rw'*B IN THE HON/BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. fo6 1 /2008 APPELLANT (In Jail) v-'y-^-i ./""\^'^'^ ^".y\^\v yx' <?^s^.. '^-" Bhola Singh Son of Ramruchi, aged about 25 years, R/o. Village Pandri, at present Village Lai, P.S. Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDEKSECTION 374 f2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 1973 A.P-K HI@H GOURT QF CHH^mS^RH AT BILASPUR .Singjc'Bench .:-.'Horfbl€ Mr/.Jystlce Prltinker.^waker Crimmal. Appeci.-'No.' 1061 'of 2008': ;•:- • '. .APPELLANT... CI" Joiii) R6SPONDENTS Bhofa Singh '-Varsys .•State'of Chhattisaarh ^ Post for pr'onouncement of the order on 6 -01-2010 Sd/- pritinkerDiwaker Judge . MISH COORT..OF CHHATTIS^RH ^T SingSs.B.ench' :• Honibl©,;^r..Justlce Pr'j.tlnkisr. Diwater CrljT»JnQl.:4op@fil No, 1061 of APPgUANT (Ip Jaji) RESPON&iNT^ Bhola Sinah yarsus State of GhhGttlsaarh Shri R.AA. SolQpurkar, counsei for the appellant. Shn Neerqj Mehta, Panei Lawyer for the State. CSIAUNAL SECTION 374 (2) Qc TH5 OF OR & ER (6.01.20X0) This appsGi is dlreeted agalnst ths impugned Judgmsnt dated 27.10.2007 passed''bv'Flrst Additlond Sessw^s Judge, Manendragarh, District Korea, In Sessions Tria! No. 122/2006' convicting the accused/appellant for the offsnces punishable under Sectlons- 394 A 397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisorsment for seven years. and to pay fine of Rs.500/- u/s 394 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven yews u/S 397 plus default stipujatlons. 2. Facts of the. case In brisf are that o'n 20.10.2005 written report (Ex.P-4) lodged by Chhatramsni (PW"4) mentioning in it that he is an •agriculturists and "-esidenf of yll'age Matukpur, he came to vilJGge '5hutra on his bicycJe on 20.10.2005 and he parked his vehic!e at &hutra in the house of Subhadra Devi (PW-3) when he wa-s going to cotch the bus^near the square, he was stopp-ed by( the accused Bhola Slngh and aftsr assouiting him wlth the knife, he thrown o" the !and and was robed of Rs. 700/-. Hs has aSleged that as a resuit of said robbery he had suffered injur'ies r? on his neck oind other part c-f the body. It jg further olleged that at the time of incldent, Hanuman Sing-h (PW-5) reached there and took him to the police stati.on. On the basi-s of this written report F.I.R-. (Ex.P-4/A) was registered against the accused on 20.10.2005 at aboyt 3.20 p.m. 3. So as to hoid the a:cused/appeliant guijty prosecution has examined • as. manv as 10 .witnssses. Statement .of the accused/appelJQnf was aiso recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure In which he denied the charges ieveied agalnst him and pleaded his 'nnocs.nce and false Impiication In the case. 4. After hearinQ the parties the triai Court hos convlcted ond sentenced the accuse-d/appe.JSQnt for the offences mentioned aboye. 5. Counsel for the appel!ant submits that though in the written report th.e nome of th®o.ppeliant has mentioned but in his cross examinatjon Chhatr'amonj (PW-4) in the first line itself hs has stoted that he does not know the c.pp€.i!ant. Further he has categoricajjy o.dmiTted that prlor to ths Incident, he did not know the occused. He has further -stated.that before the incident, even he WGS not aware obout the nome of the accused. 6. According to counse! -for the appe.llant when the appsllant was not known to the compialnant, in 1'he wrltten report, his name couid not have mentjoned. He further' subrnits thot simiiQr statement ha.s bsen rnade by Honuman Singh (PW-5) and KQma! Slngh (PH/-6) o.nd both the.se two wltne-sses have al.so stGted that prior to the incldent the.y did not know the. of the o.ccused. He further submits thaf Hanuman Slngh (PW-5) has seen the 3i{+ ^o 4.u©ai9+D^.s •>i&©A's saofosaq uoj^nsasoud j-o i|4.6us^4.s Aj3A D 'SJ0^3u8l|4. '301DS 9^4. Q^ UOj^DUDjdXB OU Sl 9J3l|4. AjJDjn^S^od ®^ouipu'o 4.qnop ss^oauo yu 3q+ ui OiEU, SuiOiDU 'uosjsd UMOu^un Aq P©4.+!OiUi03U39q SDl| 83U3J.J.O 9LJ+ aOUQ ^UJDUSilj Aq OijLj SMOU>| 01{M auo-smos Aq us®su-asq SDIJ JQ pspuoii ps^i ^qSnD^ SDAA pasnooo si|+ ^•oi|^ uoi^nsss-ojd 3q+ j.o ss-oo D 4.ou si 4.1 'inj.^.qnop §0iu03sq ©IUDU ^ yiJ SM-i- 6u!6pof 40 uoj4.?snb 's3ss®u^.jmjaij^o puo ^.UDU|Djdiuo3 9LJ4- O^- UA'iOU>| 4.0U SDM p®Sn33D8^4. ©3UQ 'UQi+DUilUDX9-SSOJ3 Sjq ui A|p34.-o-3ci3^ Ofiq Aq pi'os ussq SDL( ^yoj. sjij^. puo pasnoDD 3i|4. MOU>J 4.ou s&op ®q+Dq4. 4.uDuiDjdai03 sq^. Aq paui^po U98q osjo soq 4,1 •^nd^jn+'ow ©6oii|A^3i|+o ^.o +uapiS3j SDM ^usui'ojdaioo y^ SDausqM EJpUDsj 86'OjjiA ^O 4.U-ap|Sa,J pasnDOD ©q4.4.014 uoj+jsod p34.4,jiupD s[ +i SD@j3qM pssnosD sq^. SuiaiDU Aq paSpoj U33q soq yjj 4.0LJ4. WtOijs XjjD-sgo v^/d'x3 "y'rj PUD 7/d')<3 -i-^ods^' U-SUNM '6 'psuSndaii ^usaiSpnf aif+ Saipnpuj puoosj uo ®|qDj|DAD iDija+DOi yq4. p3gnj®d puo ssj+jod &u;+ joj. jssunos pjosH . •Q •3SD3 uoi+no'asoud sq4. ps.w'oddns os'p 8A.Di| s-s'sssu^jM j3i|4.o '4.uDUfD|dai03 sq4. j.0 4U3ajS4.D^s ®ij4. wo^j. ^odo +0^4. s^iOiqn? j3q4jnj. D+I|-SW uq$ 'p-ss-n33D 9^4. Aq A^sqqcu j.o uojssiadyoo 0^4. p3Aojd SDLj UOJ4.n3©SOjd 344. pUD p'aS-nOSD 9LJ+ j.o p'o Sujj'op 9^4. SAIOL|S p34.4.!lUUI03 U3©qSDlj SOUSj.^.O 3^4. L;3il|M U| USUUDiU 3l|4 4.Dt|4. j3SUn03 3P+S P®UJD3j Aq pSnS^D USSq osjo. soq 4.1 'puoq siij Ui 3j.iU>| SusAjjuo apis >|3D'q UiOuj. Syiaios pssnsoD sy^. m'os- @i| puo pasnsoo 3L|+ SMOU^ ®q4.Gl|4. p©+4.iUlpD£"0l{ (y-^d) |UOlUOJ^Dl|l|^ UOj4.DU!lUDX9 -SS-0^3 pUD UOj+OUiOiDXS S-|q U| &'33Djd 'SOiOS . Ui +Dq4. |3SUnO^ 9+s+S psujD'aj. Aq p®n6j-o us-aq s-oq 4.1 'XJDJ+UOO 3ij+ UQ ' •^ 'P3SR330 sij+ p9ij.j4.U3pi ©A'cq^ou p|no3 sij ©uoj,9J8u;4.pu-o busuunj pssnoyo ^ss^ "^ &/- complalnant Chhatramani (PW-4) makes it ciear that the witness appears to be the shaky witness and does not narrate the correct picture before the Court. E\^n Subhadra Devi (PW-3), who knew the accused has not supportedthe prosecution cass snd has been declared hostile. It is also ciear from the record that vide Ex.P-2, a memoraridum of the accused recordsd on 23.10.2005 and based on the sdd memorandum one knife and Rs.400/- wers aijeged to have been seized from the appeiiants yi.de Ex.P-6.The memoranclum witnesses Arun Yadav (PW-8) and seizure witness Jagarnath (PW-7) have not supported the prosecution case ond more particuiariy in absence of any Test Identiflcation Po.ro.de and i'n absence of memorandum in respect of seizure a!so the entire evidence of the prosecution becomes doubtful. 10. After going through the entire materid o.vaiJGbie on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that a-s the prosecution has utteriy foijed to estabiish its case by ieading cogent and cjinching evidence, the benefitofdoubt must go to the accused/appeIJQnt. Accordingly, the appea! is dlowed. Impugned Judgment convicting and sentencing the accused/appe!!ant is hereby set aside. AppeHo.nt is acquitted of the charges ieveiied agalnst h.im. He be set free at once if not required in any other case. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge