing Their field. Deonafh (PW-5) wen’r There with meals. The appellonfs came ou’r from their house armed wiTh axe 6i clubs and affacked The deceased, persons. They assaulTe‘d Them wiTh club and axe as a resulT boTh of Them fell on The ground. They also noTiced presence of DeonaTh and They chased him also, whereupon DeonaTh fled‘from There. He narraTed The incidenT To SanTu Verma, Ramji, BhagwaTi, ShyamraTan, Rajkumar, Munna Daroga and oThers. ThereafTer, DeonaTh 6i oTher villagers came on The spoT and found Anandram 6i Romshoran dead. . ComplainanT DeonaTh lodged named FIR (Ex.P—1é)'>aT abouT 10.30 a.m. on The some day againsT The oppellanTs. The police proceeded T‘o The scene of occurrence and prepared inquesTs (EXP—1 6i P-Z) on The persons of deceased Anandram & Ramsharan in The presence of wiTnesses. 5.H.O. Subhash Singh (PW~7) prepared siTe plan vide EXP—20 as per informaTion of DeonaTh (PW-5). Dead bodies of deceased Anandram (Si Ramsharan were senT for auTopsy vide Ex.P- 13A (Si P-14A To The CommuniTy HealTh CenTre, Khairagarh, where Dr. U.S. Chandravanshi (PW-4) conducTed posTmorTem and gave his posTmorTem reporTs of EXP-13 (Si P-14 respecTively. Memorandums of accdsed persons namely Agharu, Bali 6i Thanu were recorded vide EXP-3, P—4 (Si P—5 respecTively and in pursuance Thereof weapons of offence, club from Agharu, axe from Bali & anoTher club from Thanu were recovered vide E_x.P-6, P—7 & P-8 respecTively. One half shirT sTained wiTh blood and nails were seized from accused Agharu vide seizure memo of EXP—9, half shirT and nails were seized from Thanu vide EXP—10 and a full shirT and nails were seized from Bali vide EXP-11. From accusedxMoolchand also a full A - V ‘ Page 3 of 9 shim“ and ngils were seized vide EXP-12. Seized axe and clubs were sem‘ To The docfor‘ for examinafion vide Ex.P-15A and report of The docfor is EXP-15 whereby he has opined Tha’r injuries present over The persons of deceased could be caused by The aforesaid weapons. Blood sTained soil and plain soil lying nearby boTh The dead bodies, broken pieces of bamboo belonging To accused persons, slippers of deceased Ramsharan eTc. were Taken inTo possession vide Ex.P—19B. 4. During invesTigaTion, order‘of injuncTion passed by The learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Khairagarh in The maTTer of Ramsharan Vs. Agharu Ram & oThers was Taken inTo possession vide Ex.P-21. Wearing apparels of boTh The deceased persons were Taken inTo possession vide EXP—23. Blood sTained arTicIes seized during invesTigaTion were senT for chemical examinaTion To Forensic Science LaboraTory, Raipur vide Ex.P—24 and The reporT of The FSL is EXP—25. . AfTer compleTing invesTigaTion, charge sheeT was'filed in The CourT of The learned AddiTional Chief Judicial MagisTraTe, Khairagarh, who in Turn commiTTed The case To learned Sessions Judge from where learned AddiTional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh received The case on Transfer for Trial. Learned Trial courT framed The charges againsT The appellanTs who abjured Their guilT. The prosecuTion, in order To esTablish The charges againsT The appellanTs, examined 07 wiTnesses in all. ThereafTer, sTaTemenTs of The appellanTs were recorded under SecTion 313 of Cr.P.C. in which They denied The circumsTances appearing againsT Them in The prosecuTion case and pleaded false implicaTion due To facTional rivalry. However, The appellanTs in reply To QuesTion No.4 admiTTed ThaT They had land reIaTed dispuTe wiTh The complainanT & boTh The deceased persons. The appellanTs did noT examine any wiTness in Their defence. . Learned AddiTional Sessions Judge afTer hearing The argumenTs of learned counsel for The respecTive parTies, convicTed and senTenced The accused/appellanTs, as aforemenTioned. x Page 4 of 9 7. Mr. Abhay Tiwari, learned counsel for ’rhe appeHam‘s would argue ’rhaT convicfign of ’rhe appeHan‘rs is based on fhe soliTor‘y ’reSTimony of Deono’rh (PW—5), who is son of deceased Roroshamn and grandson of deceased Anondr'om. Since The complainom‘ is highly inferesfed ‘“ wi’rness, being fhe son & grandson of deceased persons and in view of fhe admif’red facf That There was ongoing land relaTed dispuTe beTween The complainanT parTy and The accused parTy, The evidence of soliTary wiTness requires careful examinaTionp Referring To evidence of The docTor (PW-4), iT was argued ThaT The eyewiTness has claimed ThaT numbers of blows were dealT on Anandram & Ramsharon boTh by The five accused persons, however, version of The complainanT is noT corroboraTed from The medical evidence as corresponding injuries caused by hard and blunT objecT on The deceased persons have noT been found and only single injury caused by hard & blunT objecT has been found on The head of deceased Ramsharan. Version of DeonaTh is also conTradicTed by The evidence of The InvesTigaTing Officer Shri SanTosh Singh (PW—7), who has denied any seizure from The appellanTs as sTaTed by DeonaTh in his deposiTion. ' Case of The prosecuTion is also noT esTablished from The FSL reporT as The blood was found only on The axe & nails seized from accused Baliram, whereas, wiTh respecT To oTher seizures from The oTher accused persons, The FSL reporT is negaTive. “*ConducT of DeonaTh (PW-5) in noT inTervening in The quarrel To save his faTher 6i grandfaTher is highly suspicious. His subsequenT conducT in noT reTurning To The place of incidenT afTer informing abouT‘The same To The villagers is also highly suspicious and doubTful. . On The oTher hand, learned QovernmenT AdvocaTe for The STaTe has supporTed The impugned judgmenT. He also argued ThaT clear evidence of moTive is available in The prosecuTion case as There was land relaTed dispuTe beTween The deceased persons and The \\' appellanTs. Deceased Ramsharan had filed a civil suiT againsT The Page 5 of 9 appeHan‘rs \and obtained or'der' of injunc’rion resfraining The appeHanfs from interfering with fhe possession over fhe disputed property on 13.12.2000 (EXP-22). On the date of incident olso, the date of hearing was fixed in the aforesaid dispute. Complainant Devnath promptly lodged FIR just after 3 hours of the incident at 10.30 a.m. naming all the accused persons as perpetrator of offence. His version that he informed about the incident is also corroborated from the evidence of PW—l Shyamratan and PW-Z Ramji. Presence of Deonath (PW—5) is natural and the same cannot be doubted. . We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have perused the record of trial Court as also the impugned judgment. 10.Homicidal death of the deceased persons namely, Anandram 6i Ramsharan is not in dispute. Even otherwise, from the evidence of Devnath'(PW.—5), who is witness of incident, and evidence of Dr. V.$. Chandravanshi, who conducted autopsy over the persons of the deceased and found injuries in his postmortem reports of Ex.-P/14 6i P/15 described herein below and has further opined that their death was due to haemorrhagic shock and coma as a result of injuries described in the postmortem report, homicidal death of the deceased persons is established. INJURIES SUSTAINED BV DECEASED ANANDRAM: - One incised wound scalp of the size 13cm x 4cm bone deep 9n the left parietal region of ear. One incised wound scalp of the size 125m x 2cm bone deep starting from 10 cm above the right eyebrow, placed anteroposterioty crossing right end of injury No.1 and midline. Bone underneath fractured into multiple pieces. Fractured fragments of bone displaced. Brain material protruded out. Clotted blood present. One incised wound of the size 9cm x 5cm on the right side of neck starter bone deep reaching upto cervical vertebral column. - One incised wound over leftdside of neck of the size 6cm x 1cm musele deep. Page 6 of 9 - One incised wound of The size 4cm x 1cm cavi‘ry deep over abdomen. - One incised wound of The size 5% cm x 1cm cavity deep over abdomen. One incised wound of The size 11cm x 1cm muscle deep over lefT scopular region. CloTTed blood presenT. INJURIES SUSTAINED B‘/ DECEASED RAMSHARAN: One incised wound scaip of The size 15cm x 5cm bone deep over upper mosT parT of The neck. One incised wound of The size 6cm x 3cm‘bone deep over righT side of upper parT of neck. One incised wound of size 5cm x 2cm muscie dep o The rihT sie of eck. One lacera wound over midiine of he z cm x cm bone deep. Oe incised wound of The size 12cm x 2cm muscle dee over posTerior ospecT of righT shoulder. One incised wound of The size 8cm x 2c muscle deep over Injry No.5. ne incised woun of The siz 8cm x 1/2 cm muscl deep over righT side of middle of back. One incied wound of The size 8cm x 1cm musclerdeep over loTeral aspe of r‘T arm. 1. h usTion for or conideroTon is wheTher The Tril curT wa 1 Te qe u si a o s jusTified in .acceing The evience of DeonoTh (PW—5), sole yiTness, for recordig onclusion of iT gainsT The appellanTs. 1.Deofh (PW—5) in his deposiTion bee The curT has deposed T ThaT incidenT is of 13.9.01 aT abouT .00 o.. Ramshara 6i Ananpom had gone To The fild aT 5.00 a.m. for ploughing purposes. He wenT To The field aT 6.00 a.m. wiTh meals for The deceased eos. is field is aacenT To The field of ahal. HouSe o prsn H dj B f accused Agahu is also acenT To Their field. nanram & Ramsharan were ploughing when The accused persons m ouT of Teir house. haru, Bali, Thau assaulTed Ramharan wiT xe, whereas, Moolchand (Si Somi asulTed Anandram wiT club. e wiTnessed The incidenT rom The ild of Bal. He did no proceed ahead, however, he was also chased by The accused persons. They The e n g d n Ted T sie 6 1 n p m u O d e e s cT igh pT d eew n c a 2na for o 7 m n d e r dja Ad cae h Ag n s h a waT sa h H f fe ha T /‘,Vf———'———_ ”'r—x—r—r ' ’Jnmwiwvwvwuvvwq ¢ “an q 4 Page 7 of 9 Thereaffer, he lodged r'epor'f of EXP—16. He has furfher deposed Thu? fwo axes, one cfub, a water bag and clubs were seized from The place of incident vide EXP-19. Spo‘r map of EXP-2O was also prepared in his presence. Order of injuncfion (EXP—22) was also seized from, him vide seizure of EXP—21. In The cross—examinafion suggesfion inm‘ affer half-an hour of his reaching f0 fhe spar, The inciden‘r occurred. He reached abouT 6.30 a.m. and was cuffing The grass. The defence has confrom‘ed him wiTh his diary sTaTemenf of Ex.D-3 and FIR (EXP-16) fa poin’r our cerfain omissions, which were apparem‘ly friviai in nature. He has denied The suggesfion fhaf he imself murdered his faiher & grandfafher and has lodged false reporT againsf fhe appellants. He also denied ’rhaT he ran away 13lAfTer ‘carefully examining The lengThy cross—examinaTion by The defence, we are of The opinion ThaT eyewiTness DeonaTh (PW—5) has from The spoT as his cloThing were sTained wiTh blood. and conTradicTions poinTed ouT by The defence are Trivial in naTure and The same do noT affecT in any way The reliabiliTy of The aforesaid witness. . 14. We aisa observed ThaT his evidence is duly corroboraTed from The / k; evidence of shyamraTan (PW-1), who has also sTaTed ThaT afTer f l h *rPags 9 of 9 be seized from The place of inciden’r and simply because sickle was no? seized, beonafh canno‘r be disbelieved. 18. O’rher' argumem‘ fhm‘ weapon of offence seized from ofher' accused persons except Bali did no? contain blood s’rains and Therefore, The prosecu’rion has failed To prove The charge againsT The appellanTs, is also noT accepTabIe for The reason ThaT where There is credible, reliable and TrusTworThy evidence of The wiTness, further corroboraTion from The FSL reporT is noT necessary. 19.0n The basis of aforesaid discussion, we are of The opinion ThaT There is no subsTance in This appeal, The same deserves To be dismissed and accordingly, iT is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ‘ Rosham-