@!asii 9V" •<;'»» (L^ ^"^- XIM89 (Jail) G. J. P. R./I-91 !9^ S^^.f'^UKl ©-„„ irees1 ;'^(<:>t ti ?!TT^t'^-; '2-•-'-<- \^\ t^: ~ ^ -' Name -''1*1 ^•-fcifc' ', No. r^ » - f* „»'' —\ .'\'^--^.. ._ .... N Father's name &o-? '-; o' h'i''no^yi>-i-it^'<C\13A^ '^\»-il ^i^ "^{•'^^j Residence. \ Si-\ t-i y <i.\lA^ 3^_ Age ^- .." s •"' St rso, 2_Ub(cj3 Sentenced to, '^1 \ •^ w .^ •-^ •< s-1 q l <-'j on rl-~^\^ l.5 "> ^._^^1 Under Section "So •x. ">i^ .- ^ - s^ \/ . by ^^^-'-2<-i^.< <t>^ <s->v(>,i<^tS-j 1}^ ^r^) It is explained to the prisoner that ifhe states he wishes to be represented by a legal practitioner the appsllate Court will not prj;3;d with ths ca<e for 'is^si diys u'liesi ihs lega] practitioner appears eariier. If the legal practitioner does not appear within seven days he may not hcard at all. iftlie prisoner states'that he does not wish to be repre- seated by legal practitioaer the court may prpceedat oace with the c»se aod will not be obliged tQ give a hearing toany legal practitioner who should appear- •a. -^ > 9 Date of Application for copy bfJudgement Date oa which copy reeeived. , \ f>f /i? [ fc/ Date.(|p.^iich Appeal scnt /fc/^ T Whether the prisoaer wishes to be represented or aot. y^i. j '2.X?. fi/t; Confined in ^-il^ *''. c v - ^. - ». A-' -^ 't } ^!-^]'3 c^ c^ 4; CC '>1v^ Jail ^\^^.<-C^-5^ ^ v?-,v^•^ 6,^:1^ Dated (<s9 L| . ypffP^fj i^" Foiwardcd to the _ ^ ' <^V< ^\ . . , ',-. '-5-n^T<o^.- ^,^^^ -!T)^t,^ "5^'^-'-trimcir^-3-('-\c-<'5^ (^)" 53 to gether with a copy of judgemeat or erder passed in the case for favour of traasinission to the properAppelIate court. Date cf recdpt in Office Date of receipt of record to accompany the Memo pf.Appealtothe Appeiiatc court^. Dated ^^ Oate of receipt ia Appellate ceurt_ -<'i'^/.< ^^..'f p.r.d } II tKS -22 sn^r^r fi^TTefl 31T^T ?n:ffinf?(f S) ^ 3^ ^fPfKPf, W^\W , RlCIKriy _c^TA.;'.'.MO.:. L£^i/^f ifftR'n'gwraT """""" ?r^ 2flfo f^^ sn^r^cirwHfscr chwlclin.l mifrif if' fe^ (RRSP: ^isrf^irsn^i HON'BLE.SHRLLAd CHAND BHADOO. J. AND HON'BLE SHR! WJ ,? KUKEAR SHRIVASTAVA. J. Mrs. Kiran Jaib, Mr. G.K.Beriwt Ravindra Agra^ respondent/ Stipte counsel for the accused/appeBant. >1, Deputy Advocate General wifh Mr. ?al, Paael Lawyer for the -:I Heard. ORl&L JUDGMENT 1. The accuse.d/d appeal tbrough Superinte] fhe legality ofjudginent of| 23-9-1994 passed by le4 Raigarh, ia Sessions Tr Additional Sessions Judi Preinsingh guilty for comid Section 302 of fhe Indian imprisonment for life, aad nam.ely Dharaaisingh, !26 read witli Section 34 each ofthein to undergo n ^ppeUaat Prenisiagh has preferred this ident, Central Jafl, Raipur questionin^ lconviction and order of sentence dated [.-ned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, ^al No. 246/93, whereby the learaed |, after holdiag the accused/appeUant ii4ission of the ofiFence puuishable uuder F:'enal Code, sentenced him to undergo convicted fhe oflier accused persons and Rambharos uader Section lf the Indiau Peaal Code aad sentenced ri^orous imprisorunent for 1 yeat' aad. 47 Naabooram ((fl^^f^) XI-HC-22 3ST "i)l<Mld'i|, (STfl*<'!<», Rcll+iy 3n^?Ttraw qiNril st>i<lcb •••••••••^•••—•••- g^- ^200 f=l<>«d sn^^rqir '??i'=i;3n^T anwHfttf 3n^r gTcrrw af?cr •*['i;fd'ifl.f IITRrff ff fetZ)' (feZR ^•ati^ir311^1 days aad also to pay a- fin( fine, to uiidergo sim.ple ixnp: I: of Rs.200/-, ia default of payment of tisoninent for 15 davs, assablted 2. The case of fhe | the wife of the deceased Station, Gharghoda to fhe P.M., she, along ^vith her yus house. The accused Nauhooraru aad Rambharfes dragged Hiraramout ofthe| accused Dharainsuigh DharaiasiD.gh caught hold with the fist. Preinsuij Nanhooram with a lathi, a4 Kiuijobai started cryuig. H| scene of occurrence, but tht Kunjobai caUed Mangals^ apprised thein about the in); aad was taiking. He disc) Paachram, Maagalsingh aa| The Investigating Officer, up flie iavestigation and lyider Ex. P-4, The plain sof into possession froiu. the -^ prosecution, iu brief, is that, Kunjobai, Vf.irarssi, lodged a report iu ttie Police c|fiFect that, on 7-8-1993, at about 8 to 9 I^usbaud Hit'aram., was sleepiag in fheir persons Preinsiagh, Dharamsingh, carne to their house. Preinsingh house. She tried to intervene but fhe her wifh a lafhi. Rambharos and bf her husband Hiraram and beat tiim b attacked wifh an tron knife aiid a result ofwhich, Hiraram. feU down. •aring her cries, Sadhram. came on fhe ^•.accused persons raa away therefrom.. ;h, Paachiara and Deonafh and fcident. Hiraram was alive at fhat tiiue (osed about tfie iacident to Sadhrani, tl Deonath and he died at about 4 A. M. registering the F.I.R., Ex.P-21, took- p^-epared paiicltnaina of the dead body 'il aud fhe blood stained soil were taken jilace of fbe occurrence under Ex. P-5. (^yair) after XI-HC-22 3T]^?r?;T 'sn^r 'CTWdfStT ll-t 3^? "lll'Mlcl'4, ®TTlu'IS,(sfctKiy _£^'.A-..L^:/€^ 3D^T ?(<iTW g1?tT Prenisia.gh wals The accused/appeUant P^ about fhe place where the fhat, he got recovered the ttie accused/appeUaat Ex. P-8. The accused Nanliit the lathi and fhe saine plan, Ex. P-14 was preparecf. inortem. exainuiatioii. The Dr. N.C.Roy, Assistant Gharghoda and post aiort^ Ex. P-17. After coiupletion filed in fhe Court of Judielial who coininitted fhe case wherefroni the leamed IIndl case on traasfer for trial. (D 3. The prosecutioiji the accused persous, exaji accused persons were reco^: Crmiinal Procedure, ia -^ evidence, pleaded iiinocenl| uiiplicated in fhe cruu.e. *l^fd'ifl-< W^vii iffsW tfeaT!: ^aif^Tsn^) j-eiusiagh gave ineiuoraadum. Ex. P-6 ^ /.ouA-y*<b»>a<- ^ron knife was kept, and in. ^)nesence of )ron fcrufe under Ex.P-7. The clofhe of was taken into possession under fioram gave ineiaoranduia Ex. P-9 about recovered under Ex. P-10. The site- and the dead body was sent for post jsost niortem. was conducted by P.W.-8, Surgeon, Priniaiv Health Centre, |ia report was prepared by him. under >f fhe iavestigation, a charge-sheet was Magistrate F'irst Class, Gharghoda, |to Sessions Judge, Raigarh for trial, lAdditional Sessions Judge received Uie L, ia order to prove the ofience agaiiist n^niTicrl 9 persons. Statenient of the hled uader Section 313 of the Code of (rhich, ftiey denied fhe prosecution and said that thev have been falselv (4^^[^) fais XI-HC-22 ;Ti^?r^iT f;?TOi3n^7T S^Wgftff n 3^T '<il^lcl<<, SiTnw'IS, (S|cll*iy ail^t.Mslcb ^^•'.^^^/^ tfWcfT sh*<|ch " " "_'.' •y••••••••••^ 200 3n^r??gTw:(rl?(T 4. The learaed the argunient of leanied and sentenced ttie accused persous ia fhe ia< fh.is iudginent. Adlditional Sessions Judge, after hearins c|3uiisel for bofh fbe parties, convicted Piem.suigh along wifh. ofher ujtner as m-entioned iu the earlier part of accused|/ appeflaat .ailin' leanted 5. We Uave heardl The fact of the deafh of been disputed tov fhe Preiusiugh, apart froia fhe| conducted fh.e post niortem| deafh of Hiraram was sho< and heart and was honiicidi that, the death of Hiraram iiijuries No.3 and 5, whicb] ftte 6. So far as accused/ appellaat Prem.si(i; l-1iraram is concemed, fhe namely Kuiijobai, who l^ 'Gharghoda, has not been witaesses Bamelv Sadhraiit, cbl.'ltd^l-f WRTt' fffSfS (fSfRR ^ari^Tsn^i learued counsel for-bofh fhe parties. Hij'araiu, as homicidal in nature, has not couiisel for the accused/appeUaiit evidence of P.W.-8, Dr.N.C.Roy, who on fhe bodv of Hirarain. The cause of j-k due to fhe ia.temal itijuries of lung ia nature. Therefore, it is established ]was horaicidal tn nature on account of were pierciag fhe tissues of lung aud question of iavolveiaent of fhe ih ni comituttuig the iniu-der of sltarwitness i.e, the wife ofthe deceased jidged the report at Police Station ^xamitied by the prosecutiou. The two P.W.-l and Pancliram, P.W.-2 have (cft^y^) 'S-HC-2Z 3 T "i<i<<i<n<<, (STflyis, (stdiy^< ^^^M^:.l.^/^f anT •""''^ 't^" •••••••'•TR; ' /2oo' f^i%' sn^^rECT toNisTi^r giiiWHfitT been examiaed and fbLev present at fhe scene of 01 Thev were cailed by ttie wif lliave cleaiiy stated fhat fhev were not apprised theiu about fhe i4cide:tlt- A.S has been raentioned above, fhe wife of the decease4 Sadhram, P.W.-I has tura^' case of fhe prosecution. Hj fhe deceased Hirarain, whejre his body was hTiig. In para 8 of his deposition, he has clearly scene of occuirence. W Hiraram when he was caU^ not able to talk aad h^ Therefore, fhe evidence o| evidence, has stated that, } Dliarainsiugh, Naahooram and ofher accnsed person^ examruation, in. para 5, fb^ deceased Hiraraiii, Hiraraali not able to talk, he was -anything. On fhe questi.on| statenient is ^correct, ftie4 °ni<<lfl41-l ITIRTF ff fe'^t' (f^RTC ^ari^Tran^i ^currence at fhe time of the iacident. ; of the deceased Kunjobai and she had Kuniobai has not toeen examined. d hostile and he has not siipported tlie : has said fhat, he went to the house of ^tated that, he was not present at flie went to the house of fhe deceased ^d, aad when he reached, Hiraram was did not disclose anvfhiag to Tiim. fhis witness is of no helo for the prosecutioa. The ofh.er wittiess P.W.-2, Pauchrain, in para 3 ofhis lirarani disclosed him fhat, Preinsnigh, aad Raxabharos have assaulted him. He also disclosed fhat, Pr4msm.gh had attacked hiTn with a kntfe have also attacked him. In tlie cross- witness turued hostile and stated that, he has not seen the iacidetnt, When he reached fh.e house of fhe was lyiag io. flat condition and he was unconscious aiid be did not disclose put by the Court that, which part of fhe he said tliat, he has forgotten what ('ftii^i^) XI-HC-22 .31!t?(^il •M^snl^ gTliRT'CT!?;? B:iaiBgr -s^ SIPIRTO, y^l'y'is, feirer'?: Q^\^'.'IJ^', [C^/34 6 2( sn^[ •FRiIWB^T Hiraram had told liim.. lu para. I ^FiRT^ ^FFR^f ^ 'fe'^t •(Pil^R i;3ri:rra3ii^r ' , he said fhat, it is incorrcct that Hiraram. had not told hun anytb^ng. He was his uncle ia relation. Merely on the wavering evidence|of fbis witaess, it cannot be held fhat, the accused/appeUaiit Pr^nisuigh was tlie author of the injuries caused to Hiraram bec4use ia the first instance he has stated fhat Hiraram. had luade (^ral dyiag declaration before him, again he said fhat no dyiag deifclaration was niade and Hiraram was not able to talk, fhen agaui ihe said fhat Hiraraiu disclosed to him. Therefore, the evidence bf P.W.-2, Panctu-am has to be scrutinised with fhe aid pf fhe o|fher evidence. P.W.-l, Sadhram., who reached on fhe scene of oct;urrence, has clearly stated fhat, Hirarain was not ia & peAAtion^o speak aud he did not disclose aiiythiag to him. Therefore, ini view of fhe evidence of P.W.-l, Sadhram, reliance caunot be p^ Panchiam. Moreover, Dr.N.C.Rbj which were at his lung aiid b aced ob. the evidence of P.W.-2, r, P.W.-8, vvho conducted fhe post niortem., has stated ia para 9 of his evidence that, the deceased inust. have been died unmediat^ly due to iajuries No.3 aud 5, •art. Therefoic, in view of tliis Baedical evidence, there was no c|iaace fh'at Hiraram was alive, aud as such, for fhe foregoiag reasotis, reUance caanot be plaeed on fhe evidence of P.W.-2, Paachrajni that Htraram m.ade any dyuis declaration before him. Even fhd •at the iastaace of the accused/^ippeUartt Preiusiagh, but ftiere is no serologist. renort about fhe ugh the kiufe has been recovered blood found on the kaife and, [Tft^tf^4 XI-HC-22 ys! ^.w\vi^, '®€taTrs.t^irey c^^^^ff,, ^24^4 Sil^I^ j f?Ti?T3TI5?i ! shwb 'Hma sn^t ?^iTW(:rf?g therefore, nierely on the ground 'tllfl'l'il-i ^ltneif '9 fStfr t^ZR ^siPmTsn^M of recovery of fhe kaife, wifhout aiiy serologist report, fhe accilse<jl/appeUant Preinsingh nannntbe coanected with tlie criine ia questjion. considered 7. We are of the fhe trial Coiu-t, couvictiag the ^ coiiuiiitting tfie m.urder of Hirarfem. foregoiug reasons. opiruon fhat, the fiiiding of ^ccused/appenant Preiasiugh for ^m., cannot be sus-tained for fhe 8. In the result, the appjeal succeeds aad is allowed. The convictiofa and sentence awaijded . to the accused/appeUant Rrcinsm.gh under -Section 302 of fhe Indian Penal Code are set aside and the accused/appeUanjt Preiasiagh is acquitted of the charge of Section 302 of fhe Iiitlian Penal Code. He be set at ' lib.erty foi-thwith, if not required ir^ aay ofher cmiie. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge -_. Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge 1-1-. [if®sfa-l