*gngia Berech IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH CRIMINAL APPEAL No. g? OE: /2oos Dhansc Kcvat S/ 1) Dauvaram Kevat Ag¢d about 26 years ER/o Bazarbhatha, at present Chatipali, RS. Kasdol, District Raipur, CG. APPELLAygi ' IN JAIL i VERSUS ‘ State of Chhattisgarh Throughi 1‘. ‘:‘ Hamid, [)ist:rict~Raipur, {if}. RESPONDENT ’ 5T No 20/200 / offence U/s 30241 P L CRIMINAL Mam; UNDER SECTIaN 3 OF THEgg‘QEIQI: CRIMINAL PRQQQIIKE ' 4 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 905 of 2008 APPELLANT Dhanse Kevat (In jail) VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh Smt. Kiran Jain counsel for the appellant. Shri Ravindra Agrawal PL for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; “JUDGMENT (30.04.2010) The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 19.09.2008 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar in Sessions Trial No.20/2008, convicting the accused/appellant» for the offence under Section 304 (part i) of the indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigoroUs imprisonment fOr 10 years; and to pay fine of R5500, in default of payment of fine to. further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two mons. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of merg enquiry, F.i.R. (Ex. P-1 1) was registered on 4.1.2008 mentioning in it that in the intervening night of 31.12.2007 and 01.01.2008 the‘accused appellant assaulted his father (deceased) by'saying that he spent lot of money in consuming liquor. It is stated that on account of injury caused by the accused/appellant, the deceased died on 01.01.08 at about 12 in the noon. 3. in support of its case the prosecution has examined as many 1‘“ as 08 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant for the offence as mentioned above. Hence the present appeal. th 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including judgment impugned. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present is a case of no evidence and as none of the witness has deposed against the accused/appellant, he cannot be convicted for the offence under section 304( part I) of the Indian Penal Code. She submits that the so-called eye witness namely Etbaren Bai (PW-1) and Sanat (PW-2) have not supported the prosecution case and ‘ have been declared hostile. She further submits that even there is no circumstantial evidence available on record on which basis the accused/appellant can be convicted. 7. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued on behalf of the state that the impugned judgment is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. 8. Undisputed facts are that deceased Douwa Ram was the father of the accused/appellant and has died on 01.01.08 after sustaining head injury. Etwarin Bai (PW-1) is the mother-in-law of the accused/appellant and has merely stated that the deceased has expired but she is not aware as to how he has expired. She has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Similar is the position of Sanat (PW.2) who is brother-in-law of accused/appellant, has also not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. 9. Nandu Ram (PW—3) is the village Kotwar has merely stated that on the date of incident deceased has expired as after consuming liquor he had sustained some injury. He has however specifically stated that he is not aware as to how the deceased died. Narayan(PW-4) is the seizure witness, has also not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Dr. R.S. Joshi (PW- 6) who conducted the postmortem of the deceased, has stated that he died because of head injury. Investigating-officer Ravendra Singh (PW -7) has also supportedthe case of the prosecution. 10. Minute scrutiny of the evidence of the witne‘sses makes it clear . that there is nothing on record against the accused/appeHant on which basis he can be convicted. 11. In View of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned convicting and sentencing the accused/appeilant as mentioned above is not in accordance with the evidence available On record and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingiy, the appeal is allowed. Judgment impugned dated 19.9.2008 is set aside. Accused/appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He be set free forthwith if not required in any’ other case. Sd/- ‘* Pritinker Diwaker v Judge 12. Appeal is thus allowed. r