CF0000062364 y i- *! - 'i'"s:on g,;;,,.!., / :::r:jn^r m-Sg3jsS.^3S^SS.^&SSA.£S^S^JSMS&£^a.JKS^3&. GRIiiraAL AppSAl. NO.3..!^!2 /99 -SS£^-SSSSS&^Si&5^.£S-S8S, OD'DS-GE-G@@^.E:MG®£%. ^ l./MOdiyam Kinna Ba& son of ^' porla, aged 35 ysars. latirEBi Baba, SBB oS Halla . ^Ebrla, aged about 21 years. '5. Xari- Hiarsnayya a>n of Sarsa '''fibrla agsd atout 51 years. t. 181:1 Malla ®nof Maanl- ^ ^aorla aged atout 28 years. <^1 B.JI'atl Munnl son ofpappayya agad atout 46 ysars. ^ li,i° o^^ ^*y .6. 'rati Bsnlu ®nof Karsa' . ^.dgad about; 29 ysars. 7. Ta'eiKJSista gon of rorasa; y'aged atont 35 years. ^" • ' . 8/.' Chi'ta Mutfea son of Bujj a' ^ aged atout 25 years, ,( 9./Mo<aiyam Kaana gon of Dula' y agsdaboul; 36 yearg. M 1<^. Shi,tim^ Kri sta ggn of MutSa agedaboat S& yass. 36 yearg. 11. Uiurta Boonga son of Bablu' aged about 29 years. '/ -Tsrsus- SSa>ONB®TI \^i &)<3hi Kankayya gan of Mutta ^ agsd aboufc 31 years. 15. Kadti B&ima son o f Lak^imayya aged atieat 21 yeasg. All oultivators aad residents of village Laakapalll, polios- Station TJsur, EB.st .Dahtewara, H.P. ' . Stats/of Hadhya pradesh. •» XI-HC-78 an^rqiT^riq; (raTsn^Ts»H !\< *11*1MI Sft*1|cb ~s^ "t)|i|l(-f<i|, a-rfly'is, Ridiyy ,&;^,^^^s/^ 2W~ sn^rira^ (^fg^sr) ?T?TW flfer sn^r Divtelon Beach: - — Hon'ble Mr. t.C. Bhawloo aad Hoa'ble Mr. Satish K. Aaihdtri. JJ. 19-7-2006 Mr, Rajesh Jain & Mra. (• Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Addi^onal respondent. +l-i)fcl41-1 HTRctf if f5<S <R]«lt ^srf^Tsn^T <iran Jaiu, counscl ft»rthe appeUaats. Publfc Prosecutor for fhe State/ Oral judgment dictated ^n Dcas. Per L.C. Bhadoo. J: - By this appeal under $ection 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procediu-e, fhe accused/appjeUants •namety, Modiyam Kanna Rao (Sarpanch of the •vQtage}, Tatij-am Babu, Maai Dhannayya, Tati Malla, Tati Miumi, Tati Ramlu, Tati I^riste, Chinta Mutta, Modiyant Kaana S/o Dula, Chiata Krista, Dhurta Ijioonga, Sodhi Kaakayya & Kadti Bhima, have questioned the legaUt}j and correctacss of ttw judgment of convictk>n aad order of sent^nce dated 1-10-1999 passed by the 1" Additional Sessions Judge, pastar at Jagdalpur, ia Sessions Trial No. 15/99, whereby leamed A^ditional Sessions Judge after holding (he above accused/appeUauts gi^ilty for commission of ofifence under Scctions 147, 302 read withl Section 149, 328 & 201 of the I.P.C. sentenced each of the accusei^ to uudergo R.I. for one year and pay a fiue of Rs. 100/ -, iu default of years and pay a fine of Rs.500 ttndei^o R.I. for three inonths; '•^ layincnt offine to further uadei^o R.I. for one monfh; to undergo impri^Oiunent for life; to iindei^o R.I. for five Y-, in dcfault ofpaysaea-t offinc to further and to uadergo R.I. for ooe year aad pay a fiae 6f Rs.500/ -, in default <|>f payment of fine to furthcr luidcrgo R.I. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 sn^Tqirl^iR; cTSTT3n^TsbN \- 1>- *11*1WI Sb+lich TSf -iliqid-q, »Tnu'16,Rlirliyy _^_ G~>.f\. ^-7^277.3_ ^ 2W- 3il^i 4a<ft (yil^sii^ff) SRiTwgferan^T for one month, respectivety. Rao (Sarpaach of the vIUage)|, Btuina have also been convlcted each oftheiu has been fine ofRs.500/-, in default o^ oae monfh. However, ftiey 120-BoftheI.P.C. [Apart fix»iatfaat, accuscd Modiyam Kanna ;)|, Tatiram Babu, Mairi Dhann^ya & Kadti under Sectfon 148 of the I.P.C. and to undeiy) R.I. for one year aad pay a 'payment offine to further undei^o R.I. for ^yere acqultted of the cliaa^e uudcr Scction senteiticed prosecjution The case of the Narayan went to his daught^ Murdanda aad infonned hc^ nainely, Modiyam Kanna Ra|o 1iim aa the Sarpanch was and hatcliing a conspuacy ija Sodi Naravan teft for his know that accused Mcxlivaia conveued a meetmg and fists & tegs, aad thcy also poison. Comiag to know ViUage; LankapaUi and Dhiuva. She caine to kaowl Kanna Rao (Sarpanch) caine| of her fafher and attacked which he became uncouscioUs the place of iticident. Theiji Kanna Rao along wsQi. his father, assaulted aad hihi murdlered <t>i'iiFft'if)-i Hii<iTfftec^t<Ri'i-ii< ^srf^tiTsn^r is that on 1-10-1998 dcceased Sodi ^r Telain Sanuiu's Village: Kamargudapara fhat the Sarpaach of Village; Laakapalli is haviag grudge and animosily against ^dng that Narayaa is practiciag witchcrafl order to eliminate hnn. Oa 5-10-1998, On 6-10-1998, Telam Sammi came to IKauaa Rao and other accused persons had teafter, they assaulted her father wifh axe, [forced him to consume stool inixed with the iucident, on 6-10-1998, she went to in the house of her cousin brother that at about 4-5 p.ia. accused Modiyam |along with his associates to the residcnce with axe, club, fists & legs as a result of and considering him as dead, they left again ou 7-10-1998, accused Modwam lassociates caine to the residence of her lum. Thcreaflter, in fiu-theraace of s^ym Da vill^ge tfaeteafter, abdut remAined P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3n^r^rR-<i<*i (rar3TR?Ts»>H 't^ tirqcfT ss*n<:fi 35^ "41<<lcl<<, ^+I'IS, Islcll+iy ,.Ca:A:.^.^^ 3TT^7Tysi<* (yt^t'^ff) ??<ITWCTfecT3n^T cominon object, thev byrat Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex.f-lS) was recoided on 17-10-1998 at 5,10 p.in. aad thereafter, Mei^ Jufltuaation (Ex.P-16) was recorded on 19-10- 1998 at 12.35 p.m. Based 17/19-10-1998. Jnvestigatijig Officer R.S. Patel left for tihe scene of occzirrence and prepared tli|e sitc plan Ex.P-19. F'anchnatna Ex.P-2 reganlmg the deafh of Sodi presence of fhe witnesses. Rao gave mformatioa (Ex.P- day i.e. on 18-10-1998, whil^ axe under Ex.P-6, Accused and ia pursuaace ofthat, he q>l<<fc1<n'l t|IHI-lT^''tel^)'<[Sl'h;l< ^sri^R'sn^T the bodv of her father. Based on this, »/ m that, F.I.R. (Ex.P-17) was registered on Narayan was preparcd on 18-10-1998 ia Dn 18-10-1998, aaused Modiyam Kaana B) in police custody and m pursuance of that, a stone was recovered 4t his iastance under Bx.P-4, On thc same s ia police custody, accused Tatiram Babu gave information (Ex.P-5) an<^ m piirsuance ofthat, he got recovered aa ^Saai Dhannayya gave iafonnation (Bx.P-7) got recovered aa axe under Ex.P-8. At fhe iastance of Telajn Sanmu, ^aughter of the deceascd, bumt boncs of Sodi Narayaa, ash and pla^a soil were taken into possession uader Ex.P-9. Recovered articles also to the Forensic Scieuce aad ash of thc deceased was iffere scnt to Mcdical CtoUege, Raipur aiid Laboratoxy, Sagar, under Exs.P-20 to 22, fiioni wherc the report (Bx.P-^6) was received fiom FSL, Raipur, aad tte report (Ex.P-37) of the Med|colegal Institute, Bhopal regardu^ bones keceived. After completion of in^estigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused pcrsons iu tfie Court of CIuef Judicial Maystrats, Daatewada, who m tura co|aumtted the case to the Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur fiom where leame|d 1st Additional Scssioas Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur received the case ^n teansfer for triai -ti. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 *ll*l^l sh*iich a^'^Traraq', ®Tfl+i'is,Ri<-iiwy CD.^.'X^^-^-/ •SQO- 4 3TI^?T4s|cb (yt^S.'T) 3:n^TqiTR-fi«h HW sn^r giitNi ^iwfffN'sn^T *i<iF«<fl-i*iiticiTffteI^<Ri'Ki< ^sri^iTsn^T •r Sessutius Leamed Additional Prosecutor and counsel fbr the I the record was of fhe opinion 147, 148, 328, 302 read wiib were made out ^aiast the ac\ the charges, samc werc read Each ofthe accused denied thel Judge aflter heariag AdditioHal Public |accused persons and also afler pcrusmg |that prima facie ofifence under Sectious $ection 149, 120-B and 201 ofthe I.P.C. ^used persons. Accordingly, he fi'amed aad explained to thc accused persons. |c.hai^es aad clauned to be tried. ovfcr The prosecutiou in order peisons examined lune accused were recorded iinder S offhe accused denied fhe stated that they are ianocent the crune. |to establish charges against the accused On the crtfaer haad, statBinents of 3ection 313 ofthe Cr.P.C. in which each evidence appearing against fheai, 4ad they have been falsely unpUcated in witnesfees pros^cution Sessi<t>ns Leamed Additional Additk>nal Public Prosccutor convKrted and sentcnced par^raph 1 offlusjudgment. ea . Judge after heariag the aEguineats of and counsel for thc accused persons of the accused as aaentioned in We have heard learaed As far as the question conceraed, karaed counsel &i| fhe prpsecution has utterly wifh homicidal death, as there j cdunsel for the parties. of homkadal dcatti of Sodi Narayan is the accused/appeUants submittal that to establish that Sodi Naravaa met no evideace. faikd On the ofher hand, Mr. supported the judginent of the 1S I)eo, fcanied Additional Public Piosecutor trial Court. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 *11*IWI Sh+licb TSI •^ww-ii, (SiTn+i'Kc, isiyiyy ^.(^..d...^?^^a sw~ 3T1^?T'4ath (yi(^qqiT) 3I1^T?ff)^:lNi ClWSll^TstlHiqi 1^' TOIIW (rfstT sn^r persons assaulted the <j,ecease^ <01'!|(<1<fl-l WRlf t' f3:6 ^KZK ^sif^irgn^r The case of the prosecutjoa is that in the first iastance, accused with axe, fists and lcgs, aad also foiced him to conszune stool mixed wipi poison. Thereafter, on 7- 10-1998, fhe accused persons ^ain caine ^o fhe house of Sodi Narayan, attaeked him with axe, fists and tegs, \ body on a cot aad set it on firel |x>nsidering hhn as deml, they took his To this extent, thc evidence of the wife of Late Sodi Narayaa namely, ^odi Badki (PW-7) has been adduced aad she has stated that aU thc acc|uscd persons assaulted her husbaad in the meeting and they also forc^d her husbaad to coasume stool muccd with poison. Thereafter, fhey|brought her husband to the residcnce, they again assaulted hiin ia tl(e courtyanl of her house, as a rcsidt of which her husband became u4.conscious and thcreater, thcy took hcr husbaad on a cot consideringl him as dead. Her husband's hands & tegs wcre chopped. Thc accusi^d persons also fhreatened her that they wiU kill her also. Thev also afesaulted her husband ia the Panchavat and at her residence, fhey ke^)t the body on wood and ticd the body wifh wood and thereaflsr set| him oa fiie. R.S. Patel (PW-9), thc Investi^ting OfBcer, has state^ in lus cvidence fhat on 18-10-1998, at the iastance ofTelam Samini (IfW-8), daiighter oftte deceased, he went to fhe place of occurrence, fix>i|i where bones & arfi of the body of Sodl Narayan were taken iato poss^ssion under Ex.P-9, same were sent in sealed coudition to the Medical evidence, it is established that assaulted wifh axe, tegs & Coltegc aud &om where the report (Ex.P- 37) was received regardiag boi^s & ash aad it has becn inentioncd that the bones were of humfln -oi|igia. Therefore, 'ia view of the above in the first instance, Sodi Narayan was fists, when he becanie unconscious, P.T.O. XI-HC-78 HIHMI aiW^i ^sr^rraRTO', »Tft*f'i<o,Isifii+iy ^,^:yr^^W[ 2W- 3ii^i ^acft ('i^I^'i'T) 3ii^r?>TR.ficb ?ran' sn^r sb^fcb w \1' ^areTnf^cTsn^T +i'iitd41.f iitii-il'^te^t'^'wK ^ari^iTsn^T considenng him dead, they to(?k him fsxym. the house and set hini cai fire. In the circuinstances, it y estabUshed fhat Sodi Narayan met wifh honucidal deafh. Now, comiag to the i4volvement of the accused peisons in comnuttmg fhe miudea- of Sc|di Narayan in furfhcrance of common object, Sodi Badld (PW-7), the ^ffiSc ofdeceased Sodi Narayan, has steted in her evidence that Sodi Naliavaa was her husbaad and Murwam Lachlunayya was her father, |bofh of Ifaem are dcad. Thc accuscd persous present iu. fhe Coiut ^iad inuidered thein. Accuscd Modwam Kaima Rao caUed a meeting ^n the vill^e in wtuch all the accused persons were present, she w^s also preseat, and her husband Sodi Narayaa & father Lachhinay^a were also present io the inectuG^. Accused Modwam Kanna Rao [told thc accuscd peisons "what you are seenig, attack tfaein", on whiclji Miuwam Lachlunayya & Sodi Narayan were attackcd with club & Laflii. Thercafter, aU tiie accused perecms forced Muriyam Lachlunawya fls Sodi Naiavan to cMisumc stool mBced with poison, thereafter, they ^ook fhein to their rcsideace and agaia assaulted Sodi Narayan in tbe coiirtyatd of hcr house. Accused Tatiraia Babu & Mani Dhanndwa attacked Sodi Nar^aa with axe on neck & chest, respectivefy, w] attacked with wood on head &] tteieas, Sarpanch Modwain Kanna Rao neck. AU the accused pcrsons attw;ked with Lafhi, club, fists & tegs, ^s a result ofwhich her husband became unconscious. Considenng h\m as dead, fhey took him on a cot, fhereafter, kept hls body ofl wo|3d, tied ttie same aad set it on fa-c. Legs and haadsofdeceased Sodi Ne|rayan were sSao chopped. Telana Sammi (PW-8), daughter of deceascd ^odi Narayan, has steted in hcr evidence P.T.O. XI-HC-78 sn^r^TR-fi* <TS)T 3TR5T g^IW ^ll+ldl ynwvh 75T "lll'itlcl^, BTfl^'Ko, (»t<tl'M^< .^•.a:.^f-MT,?RT-50«~ 311^1 4^* (^ql^q^) ^dTW flf?(T SII^T .Karuta that accused Modivam.l Tatiram Babu, Mani Dharmai? »x;uscdpersons wifh tegs .& Officer R.S. Patel (FW-9), at| Tatiram Babu & Mani Bxs.P-4, P-6 S6 P-8. ThereforeJ Rao, Tatiram Babu & Mani Sodi Naravan in furtheranc^ assembly, is estabUshed. Rao attacked ter father with club, trya & Kadti Bhima wifh axc aad other ^sts. As per thc ewidencc of Invcstigating ftie instancc of Modiyani Kaana Rao, Dharms^ya, stone and axe were rccovered under iavolvement of accused Modivam Kanna I^hannayya in committing fhe murder of of commoa object af the iinlawful otfTclam As far as thc evidence of Kadti Bhima that he attacMed the evideuce ofTelain Sammi by ofher evideace. Therefore, because, ia the first instaacc, of Kadti Bhima. Even thc (PW-7) has not stated in her deceased Sodi Narayan with ak Tatirajn Babu & Mani Dharmahrya Modivaia Kanna Rao attacked Ivifl E|iql As far as titie iavohreinedt Tati Malla, Tati Mmmi, Tati RE|II Kanna S/o Dida, Chinta Krte^a; concemed, afler pcrusal of fhe| Badki (PW-7), who are the opinion f- of fhe considered^that thc onBy their iavolvement ia the crime tii<<I<i<l1'] t(itidTtfte^<R]<^;i< ^stf^iTsn^r Sammi Fegaidiag the mvoh?ement Sodi Narayan with axe is coacenied, Ito that extent bas not been coraoborated ^EI ejnAea.ee does not iaspire confidence, axe has been recovered at the instance ofTelam Sammi namely, Sodi Badki dvidcnce that Kadti Bhnna edso assauted ce, On the contrary, she has stated that assaultcd Sodi Narayan with axe aad Ivifh club. tio mother of other niae accused pcrsons nainefy, iqlu, Tati Krista, Chinta Mutta, Modiyam a, Dhurta Hoonga & Sodhi Kankayya, is evidencc ofTelain Sainmi (PW-8) & Sodi material witnesses in tfais case, we are has not beea abte to estabMsh in question beyond reasonable doubt for P.T.O. pr^secution XI-HC-78 tTWcfT ar*TT<»i Tsg'^TraRra', »Tl1u'i6,(sfciiyy .&?...ft.; wr^oe- 3T1^?T ^iach ('i^^t^) sn^r^irf^TW craTsn^Tsh^iqi ^ ??cfTW: tlfN'3TI^T Mlani otnlv acculsed the reason tfaat both these pcrsons in their evidencc befor^ ia the Court bv fhese witnes^f these accused persons. Onyr Karma Rao, Tatiram Babu & reiaaming accused persoris, that atl the accused persons| menibers of the unlawful iavolveiaent of fhese nine Sodi Narayaa and that they wt< the prosecution through these evidence by aaaung each of th^ unlawful asseinblv aad each o) of conaunon object of the unlaw|f the witnesses to tafce their fhe witaesses ought to have towaids each of the accusedl meiaber of the unlawful On the safer side, fhe luvcst^s of accused persons ought to h^ a M^istrate by thesc witnessej above evidence, imtess each criinc, is identified beforc the was naember of the unlawfull commission of crime, inerety V[ members of the unlawful •wl.tncsscs asseidbly «bl'l|ffl'ifl-fITTlRff tf te^ TfSFRTC ^stf^R'sn^r havc not iiamcd fhese accused the Court, nor they have been ideutified ;s, nor any recoveiy was eflfected fi-om the part played by accused ModJyam Ibni Dharmavya has beeu stated. For the onanibus statement has been niade attacked the deceased and thev were elssembly. In oider to establish tfae persons in comnutting ffae murder of ;re niembers of tfae imlawful asseinbfy, |two witaesses ought to have adduced the accused that they were members of the thein acted in the crime in fiu-therance asseiably or if it was not possibte for in thc Court evidcncc, then at least |identified these accused by indicating in thcir Court evidence tbat he was at fhe tiiae of conuaissiou of orunc. |iting Officer tookmg to the large number ^ve arranged identi&cation parade before during the iuvestigation. Based on tfae ^f the accused, who ra involved in the (fourt and stated that particular accuscd assembly and he took part in fhe jv saying that ftie accused persons were ^mbty aiid fhey were part of fhe attack, P.T.O. LWtfill uatips assdmblv |:;F 1 XI-HC-78 *IIHCII sh*11<b 3^'^(raT?PT, ^^i'is, RfciK-iy •_&.^.2-"?^: ^ ^-.'.•.•.•.•.T7.'.?-.-^.A..I.^- ^^__ 9 3TT^?rTa^ (l^3^F) an^r^Tf^lNi tiqTsn^rgiiTR; <. ^cITWBfScTSn^T they cannot be held- guilly| circumstances, we are of the has utlerlv failed to estabMshl persons ia coinnussion offhe However, as laentioped Kaana Rao (Sarpaach), established and to this exteil Section 302 read wifh Sectlou find any iUegality and nifirmi1y| dmne. Tatulam sid>u persops ffbd do; thdt As far as the commissy) I.P.C. that fhese accused mixed wlth poison is conceme^ persons broiight aay poison fhe same. In fhe absence of persons were m possession of| then the deceased was forcedl accuscd persons guilty for cogent and ctear evidence to fh( fhe poison in stool aad the dec] The prosecution has failed to cs I.P.C. agaiast accused persons. As far as conviction as has been referred eariticr Sodi Badki (FW-7), that flicre apart fiom Modyam Kanna ofher accused pcrsons were unddr ficodi Rfao qTrafepfrr wc^ff tt'teA ifwsn: ^Slf^ITSn^T on such a weak evidencc. In the »asidered opiniqn that fhe prosccutton mvolvcinent of the abovc nine accuscd arlier, involveinent of accuscd Modwain Babu & Mani Dharmawa stanris fheir conviction aad senteace under 149 ofthe I.P.C. is correct and we do not in the judgment of the trial Court. of ofience under Section 328 of the fOFeed Sodi Narayan to consumc stool 1, there is ao evidence that the accused the deceased was forccd to consume ]ogent evidence that in fact, the accuscd Ipoison, same was inixed with stool and to consume, it is difiBicult to hoM the |t offcnce. In othcr words, thcrc M no effcct ttaat thc accused persons maxed jeased was forccd to consuaie thc same. ttablish offence undcr Scctfon 328 ofthe alsk? Sectton 147 ofthe I.P.C. is coacemed, fhe evideace ofTclam. Sanmu (PW-8) & erc Buore than five accusejd persons ie. >, Tatiram Babu & Maai Dharmayya, fhere, therefere, the accuscd persons P.T.O. I.1 X,[-HC-78 +11*1WI StlHlcfl 3^'?2IFlRra', »Tfly'l<o,factl+fy .&...^^4a^.l ^^00- 10 3n^9rira^ (^rfg^sr) sn^T^rR^ich (TW a-n^T sbiii+ swrwBf?tT3n^T were meinbers of the unlawfiil asseinblv was to assault audl Hence, accused Modiyain Kan4a Dharmayya faave r^hffy been «bl<llcf41-fW^f if fSC6 rf»RZK ^isri^iTsn^T |asseinbly and the object ofthat undawftd commit the inurder of Sodi Narayan, Rao (Sarpan.ch), Tata-am Babu & Maiu cbavicted under Sectton 147 ofthe I.P.C. As far as convictfon imd^r Section 148 ofthe l.P.C. is coacemed, it is established froin the CTlidence that axe was rccovered at the instance of accused Tatirain ^abu & Maiu Dharmswya and sinularly, stone was recovered at the infctance of accused Modiyani Kaitna Rao. Therefpre, they were ineinbers weapons wifh them. Thcse tijiree accused persoas have rightly been convicted zinder Section 148 of the I.P.C. is concemed, as has judgment white discussiag c6 Section 149 of the I.P.C., the of the unlawful asseiabty having deadly the I.P.C. As far as convictk>n of adcuscd Kalti Bhima under Section 148 of ^been discussed in the cariier part of this ^nvfctfon under Section 302 read with prosecution has faited to establish the crime ^ainst Kadti Bhima fh^tt he was having axe aad attacked fhe deceased, therefore, his convlc|tion under Sectk>n 148 ofthe I.P.C. also cannotbe sustaiaed. As far as conviction undfcr Section 201 offhe i.P.C. is concemed, Sodi Badki (FW-7) has statefl in her evidcHce fhat fh.ese accused persons after attacking her hu^band Sodi Narayan, consalering him as dead, took tus body on a cot, kept it on wood, tied the body with fhe wood aad fhereafber, set it oo 4TE- Fiom the plaGe of oecuirencc, bcaies aad ash were recovered by Inv^stigatmg Officer R.S. Patel uuder Ex.P-9. Therefore, fix>m ftte above evi4ence, it is estabUshed that these three P.T.O. ^ XI-HC-78 ^l+l^ll shHlch 3'ST •<<I<IIC1<<, ®Tn<H'l6,l«t<ni'Hy . .(S?..^..^e./ •^[-3W- 11 3ii^l ^aw ('i^is6!^) sn^rairf^iN; craTsn^r^iiich gRITWflf^TSn^T dause icltention accused persons viz., Modiyam Mani Dharmawa in order to inurder of Sodi Narayaa with ic|ten punishiaent burat the body of ^odi rightly convicted uader Secd^n mentioned earlier, as far as'oth|si have not bcen identified. |ianna RM> (Sarpanch), Tatiram Babu & disappearauce of evidence of the to sciecn fhemsdves from tegal jodi Narayaa. Therefore, they have becn ^n 201 of the I.P.C. As has been |sr accused pcrsons are concerued, thcy In the resiilt, 1. Conviction and sentencesl Muimi, Tati Raadu, Tati S/o Du]a, Chinta Krista), Kadti Bhima uader Sectiotis 148 & 201 oftheLP.C. extent succeeds and the aad senteuces imposed zmder the aforesaid Scctyns ofthe said chaige. 2. Conviction and sentence i Rao (Sarpanch), Tatiram 328 ofthe I.P.C. cannot l and they are acquitted ofi 3. So far as offence under 148 & 201 of the I.P.C. Kaiina Rao (Sarpaach), '^ tii<<t<-i<i1-f iitidT ff te<^t'<Riwi< ^ia-rf^TT-W^T imposed upon accuscd Tati MaBa, Tati Krista, Chinta Mutta, Modyam Kanna Dhurta Hoonga, Sodhi Kaiikayya & 302 read with Section 149, 328, 147, be sustained. Tfae appeal to (hat is accordingfy, aUowed. Conviction upon the above accused/appeUants are set aside and fhey are acquitted ctonot slaiae 1m ^mposed upon accused Modwam Kaaaa ^abu & Mani Dharmayya uader Scction <e sustained and fhe same are set aside (he said chai^e. 3<tctk>ns 302 read with Section 149, 147, is concemed, llie appeal of Mcxliyam Ttatiram Bsiau. & Mani Dharmayya fafls P.T.O. XI-HC-78 *11*1WI sh*1ich 3:5?'"!<i'i|ici<<, s'Tn+f'ie, lsicii*i^< .Q?,.Q:..2^.^.?/^^T-SOT- 12 3TT^?T4a<t> ('i,c<(d°l<^') 317^T?iT^ict> craT31T^Tsht<|ch ?TtTTW: flf5(T STT^TT ^rafefl^T wrat'tf'tet-it tf^RK ^3:rf^IT3)T^T and the saine is disnussbd. Caavkition and sentences iiuoosed upon fhem are mamtaine^i. 4. It is said that accused Krista, Cturita Mutta, Dhurta Hoonga, Sodhi They need not However, accused Dhannawa are directed order to uadeigo the senti bonds are canceBed. Tbti Mddivam surrender Modiyfcm ^ti Malla, Tati Munni, Tati Ramlu, Tati Kaana S/o Diila, Chmta Krista, Kankawa & Kadti Bhiiaa are on bail. aad their baB boitds are dischai^ed. Kauna Rao, Tatiraia Babu & Mani Ito surrender before the trial Court in ;nces imposed upon them and their bafl Bcfore partmg wifh fhe jupgment, we wouhl Uke to observc that it is sad that ia such a heino^is criine on account of the lapsc of mvest^ation, the prosecution a|gency as well as the indiffereat attitude of the Presidiag Officer, the 4-bove ten accused persons have beea acquitted. Tbe perusal of recorfl shcws that the investigation has been conducted in a veiy casual an4 cavatier manner without realizing fhe sensitivity of the matter. Equa^fy, the Prosecutor before the Court has not conducted fhe case with sint»ri1y. He did not care, white examining fhe prosecution witnesses, to e|nsure that the evidemx of prosecution witness must be adduced m a ^roper iiiaaner about the involvement of each accused. The Presiding 0|fficer, who was a Judicial Officer of the rank of Sessions Judge, wa^ equatly casual and careless white recordiag fhe evidence. The m^nner ia which h? recorded fhe evidence shows that he remained as a sil^at spectator. Tiine aad again, fhe Apex Court has lamented upon such Judicial and has observed that while conducting the pioceedis!^, the Judicial Officer inust participate ~x P.T.O. XI-HC-78 HI*1CTI ShW^ S^'-qTlTRTO', Btfl+t'IS, (slcliyy ^- .Cb..t..^q'.^-^ ^J^. .^-. ^ . . ..>. . .T. ..^.. .^. t ^q- ^Ofr 13 3TI^?TTg1g? (^tg^ET) sTi^r^rf^TW <raT3'iraTshH Soma '^ Sa'.' ^' S^ITWflf^(r31T^T Ott AdR actively ia the proceeding and| spectator. Wherever he feels the witness in order to brmg judgment in ZaUra HabibuUaI^ & otliers reported ia 2006 fhat fair trial would mectri a\ proseculoT and atmosphere of whidz bias or prejudsoe for or cause which is being tried is an oppartwaly to presejve an over hasty siage-rnaiwiged, he is not expected to reiaaui as silent ai^cessaiy, he himselfcan ask questkms to record the correct position. In a rccent Sheikh 8»another v. State of Gujartf SCW 1340, the Apex Court observed trial before an impartidl Judge, a fcw ywSckd cabn. Fcdr trial means a trial in i^gctinst the aoaised, the uritnesses, or ihe e^nnincded. Since the jair hearing requves > ^rocess, il may be vitiatedctnd violated by Cfiilored artdpartisan trial. the ^roce. jud^ment Let a copy of thjs jud^n Secretaty, Registrar Oeneral PoUce aad Director (PK>secutk»i^) Parties are eutitled for cej-tified copy ofttus order. SdA L.C.BHADOO Judge 'hiitci'fl'i 11*1 i-iT ff te3' <R|<AK ^sTf^irsn^r be sent to Honie Secretary, Law if the High Court, Director Oeneral of for neediul and necessarv actfon. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge P.T.O.