gag..Iwu. 1L1} WW,W,W QSjM mw mmm WWifzérm ammm Crimmt £ Aggaal No.2549/19-9-g APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: Rammmn, S/o GoverdEan, agad abou‘r 48 years, Occupation Agricuh‘urisf, Residem‘ of Amravafipur, P‘S. Chalgalil Distric‘r Surguja, MP. (now ChhaTTisgar-h). APPELLANT5: (In Jaii) Sfafion Chalgali , D isfr‘icf Surguja, MP. (now Chhaf'risgarh) AND Crimina Apgeal No.2478/1999 Rumlal, 5/0 Thurg, aged 60 years, Residen‘r of Village Padiya, P‘S. Chalga“. 2. Dilchand, S/o Ramlal, aged 30 years, Occupation AgricuH’ur‘e, Residem‘ of Ammva‘ripur, P.S. Cha!ga!i, Dis‘h‘icf Surguja, MP. (now ChhaT‘fisgarh) — Versus — n 200 Wm (W) Versus — S‘ra’re of MP. (now Chhaffisgarh), Through Po lice \ ‘ XI—HC 78 mW,m Wm m 200 mm (W) f‘H? 3—7-2007: — Smt Mala Dubey, Advocafe, appears on behalf of Dr. T.N‘ Ian? in CnA, No.2549/99. for flue appellanfs in Cr.A. No.2478/99. Shri U.N.5. Deo, AddHional Public Prosecufor for The 5+o1’e/ respondent Dubey, Advocafe for ‘H'Ie appe Shri MK. Bneg, counsel Oral Judgmenf dicfa‘red LC. Bhodoo J. CraA. No.2549/99 file filed by Ramlal & Dilchcnd z judgment as bo'l'h fl-Ie appeals on Dais. i by Ramm'ran and Cr.A. No.2478/99 ire being disposed of by This common are arising ouT of fhe some incident “‘~\ 2 am% WWW ma§m RESPONDENT: Smfe of MP. (now Chhaffisgarh); fhrough I Police S'fa‘fion Chalgali, Dis‘rricf Surguja, MP. (now Chhaf‘risgar'h) (Criminal appeais und r- Secfion 374 (2) of fhe Cr.P.C.) Division B¢nch= — Hon'b!e S ri L.C. Bhadoo & Hon‘ble S r'i Dhirendm Mishra J'J. XI-HC—78 WW, §?l H1 $,W Wm '91 200 mm (W) mww wmm mmm :rec e agams eJu gman o convicfion 8:9 a 6&5 are and order of senTence dsfed 315* August 1999 passed by The 15+ Additiona! Szsgicms Judge, Ambikapur, in ST. No.308/98 whereby learned Addifioncd Sass ission of offence under Sec‘rions 302 read wiTh Sec'l'ion 34 and 201 of The I.P.C., senTenced each of The accused/ iscnmenf for life and To undergo RI. for 4 s furlher direc‘l’ed Thaf bofh fhe sen‘l'ences 'WWW MW $$imm appellan'rs guiHy for camrr ons Judge affer holding fhe accused/ appenams 1'0 undergo impr years, respecfively. I? wa ska” run concurrenfiy. Brief facfs of fhe accused Ramrai’an was mm wen? To fhe house 0f Raw accused persons. He diec fherefore, accused Dilchdnd gave merg infimafion Ex.—P/19 in fhe Police Sfafion Chalgali Tc Bandhu sfarl’ed vomi‘ring ar liquor wilh accused person merg inlimanon Ex.—P/19 regisfered first informa ion reporf Ex.—P/18 on 16-6—93 InvesTigaTing Officer lefT or scene of occurrence, afTer giving noTice Ex.~P/2 +0 1he Ponchas, repared inquesf Exc-P/3 on The body of l l l i C‘H‘ prosecuflon case are 'lhaf daughler of "ried on 15~6—98. Bandhu (since deceased) ra+an, he consumed food There along wlfh abou‘r 3 p‘m. in suspicious circumsfances, The effecf fhof offer consuming food d he died. Deceased Bandhu had consumed s Romro‘lan, Dilchand and Romlall Based on Sfafion House Officer, Police Sfafion The Vl Bandhu. SH'a pkm Ex,—P/4 ms prepared‘ Copy of ‘rhe reVenue record of Bandhu was ob‘mined. STafémenfs of were go‘r recorded under Sac'rion 164 of The Cr.P.C.. The body of Bmdhu was sen? for posfmorfem examina‘rion s To The Primary HeuHh Cenfre, Wadmfnagar where Dr. P.L. Verma (PW-9) conducted posfmorfem on 1'he body of Bandhu and opined fha'r cause of deo'l'h is asphyxia due fo compression of neck. The deaTh is homicidal in nafure. Viscerci were aiso preserved bu? no viscera reporf was received ‘Hli filing of The (Ex.-P/6 & Ex.-P/7) of lam Mohanlal and Budhiyam Ba charge sheet Affer compiefion of fhe inves'l'igafion, charge shee‘i was filed againsf ‘rhe accused persons in 'lhe CourT of Judicial Magis‘l’rafe, 15+ Class, Ramanujganj, who in Turn commif‘red fhe case +0 fhe Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, from where learned 1" Addi‘l’ional Sessions Judge received fhe case on fransf r. The prosecufion in o rder +0 esfablish charges againsf fhe accused persons examined 11 witnesses. 5fafemen+s of The accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr‘P.C. in which 'l'hey denied maferial appearing againsf 'H'Iem in The prosecuTion evidence. \“\ ‘XI-HC—78 mm,m,m m m “ 200 Wm (W) mg; - WWW I ’ ,miazmmwmém XI-HC—78 HW,W,W 5 Wm ta 200 mm (W) WWW mmm WWiwm mmm amifaqm Learned Addmonal bessmns Judge affer‘ hearing cvunsel for fhe respective por'ries, convicwd and senfenced fhe accused persons as aforememicned. ~ r / R‘*‘ We have heard learH‘ed counsel for fhe parfies. In fhis case, Moharlal (PW-7) and Budhiyaro Bai (PW-3) were cited as eyewifnesses f0 The inciden'r in crder fo establish That in Weir presence The accused persons sfrangulafed The deceased. Even Their sia‘iemenfs under ecfion 164 Cr.P.CV were 90+ recorded buf bofh “rhese wifnesses have furned has‘rile and They have nof supporfed fhe prosecufion case. PW— Budhiyaro Bai has sfai’ed fha? Bandhu was known To her. She saw B ndhu lying dead on 'i'he co+ in fhe house of Ramra‘ran. She does no'l’ know how he died. She did nor see fhe accused persons pressing neck or commi‘Hing his murder. On The faTeful day, she wenT To e house of RamraTan, as she was inviTed To Take meal aT his residence on The occasion of marriage of daughTer of RamraTan. She saw Tho. Bandhu was lying dead in The house of l l RamraTan. She was declar d hosTile. On cross-examinaTionr by APR, l she has caTegorically deni d ThaT iT is incorrecT To say ThaT Dilchand / I "\“ H—HC—78 Wm wt 200 Wm 0mm) mmm 3211mm mmm no? know how Bandhu die WWWiwm *mm x \\ i 1 i ( a 1 i z There is no ocular evidence *0 esmblish charges againsf The accJxsed persons commih‘ing murder- of fhe deceased by pressing his n4 The fuc‘r remains fh 1+ ‘i‘he dead body was found in fhe house of of Rammian, Dilchand and Ramlai is PW-3 Budhiyaro Bai and PWe7 Mohanlai. Now quesfion remains w efher fhe prosecufion has been abie +0 evidence fhe facf fhof deafh of fhe deceased was due fo asph xia on accoun‘r of pressing of neck? In fhis case, Dr. P.L. Verma (P Ramm‘mn and presence esfablished by evidence :ck. ~9) has been examined who conducTed postmortem on fhe body f fhe deceased. He has s‘l’a‘red Thaf he noticed foilowing injuries o +he body of 1he deceased:— (i) Confusion on fhe ighf femporoi region exfending up fo righf ear in The size of 2 x 9 cm: (ii) Confusion on +he r hf shoulder in The size of 10 x 6 cm: (iii) Confusion on 1he c esf which was on fhe haif urea of fhe neck in The size of 15 x 12 cm: \ \“‘ " (iv) Confusion on fhe r hf eibow in fhe size of 9 x 8 cm; (v) Confusion of fhe i ff elbow in The size of 9 x 7 cm. , \ ‘Ul WW,W,W \ , o ‘ ' l cmgesfed. Remaining oqgans were healfhy’ chamber of heaM were S‘romach. smel! of alcoho! , hard and blunf objecf and were preserved for Cher asphyxia as a resuif of sf sfafed Thai injuries were no iigafure mark on fhe n ck bu? 'rhere was confusion on The neck, There was sfranguiafion on accounf of sudden pressing of 1he neck by On accounf of compression deafh occurred. If neck is pressed by hands, Then fh re mus? be signs of fhroffiing. Such signs were nof presenf. Had if b en so, he would have definitely men'rioned. The Inves'rigafion Office affer receiving informafion immedia‘rely ce and prepared inquesf Ex.—P/3 in ‘I'he If as been menfioned fha'r Bandhu died an iiquor (Hadiya). Wife of +he deceased expressed doub‘i’ regardin his deafh on fhe ground fhaf fhere was animosify befween Ramraf n and her husband, fherefore, he mighf anyfh ing. leff for scene of occurr presence of Panchas. accoun‘r of consumpfion o k& Bofh fheW Hempfy. Smeii was emana'ring from fine iwas aiso present Injuries were caused by same were an'l'e morfem in nafure, Viscera 1icai examina'rion‘ Cause of dea‘rh was ranguiafion. In crossexaminafion, he has isibie by mere visuai inspec+ion. There was 1?* i decided fha'i body should b been menfioned fhaf bofh sen? for posfmarfem examinafion. If has yes and mouTh were closed Neck was in ‘\" " 39:x l l 1 i have commif'red his murder by administering poison. Therefore, if was l i i i i XI—HC—78 WW,M,W f 7 Wm .........................................................W 200 mm (W) mwm mmm WWW mmewm $a'fd'q‘snési On infernal examinm‘ion, iungs, Throat, wind pipe were w swoHen condifion. The body was ¢ m; in ordinary candi'rion. Nails and palms were minimal. 1+ has furiher Haen memioned fhcj' fha body‘naf ihe deceased was seen affer turning ‘i'he body. The Investiga'ring O‘ condiiion, dea’rh cf Bundhu was i on fhe requesi of wife sf The d sent for posfmorfem examino‘r commr'y To iha inquasf reporf E fhcri’ There was no visible injury i if s'ia‘femenis of Budhiyolro Bai 164 CiaP’C. are saen, if has bean was pressed by Ramrafan wi‘rh nof supporfed fheir previous s afemen’rs. As per docfor’s evidence, had neck was pressed by fhe h nds, fhere musf have been marks on fhe neck, buf no such marks we e found on fhe neck of fhe deceased. nof presenf on fhe body, as per The inquest reporf because moufh Jas closed, fongue was nof coming ouf from The moufh. No ofher Moreover, if is esfablished a and There were no visible injuries on Fficer found fhoi’ neck was in swollen n suspicious circumstances, therefore, ‘eceased, if was decided fhaf body be on. Therefore, docfor's evidence is ix.—P/3 in which if has been menfioned m fhe body of fhe deceased Furfher, and Mohanlal recorded under Secfion menfioned fha‘i neck of fhe deceased ofh fhe hands. These wifnesses have mpfom of sfrangulafion was found, of The accused persons and fhe deceased consumed liquor, visc ra were preserved, viscera report has no? been placed on record by f e prosecufion, fherefore, in The given sifuafion, eyewitnesses have Tupned hosfile and circumsfanfial " Even signs of sfrangulafion we mW,m,W 8 W W m 200 mm (W) mgr; mmm mwymww 9 WW m 209 mm (mm) WWW wwmiffis’ém aaaffauww evidence is n01 dinching in order *0 conned ‘H'xe accused persans wifh fhe deafh of Bandhu. Barve For ‘rhe foregoing reasons, convicfion of fhe accused/appellanfs for commission of offence under SecTions 302 read wi'l'h Sec-Hon 34 and 201 of fhe I.P.C. canno‘r susfained, as same is no? based on legal evidence; In fhe result appeals iled by fhe accused/appellants succeed. They are acqui‘H‘ed of The harges under Secfions 302 read wi‘rh Seclion 34 and 201 of fhe IP.C. Accused Ramlal is sfa‘l'ed +0 be on bail, his bail bonds are disch rged, he need nor surrender 'l'o The bail bonds Accused Ramrafan a d Dilchand are in defeni‘ion since June, 1998, fhereby fhey are in cus‘rody for abou+ 9 years, They are direcfed fo be released forfh ifh, if nof required in aily ofhe'r/case‘ Sd/- Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra g L.C. BHA‘DOO Judge Judge