Name ' g \/ N O , . (gr/Var : I A30 , -M’g. ‘ ’ _ . _ ‘ _ ?/ , ‘ W/V y iow\:\o“ %€\‘l\C‘i\ Father Residence s name an? c5 «u 5/ n0 ‘WIY r nmo .Qw/qgge # 52 7 (3kg 7A,.; / 7 . Sent¢nced to [l - Zo .r 3 Q / “f pnder Sectlon M’wggmww) e w1shes to be represented by a legal tw111 not proceed w1th the ca’se for seven days un\ess the ' r If the legal practrtmner at he does does not not appear wrsh wrthm to be repre‘ seven g It rs explarned to theprlsoner that 1f he states h practrtloner the appellate Cour legal days he practmoner ‘by may legal not practmoner appears heard at earlre all the 1f court the Prrsoner may proceed states th at once With the case and wrll not v ed to grve a hearmg to my legal practmoner who should appear ate of‘A‘pphcatron for copy of‘Jndgement 7‘ r- ' Q $2 \ % (9’9 2 ,Date on whichrcopy received //r /¢;' 6 K93. ‘ ‘ ‘ 3 4 ‘ Date ‘Whethersthe on whrch prlsoner Appealsent wrshes to be LQfl' represented f0 P or n93 not M > ‘ ' ~ V l ’ L ~ ‘ ' ‘ ‘ N ’I—x a ‘ NameWW ’ Jall V (WNW r (We-V.) ,‘ x Conflned 1n \ <3 ~—-—l999 for favour of transmr- l NO l f i 1‘3 g l k Dated hi r a de‘clrte the .; > ~ p v > : '2 ' i _ a a c ‘ ‘ togen gwlth‘ a Copy, of judgement or order passed 1n the case sslon tothe proper-Appellate court. V ‘ \ V a r . . \ ’ ‘ ' ‘ e \ $¥§§€§ /. wag-g wra%t '12—lle V ‘ - a, I Date of recelpt 1n ‘ Office ’= Date of recerpt of record to accompany the \llemo of Appeal to the Appellate court 3N5 #foated ........................... A _»__ 199R _ - Forwarded to the I ‘ ‘ , t ‘ g “Dateof receipti‘in: Appellate court ‘ : - ' ‘v D xs M ‘ r a p t XI—HC—78 . _ ,32éy wm". W (W) W 2. Case of the prosecution ir deceased Thandaram, was addic of which his father turned him residing in the house of accuse 247.1998 when the festival of Gajanand in association with at death of Thandaram by attacking First information Report (EXP/2) Police Station — Pusour, Distt-R was sleeping in his house along \ brief is that accused Gajanand, son of to alcohol and narcotic drugs as a result out of the house. Thereafter, he was d lshwar. On the date of incident Le. Hare/i was being celebrated, accused :cused lshwar and Raghunath caused 1 with axe. Rangilal (PW-1) lodged the an 24.7.1998 at about 16.30 hours in the aigarh mentioning therein that while he ith his family after taking lunch, his aunt Chotebai came to his house'and shouted that Gajanand Uraon has killed Thandaram Uraon. After hearing this, he went to the house of Thandaram and saw that he was lying dead. Thandaram had sustained injuries over left side of his neck, left should r and one finger of his left hand was i-/ XI-HC-78 WW, m,W qma' §nl$ ’ ooo§‘~.vo...o...o...‘w \ 200 ' WWW mmm Wm(W) WWWw— m’§f§d’rr%wg mai%am *2 ~ Miamm ORAL JUDGMENT (24m AUGUST 2006) k PER DHIRENDRA MISHRA J \a Both the abovementioned appeais preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are being disposed of by this common order as they arise out of the imp Jgned judgment dated 11‘“ October 1999 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (MR) in S.T.No. 134/98 whereby the iearned Additionai Sessions Judge after holding them guiity of causing death of Trandaram, father of accused/appellant Gajanand, convicted them under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penai code and sentenced to undergo impris onment for life with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of which to further undergo RI. for six months. XI-HC-78 amputated and blood was oozing had ousted his son accused Gajz own house 'and harass him and Gajanand has killed his father Tl edged weapon. The incident v Krishna Uraon. After registering tl Penal Code, the police proceedei giving notice to the Panchas, ir Thereafter, dead body of Thandai Health Centre, Pusour vide Ex.F post postmortem over the dead bl Plain and bloodstained soil was t incident vide Ex.P/3. A knife wq vide Ex.F/4. On the basis of mem an axe was taken into possesslol accused Gajanand was taken int axe and lungi were sent for cher Centre, Pusour from where report opined that the injuries present or by this weapon and that bloodlike Patwari Ramprasad Patel (PW-1% sealed packet containing bloodst’ i was taken into possession und r Ex.F/18. bloodstalned and plain soil, lungi of accused Gajanand Uraon, wearing apparels of deceased Thandaram and weapon of offence axewere sent for chemical examination to For nsic Science Laboratory, Ralpur vide Ex.P/23 from where report Ex.F’l 4 was received. After completing the He also stated that Thandaram Uraon nand as he used to commit theft in his on account of this animosity accused iandaram with knife or any other sharp Jas witnessed by Padman Uraon and ie crime under Section 302 of the lndian :i for the scene of occurrence and after quest report of Ex.P/8 was prepared. am was sent for autopsy to Community l13-A where Dr. H.S.Uraon conducted idy and submitted his report of EXP/13. aken into possession from the place of is seized from Chotebai Uraon (PW-2) hrandum of accused Gajanand (EXP/9), t under EXP/10. Bloodstalned lungi of i possession vide Ex.F/11. The seized ‘1ical examination to Community Health of Ex.F/14 was received in which it was i the body of deceased may be caused stains are present over the lungi‘ Halka r) prepared the site plan of EX.PI1 5. A ined clothing of deceased Thandaram The seized articles i.e. O. \ i ww...) > WW..O..00.0.0 ....o....o m; Zao WWW WW<W) WWEWW WWW mwmm ~3~ éawm XI~HC~78 HW,m,W § .."o.o....‘. oo..o.o. a? 200 WW (W) mam WWW mmmm ~ é— investigation charge sheet was 1 First Class, Raigarh who in tur‘ Sessions Judge, Raigarh and th§ learned Additional Sessions Jui Section 302 of the IPC was frame who abjured their guilt. 3. The prosecution in order accused/appellants examined 16 of the accused/appellants were re in which they denied the circurr prosecution case and pleaded crime. They also examined one (DW-i) in their defence. The Cor Public Prosecutor and counsel f0 sentenced them as mentioned abl mm§wm %5wfr?man%$r 4. Homicidal death of deceas otherwise from the statement of postmortem over the dead body EXP/13 in which he noticed vari us injuries described below and opined that the cause of death was sho k and coma due to excessive bleeding from the maior artillery and fr cture of vertebra and the death was homicidal in nature, homicidal death of deceased Thandaram is established . tied in the Court of Judicial Magistrate n committed the case to the Court of t same was received on transfer by the ige, Raigarh for trial. Charge under td against all the three accused persons to establish the charges against the witnesses in all. Thereafter, statements lcorded under Section 313 or the Cr.P.C. stances appearing against them in the nnocence and false implication in the defence witness namely Santosh Gupta irt below after hearing learned Additional r the accused/appellants, convicted and we. ed Thandaram is not in dispute. Even lDr. H.S.Uraon (PW-11) who conducted Thandaram and submitted his report of External Injuries: 1) ncised wound over right side of neck. lood vessels and muscles WW, XI—HC-78 .. ...o.o m 200 mamm WWW maxmm 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) WW(W> WWffWW ~§__ %a1f%w3n%$r fracture over 3rd and 4‘“ vertebra was present. lncised wound over the right shoulder 2 1/2 x 1/2 x 2 “ blakish in colour, blood vessels cut. lnoised wound below the chin 3 x 2 V2 x 3 " blood vessels and trachea cut There was compound fracture in the 3ré and 4m vertebra. lncised wound in the left side of the neck 1 x 1 x 1 1/2 blood vessels cut. incised wound over the left shoulder 2 x 1 x 3 “, joints of the shoulder severed, fracture was noticed below the clavicle bone. Left thumb, middle. lady and index finger were cut. All the injuries are said to have been caused within 24 houlrs of the death. 3am,eatwa,%amgt WW .‘.‘.‘ internal lniuries : Body was averaged statured. On opening of the s ull congestion was found, Ear drum, ribs, l ngs were congested and wind pipe and trache were congested, 3rd and 4th cervical bone re cut, both lungs congested, heart was aso congested, stomach, large intestine and s all intestine were unaffected and inside the st mach liquid and gases were noticed. There as excreta in the large intestine. Liver, spleen and kidney were congested, bladder was e pty and genital parts were unaffected. Death was o ined to be due to shock as a resuit of coma which might ave been caused due to cutting of large blood vessels and xcessive bleeding. The death is opined . Jie e r e \ depositions that on the iast Hare/i accused/appeliant Gajanand cam PW-1 Rang was sleeping in his house as he came out of his house, he saw th the gate and on being asked, the (paan). At that time his aunt Chot murdered and further she in'forrr have murdered him. ln the cross with his report of merg intimatio statement of Ex.D/1 then he statet why the fact that lshwar and Rag asked they told that they had com the murder of Thandaram, is miss statement of ExrD/1 because he ad atready disclosed the abpve fact in his reports as also in his diary stat ment.” 6. Rangilal (PW-1) has iodgr stated that Thandaram was unhap as he used to commit petty thefts because he was involved in gambling. Shantibai (PW-10), who are inde aendent witnesses, have stated in their festival when they were in theirhouse, e there in the afternoon and asked for gilal has stated in his deposition that he was suffering from fever and when he at lshwar and Raghu were standing on y told that they had come to take betel eloai shouted that Thandaram has been ed that Gajanand, lshwar and Raghu s-examination when he was confronted 1 (EXP/1), FIR (EXP/2) and his diary :l “he is not in a position to explain as to tu were standing on the gate, on being e to take betel, that they had committed ing in his reports of EXP/1, P/2 and the 2d the FIR of EXP/2 in which he has py with the conduct of his son Gajanand in his own house and quarre! with him Darashram (PW-9) as atso axe to kill his father. XI-HC—78 WW,WW,W WW .~.~.~ 00‘. .....o.o... W Zgo WW(W) WWW WWiffgQ‘TW wmm wwwm Fc,_ éawanéw to have been caLsed within 12 to 24 hours of the postmortem. 5. Now the only question to be decided in this appeal is the involvement of the accused/appeiiants in crime in question. XI—HC—78 Hw,m,i§m WWW (Ff 200 WW (W) mwm ammamfan‘ WW§WW Wwm ¥9A éa 34%;;m 7. Chotebai (PW-2) has stated in his deposition that on the date of incident Gajanand, Raghu and Ishwar came to her house, she offered them refreshments and saw that G ajanand had concealed an iron weapon like knife under the cloth. She took that weapon from him and threw the same in her house and after lock ng the house she went to the shop for purchasing spices. When she was returning from the shop, the villagers were shouting that Gajanand has lled his father and thereafter, she went to the house of deceased Tha daram and saw that Thandaram had sustained injuries over his neck nd arm from which blood was oozing. 8he has also stated that Shyaml l informed her that his brother Gajanad has killed his father and Raghu a d ishwar were also with Gajanand who were standing there at the time o incident. Shyamlal (PW-3) who is son of the deceased and eyewitne s of the incident; has stated in his deposition that the incident occu red one year prior to the date of his examination on the day of Hare/i, when he was sitting by the side of the road, at that time Gajanand ca e out of the house of Sitaram and thereafter Raghu and lshwar als came and all the three went to the house of Sarpanch and after stay ng there for some time they proceeded towards the village. Thereafter, h (Shyamlal) went to his house where he saw that Gajanand was assaultin his father and he only witnessed the last assault being inflicted. He ( ajanand) was assaulting with axe. He could not see the first assault. l hwar and Raghu were standing at the gate side by side. Thereafter, he sed an alarm that his father was being assaulted, run. His father sustai ed injuries over his hand, two fingers and one thumb. He has atso s ated that Gajanand used to consume liquor, engage himself in gamblin and had also sold two bicycles and a i i XI-HC—78 HW,E§E‘1W,W Wm ... ootoo~¢o an; 200 WWW WWW MWWW *iiB‘ watch and on this count his fa house. Thereafter, Gajanand 8. h” we closeiy scrutinize which emerges is that the de( as he was addict to aicohoi commit theft in his house, as house and started living in tt Gajanand was nourishing anir aiso come on record that on t went to the house of PW-Q ar for some weapon as he was c is aiso corroborated by the statement of PW-2 Chotebai who has stated use with a knife. However, the defence has thing in the cross-examination of these eir credibility. 9‘ Thus, on the basis of at accused/appellant Gajanand ooinion that the Court below h hoiding the accused Gajanar father Thandaram. 10. However, from the statements of the above witnesses the only allegation leveled against acwsed/appeilants lshwar and Raghu is that they were standing side by si when accused Gajanand was ailegation by Shyamlal (PW-3 in any way participated in t i, \ t \ WW§WW aawm thet being annoyed had ousted him from the was residing in the house of Ishwar. :he evidence of aforesaid witnesses, the fact eased was annoyed with his son Gajanand used to engage himseif in gambiing and a resuit of which he was ousted from the ie house of ishwar and therefore, accused nosity against his father Thandaram. it has he date of incident itself accused Gajanand d PW-tO just before the incident and asked etermined to kiii his father. The above fact Wm (Was) that Gaianand came to her ho not been able to eticit am witnesses which impeaches th >ove, so far as the allegations made against are concerned, we are of the considered as not committed any illegaiity or infirmity in d guilty of causing homicidal death of his de at the gate of house of Rangilai (PW-1) assaulting his father Thandram. There is no ) in his statement that these two appellants ‘1e crime in question. Even there is no XI-HC—78 @ WWW WWW WWIWW “3‘ aliegation of exhortation agair st them. So far as the statement of Rangilai (PW-1) in which he has aileged that these accused persons were ncerned, we find that the ailegations against ighu in his statement is in fact an omission and therefore, the statement of PW-1 so far ishwar and Raghu, the same cannot be believed. 11. Thus tooking to the ove accused/appellants tshwar at that the prosecution has utterly failed to adduce any evidence which implicates these apoellants in not justified in convicting the with accused/appellant Gajan of Section 34. resuit, the c 12. in the accused/appellant Gajanand dismissed and the same is a appeai No. 3331/99 prefetred concerned, since the prosec evidence implicating these impugned judgment of convii trial Couit is set aside so far a Raghu. They are acquitted c WWEWW ’éwfimm assaultihg the deceased is cc the appenan‘ts lshwar and R2 which amount to contradiction as it relates to appeHants rail evidence available on record against the d Raghu, we are of the considered opinion the crime in question and the trial Court was accused/appellants lshwar and Raghu along ad under Section 302 of the IPC with the aid riminal appeal No.3265/59 preferred by being devoid of merit deserves to be :cordingly dismissed. So far as the criminai by accused/appeliants lshwar and Raghu is Jtion has not been abie to bring forth any appeliants, the same is allowed and the :tion and order of sentence passed by the s it relates to accused/appeliants lshwar and f all the charges. The fine amount, if any, deposited by them shail be returned. The baii bonds furnished by them stand discharged! A i Sd/— l Sd/— i Dhirendra Mishra i Fakhruddin :x Judge V *7 \\Judge