Wm g§ 2QO WW(W§H) mWhmI¥fév3W $aiman€$r CRIMINAL APPEAL No.562 /zooz”" (Appeal under- Gajju 5 o Namd Vaclav aged 21 year‘s, residem‘ of Mudkhusm Thanc, Dis-h‘icf Burg, a? preset}? residing a? KekTipo , Vs The 5f ‘l'e of ChFiufTisgarh Thraugh fhe DIS'rr'icr an 374 (2) of cram.) APPELLANT (In Jai!) r a £ RESPONDENT \ 5 a Presem': Mrs. 5mm: Ghai, Advocate for he appellant Mr. Shashnnk Thakur, Panel La er for fhe responden'f-S'm‘re. Deori, Rajhara, near Manish Kirana Shop, R 'ham, Dis’rricf Durg (C6) ORAL Per Dhir'endra Mishral J'; This criminal appeai is d} and order of semence date 31.3.2002 passed in S.T‘ No. 25i/01 whereby learned Addiiionai ssions Judge, Boiod, Disirici Burg has convici'ed The appellan‘i under eci'ion 30? of 'i'he Indian Penal Code (for breviTy 'IPC) and sentenced hi To undergo RI. for 7 years and io pay a fine of Rs.500/—, in defaul'r o paymen-i of fine io undergo monfhs. / El. for six agisfrafe, Durg (C6) ‘JUDeMENT (1o h April. zoos) Lecied ngainsf 'i’he judgmeni of convici'ion m 5 Wm W 200 m.w (Wm Wmm ‘2" WWW wm ‘ $e§fcmwaw I‘r is no? in dispufe +ha1' ‘l'he appeHun'f is 'rhe uncle of vic+im Kumuri Mudhuri, wha was aged abou'f 3 years a‘r ’l'he reievanf Time, and ‘H'm' fhe appeilan‘r has aiready been rei‘eased from ‘i’he Jail on 17.12.2005 afier undergoing 'i'he senfence iniposled upon him. Case of ‘rhe prosecu‘i’io , in brief, is fhof foiher of 'i’he uppeilan'r namely Nomd (PW-2) gave R (EXP-6) in fhe Police S'rafion Rajhara « Ameniioning iiienein fnai on 5.2001 a? abou? 9.30 in ihe nigh'f, ‘rhe appeiiangwas presen‘f in The ouse holding axe in his hand. He wen‘r 1’0 'i'he room where his mo‘iher as preseni' and Threalened her wifh. life. Thereafier‘ he came out and storied saying Thai he shall finish all +he family members by axe and 'r ereaf‘l'er assaulted Madhuri, aged abou‘i’ 3 years a‘f The Time of incideni’, who was sleeping on The floor and ran away from fhe place. Dr. V.S. Kof hwar {PW-1) examined fhe vicfim Madhuri and found injuries as menfion d in Para 8 of The impugned judgment On fur'rher query, +he doctor ha opined 1ha1’ fhe injuries presenf over fhe person of injured could be ca sed by fhe axe seized from fh'e appellant Convicfion of fhe a ellanf is based on f‘ne sfa'l’emenf of Chainuram (PW-3) and Shikar Ram (PW-4). Learned counsel for fh appellan'r submifs That complainanT Narad (PW-2) has noT supporTed Th1 case of The prosecuTion and he has Turned 1 hosTile. Even in his cross—eTaminaTion The prosecuTion could noT/ eiiciT / mm Wt zoo aw m (Wit) am m (W) mmm 4 gwsw/ ow a‘qa‘m gamma, {onions -—Fs/I97-—3/2008‘—4o,ooo. On fhe ofher hand, learned counsei for The S‘ru're has suppar‘fed fhe impugned judgment I have heard learned cc unsel for ‘lhe par'l'ies and also perused 'l'he impugned judgmen‘r and eviHe There is no eyewitnes of 'rhe incidenl and 'lhe only eyewifness Namd has turned hosfiie. incriminafing againS'r The up éonvic?ion Ys based on 'The evi say wiTness and his evidence i who himself has resiled from There is no other incrimina'i’in g evidence againsi’ ihe appellant In ‘l’hese circumslances, I am of ‘l‘he considered opinion Thai 'l'he in convicfing and senfencing fhe appellanf of Chainuram (PW—3) and 'l'herefore, fhe impugned judgmeni cannof be susi'ained. in “the resuH', fhe app same is allowed. Convic‘rion o1 \,, and sen‘rence imposed under 1’! 1a'l sec‘rion are hereby se'l aside I DHIRENDRA 1mm Judge l cour‘r beiow was no+ Jusfified soiely on fhe basis of eviden Sdl- 4 mm m zoo WWdwm s oasimm ce available on record. he prosecu‘rion could no‘i elicii’ any'i'hing nellani in his cross-examina'iion and 'l'he idence of Chainuram (PW-3) who is a hear- s based on The informa‘lion given by Narad 'l’he con'len'i’s of FIR and diary sfai’emenf. l filed by The appellan‘i’ succeeds and The ‘ appellan'i' under Sec‘iions 307 of fhe _IPC \A‘l i p,