^r /<?• (injailj Koopram Ravat s/o Atishrain Ravat, aged abcut 2'4 years, R/o viilage Bohsrdih Tbaiia- Gurur Distiict Durg (MP) (Now CG) Ravtibai w/o Roopram. aged 21 years , R/o Bobardih Thaiia Gurur Districi Durg (MPj (l».ow CO) State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) s~ sr'si.'fwF'^f Siut. Indira Tiipathi, counsel for the appellants. Shri Ashish Shukla, Goverainent Advocate Ibr fhe State. • Hoa'Me Shti R.L.Jhaawar,JJ Per T.P.Sharma, J, (15.03.2010) Chaileiige in. fhis appeal is to the judgineiit of conviction and order ol' senteuce dated 3.11.1993, passed by fhe Fu-st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions 'S'rifi'.l No. 136/1993, whereby aad wbereunder the leamed 17irst Additional Sessions Judge after holdiag Gie appellaiits guilty' tbr coiainission of laurder of Cham.arin Bai, inotlier of appellaat No.l aud m.ottier-in-law of appellaut No.2, ia shariiig coninion RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Date: 2025.02.07 12:29:07 +0530 intention, convicted fhe appellaats uiider Sectioii 302/34 offhe IPC aiid sentenced to uiidergo R.I. for iiie. 2. The judguient iinpugned is chaBenged on fhe ground that wifhout aay iota of evidence, tlie Court below has convicted and seatenced fhe appellants as aforeinentioned and fh.ereby conunitted illegaSiU". 3. Prosecution case iii brief is that oa Uie fatefiil dav of 11.8.1992, at about 12 O' clock at uoon, the appeilaxits, who are husbaad aa.d wite, were present ta th.eir 'ho'ase. On acccunt of deinand of laoney, som.e quarrel took place bet'.Teen Cliaia.arm. Bai aud ttie appeUao.ts, on wbich, both ttie appeUaats assaulted Cbamarui Bai (aiother of appellaat No. 1 aad aio&er in law ofappeltant No.2) by awooden planJs [kuteidj aad caused her deafh. AppellaBt Roopram. niade extra jucl.icial confession before Devlat (PW-3) and Hirawaa. (PV/-6) fh.at he bad murdered 'his mofiier. Thereafter, Devlal (PW-3) went to Potice Station. and lodged the F'.I.R. vide E.x. P/5. luvest^atia.g officer left for fiie scerLe of occun-ence aad after sum.inoniag witnesses, vide Ex. P/6, iaquest over the dead body of CbaiaariD. Bai was prepared vide Ex. P/7. The dead body was seiit for autopsy to the P.H.C. Dhanitari, where Dr. H.C.Godheja (fW-l) conducted autopsy vide Ex. P/1 aiid found followirLg mjuries: Lacerated wouiid over forehead just above eyebrow region of 4 x 1 '/2 cni x bone deep iacluduig fracture of forehead ii. Lacerated wound over right side offace of3 x lcra. x bone deep of depressed inultiple fracture of boaes of tace Lacerated wound of right side of chia of 1 x 'A cni x bone Ul. IV. deep Lacerated woiind of inastoid region behiiid ear of 4 x 2 x bone deep iiicludiiig fracture. ^Sig^"^ v. Contusion over right side of neck 3x2 cai vi, Contusion over right side of chest inciudm.g frachu-e of bofh. ribs vii. Lacerated Vu-ound over right side of rhe ear of 2 x Vs ciu. x bone deep. Bone was fouiid fi-actured. viii. Contusion over back side of chest and fractui-e of 3r° to 10A ribs and fractare of 4th, 5dl and 6U1 ribs ix. Abrasioa over bu.ttock of5 x 3 cai and 4- x 3 cia x. Abrasion over left haiid of 6 x 2 cai xi. Abi^sion. over left haiid of 4 x 2 ui cni. Liver was ruptured. Mode of deafh was coraa aiid shock due to head ancl brain uijuiy. Injuries were aate niortem. and \veie sufiicient for causing death. AppeUants were taken into custody. Roopraia. inade disclosuie statera.ent of fhe weapon- wooden pla&k vide Ex. P/8. Wooden plaak was seized at tlie iiistance of ttte accused/ appeUant- Roopram vide Ex. P/ 11. Revu Bai laade disclosure stateinent vide Ex. P/9 aad one wooden stick was seized at her iiistance vide Ex. P/ 12. Baagles of Revti Bai were seized vide Ex. P/13. Her cloUies staiG.ed ->A7itti blood were seized vide Ex. P/ 14. Blood stained clotiies of Roopraa wer& seized vide Ex. P/15. Sealed clofhes of fhe deceasecl were seized vide Ex. P/18. Blood staiaed soil aiid pl&ia was recovered froin the spot vide Ex. P/ 10. Spot iiiap w&s p^spared vide Ex. P/19. Seized articles were sent fbr cheiiiicE^ examm.atk)n vide Ex. P/20. Stateiaeats of Uie wita.esses were recorded under Section 161 of fhe Code of Cruzuzial Procedure, 1973 (ui short ftie Code). 4. After coiapletion of iiivestigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court ot'J.M.F.C., Balod, who in tuni, com.initted the case to tbe Co-art of Sessions, Durg, froiii where, the leaTne'.d ;'J-S-^-. Sf'a^W':^. "^g ^ First Additional Sessions Judge, 'Durg received fhe case on trajisfer for tnsl. 5. !n order to prove the guUt of Uie accused/appellaiits, prosecution has exsunuied as luaiiy as 8 •m.taesses. Accused/appellants were examined under Section 313 of Ae Code, where they denied fhe circumstaiices appearing agaiiist tlieni, pleaded iiin.oceii.ee aiid false iinplication.. 6. Afier aSbrding opportunity of heariug to the parties, •tlie learaed First Additioaal Sessions Judge has convicted ancl sentenced fhe accused/appeUaiits as atbreinentioned. 7. We have heard leanied counsel for the parties at lerigtii and have perased fhe judginent and record of fh.e ta-ial Court. 8. Leaiiied coiuisel for tlie appellsmts vehejnenUy argued. tliat though fbis is a case of brutal aiurder of mother of appellant No.l aad motiier ia law of appeUaat No.2, but prosecutiou was under obligation to prove fhe case beyond reasonable doubt. Only on fhe ground fhat motlier of appellaiit No.l aad inotiier ia law of appeUant No.2 has been killed, no Uabitity caa be fastened cn ttie appellants. 09. On fh.e other hand, learaed counsel for the State opposed tiie arguinents and subm.itted tiiat the convictioa of the appellaats is based on ftie cii'cuiastantial evidence aiid prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Me siibmitted fbat the extra judicial coiil'ession raads by tiie appeUant is sufficient for hypofhesis offhe guiit oftlieaccused/ appeUaats. 10. Sa order to appreciate fbfi argunients advaiiced oa behais' of the parties, we have exaiained tiic evidence adduced oa behalf of the prosecution. In the present case, honiicidal deafh as a result of ante niorteiu fatal injuri.es to the deceased Chaiaaraa Bai, has not been substaiitially disputed by tlie appeUaats. On the ottier haiid, it is estabUshed by fhe evidence ofDr.H.C. Godheja (PW-1) aad autopsy report Ex. P/1, 'ivhich revealed that fiactures aad iajuries of the heact aad ribs of chest, were fatal aiid death was houiicidal iu nature. 11. As regards fhe coiupUcity of tlie accused/ appeUaiits ia crmie ia question is coacerued, fb.e conviction is based oa the cu'cuiastaiitial evidenced aad extra judicial confession niade by Uie appeUaut before Devlal (PW-3) aad Hirawaa (PW-6). Devlal (PW-3) has deposed that at the tmie of uicident, appeltaiit Roopram caine to him aad inade extra judicial confessiort tliat he has kffled his niofher- Chaaianu Bai. Wife of Rooprani was also present with hmi. Thea tliey weut to Police Station and lodged the F'.I.R. aud PoUce iiivestigated fhe crmie, but iii pai-& 10 of his cross-examuiation, he has specifically deposed that Roopram has not stated auythiag to him. Only after receivui^ fhe inenio from. PoUce, he came to know about tlie iacident. Anofher iritness Hirawaii (PW-6) has also deposed fbat fhe appeUaiit Roopram had raade extra judicial confession before that he has kiUed his xnother, but in para 3 of his cross examiaation, he has clearly adiaitted fbat Roopram. has not inade any extra judicial confession before him. and on fhe basis of iaformation received from. the vfflagers, he cam.e to kaow about the iacident. Except fhose witaesses, no ofh.er witaess has said auyfhiag against the accused /appellaiits. E^Ea^^.,^ ^r"'l'^ If ^&h. 1 12. Ia the absence of aiiy ofh.er evideace, the disclosure statement ofthe weapon i.e. wooden plaak [kutela] and wooden stick aiid their seizure at the uistance of the accused/ appellants is of uo use. This is a case of inurder of Diother of appeliaiit No.l suid dother ia law of appenant No.2. Prosecution was under obUgation to prove fhe case beyond reasonable doubt. Only on fhe ground fhat inother of appeUaiit No.l and mother in. law of appeUaat No.2 has been killed, no liabili'ty can be fastened upoh fhe accused/appellants. Unless the offeace is proved by legal aad clmchiag evidence, it is not sustainable luider the law. Court below has not considered fh.at the evidentiar;- value of fhe evidence of Devlal (PW-3) aiid HiraVt'aa (PW-6) without corroboration, is of no use aad thereby it has conunitted illegalit}-. 13. On close sci-utm.y ofthe evidence, we do not fuid aoy legal aiid cliiichin.g evidence agaiast the accused/appeUaiits, sustaiiiable under law. Consequently, fhe appeal is allowed axid conviction and seatence awarded to fhe appeUants under Section 302/34 of fhe IPC for Ufe uilprisoruiient is set asirle. The appeUauts are acquitted of ttie charge, Tbey be set at liberty forthwith, li' not requh'ed ia aiiy otiier case. Sd/- , T- P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge Svrr,i)'e