^tIC—78 ^EET ^qiqi^'q, t!>rf1<i'i<o, fc|0i'y^< ^fi ^v^7 ^v Nl^dl sh^lcb W^ 200 37T^T^ f<'li<sb TT8H ^TT^T PR^NT 31T^?T ^S^K (^\^<y) '^TTW^rf^T 37T^T chi^f<n41Ti ^i*i<yiT ^f^fe^ <1^^'< ^" ^tRPT 3TT^T CRJMINAL APPEAt No. 438/2003 Appellants ( i- n Appeal iiad' D.B: Hoa'ble Shri L. C Honyble 8hri SuniJ Shri Yashwant.Tiw^ counsel for tlie. Ap^ OR&L (15 i) Mzinna @ Ishwaii s/o Balaram. adu, aged about 28 years, R/o laliavir Colouy, Durg/Distt Durg 3.G). 2| Rajesh Yadav, s/o Kamloorain, ged about 22 years, r/o Sliaiiker fagai', Dm'g, Distt. Durg (C.G). 3] Tai'achaiid s/o Saijuram, aged bout 36 years, r/o Pacharipara, )ui~g, Distt. Diu-g (C.G) Vs. |State of Chhattisgarh, through the |Police Station, Pulgaon Distt. Durg br Sectioa 374 (21 ofthe Code of Cri4imal Procedisre Bhado.o, & Kusaaar Siaaha, JJ. iri witli Shri Aniiya Kant Tiwari, >ellants Shii U.K.S. Chaiicl^l, Panel Lswyer, for flie state JUDGMBNT 11.2007) ^n^r^pr R^jcb WT 3TR^T sb^lch 3:^'^11<<1<?'>^, ^TH'^Ko, (s)<?il<iy —....^.A;...h.l^.. *11Ndl (bNlcb' Wl. 200^ an^r ^^? (li€<^<^) ^w<^R ^f^a 3?TT^T The following jud|gment was deUvered by L.C.Bhadoo, J, ^riibinal tbe ;Uab (1) The accused appellantjs 374(2) of the Code of Cru^unal legality and correctaess of order of sentence dated 10th) Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Dm| whereby aad whereunder holdiag fhe accused appella|QLt offence punishable u/s 302| committing the inurder of $aajay each of the accused to undd pay a fine ofRs.1000/-, m undei^o 6 months S.L Judge acquitted six other Dharmendra, Sambhu Kui^ar Kartik. (2) The case of the pros^cution Saajay Kuniar was workiag| 9856 of G.R. Travels. On| Maiioj Sahu, driver ofthe Mi^ii conductor, took tihe passeng^ At about 4.25 p,m. , they| passengers. When the bus! <=t)Hf<yt<AT1 ^W^S Jf f^^ <F»i^K '^3fRF[3^^T have preferred fhis appeal u/s Procedure questioniag fhe |fhe judgnient of eonvictioa and |March 2003 passed by VII Addl. fe, in Sessions Trial No.204/2001 learaed Addl. Sessions whUe lla|QLts guUty for commission of fhe read wifh section 34 I,P.C. for $aojay Sahu @ Baati, seiatenced ^rgo imprisoiiment for life aad to d^fault ofpayanent offine to further o^ever, the learaed Addl. Sessions a|ccused persons namely Samaru, Som, Rajesh Dobi, Tilak & in brief is that P.W. 13 as Iielper on Bus N©< MKL 21- the fatefal day i.e., 06.07.2000 ai Bus alongwith Babloo Chourey, ^rs in the Miai Bus to Khairagarix. were retuirmng to Durg wifli reached to vfllage Lifhya , the ^((y^<y 8 7 —30,000. ^n^ff^r R^icb WT ^TRST ^RRF fc- ^tl^^ ^NI^T (aU 3:5^' ^WW^, y»Tf1«<l<S,Rt^l^^i Nl*<dl g^fq;- ^"l"-'"-""7<-?^ "•"""•" ""^ 200 3 3TI^?T T^SR (<i4^<?T) 's^nw ^fi^T ^n^r Checker Banti alias Saajay a4d Ashfaq, brother ofbus owiier checked the bus and they als Durg. When at about 5.30 p|.m., fhe bus reached to fhe toU tax barder of village Hasda, t|ie Bus stopped there, Banti @ Sanjay Sahu along Babloo the ia order to pay the toU tax wh< tax whereas fhe toU tax persc which Banti (since deceased) why he is asking for more |conductor alighted ficom fhe bus ^re Bablpo offered Rs.20/- as toll ^n asked hitn to pay Rs,30/- on ^edd tfaat the rate is of Rs.20/-, • ^noney aad even there was ao season at that time, On whicjh, the coittEactor Muaina Yadav, who was sittiag at fhe bacrier; mofher. Banti said as to whyj took out a countay made pist^: aad said fhat he is contiauouj teach him lesson, sayiag so head wifh a Farsa (batUe axe| down on fhe ofher conier ofl Farsa froui Rajesh aad he other parts of fhe body. 6-7| attacked the deceased withl cr)i<if<n<4li '^TR^f^ fe^t <P»(<^K ^3fRpT3H^y boarded fhe bus for coxBdng to said tliatwe are takixig Rs.30/-, tihat he has to pay, he caug|ht hold from. fhe collar of shirt Banti, after pushiag him s^arted abusiag ia the name of he is abusiag^ on which Nlunna aad put it 0x1 the chest ofBaiiti ity indulging ia Dadayri. He wiM he asked his associates "attadte himw. On which Rajesh Yad^v of Durg attacked Baati on his as a rcsult ofwhich, BaaitiJfeU fhe road. Then Munna took tibe rttacked on the head of Baiiti. Tarachand Nirmalkar attack^d wifh club on head, haad and other associates of Muxina also the club. There was profuse bleediag from fhe head a4d ofher parts of the body of deceased. A31 fhe accused t>ersons fled fixmi the scexie of -30,000. ^n^r^RT ^Icn ^ ^ -^ 4 3^cT^TPT7^T, ^Tn<rt^<o/^l<y>11My *41*<dl *<41cb" .^.:^.:....lilt. "^ 2003 sniSr T^^ (li<<^<^) ^<iTW^rf?n ^n^r ^TR^r^N^r? occurrcnce by a Jeep. The| Baati who was already de^d. The complamaBt aloiig-witibi ! driver went to PoUce Ste|tion Pulgaon, lodged fhe first iaforoiation report iinder E Ex.P.39. The 1.0. left forthe the site p]aa (Ex.P.2) of the ^.P.38. He gave m^rg iiitimatioa (sceiie ofoccurreiice axid prepared (place of occurrence. After giviiig notice Ex.P.20 to fhe Pancha)?, he prepared aaiaqiiest Ex.P.21 on the body of deceased. Tt|.e body was sent for postmortem examiaation to Govt. Hospit^l, Durg^ where Dr Lal MohmiDad (P.W.6) conducted the posto^ortem, He opiaed fhat fhe cause of death was shock as a res^ilt of the head iajuxy. Accotdmg to him, all fhe iajuries w ia pursuance of that, he got| uader Ex.P.17. His clothes offhat, he got recovered fhe exaxaiaation to the Forensic where a report Ex.P.38 was chl^d^tl^ Tn'R^f ^f ft^t <f^^i< ^r 3Tf?R3?n^?r complaiaaat Saiijay Kiimar saair T€ antemortem ia nature. He prcpared postmortem rep^rt Ex.P.15 & P-16. Durimg iavestigation, fhe accused M|ii2ina gave memoraadum Ex.P.3^ recovered a countiy xnade pistol wexie seized under P.7 whexieas accusedRajesh Yadav gave i4emoraiidum Ex.P.5 ia pursiiaaac^ [Farsa (battte axe) under Ex.P.48. His clofhes were seized uadef Ex.P.9. The accused Taiachand gave memoraiidum Ex.P.6 a(id in pursuance of fhat a sword was seized uader Ex.P.49, ^he seized weapons were seut for exainiaation by the Doctor wplo after examiniag fhe weapons, gave ao. opinion Ex.P.18. T^ie articles were sent for chexaioal ^cience Laboratory, Ralpur, fix>m jreceived. After coiBLpletioa of fhe investigatlori, the charge ^eet was filed ia fhe Coiirt of 1 0,000. W^TJ^T Vw^ WT 3TI^T sb^jcb '^ ^ 3:5^'•:2rpn^rT, «>Tfl<i4i(o, fsi<?'>i^^< NWdl ^bMlcb' (L.^-A- L1^S' -^ 20Q3 3n^?r xi5ra? (^ciil^^yr) <5^ITW^rf?H ^II^T J.M.F.C., Diuqg, who ia tura Judge, Durg, firoin where tibije leanied Addl. Sessioais Judge^ I Durg, received fhe case on te^aisfer for trial. (3) The piosecutioQ, m agamst fhe accused persons,| statement of the accused ^ Cr.P.C^ isi which they denie^ ^Nf<n<ATi ''TTR^Tf ^f f^'^1 <Fy(^i< ^ ^rRpT^n^T committed the ca^e to Sessioiis |>rder to estabUsh fh^ charges Iha^exainined 18 witiiesses, The ^ersons were recorded u/s 313 1 the material appeariiig agamat them aad stated that they h^ve been faJteely impMcated ia the crime in questioa. (4) Leamed Addl. Session^ Judge after hearmg counsel for tfae respective pardes convi^ted aiid senteaiced fhe accased appeUaats as aforeiiientioned| (5) We have heard Shipi Yashwaiit Tiwari with Shii Amiyakaot Tiwad, leamed ccjunsel for the appellants and Sbri U.K.S. Chandel, Panel Lawyq (6) At fhe out set, Stu^ homicidal deafh of Banti @ P.W.ll Manoj Kumar & P.^| F.I.R. (Ex.P.38), who Witne^ categoricaUy stated that thc| Farsa aad ioflicted iDJurie^ [, for the State. Tiwari has not disputed the ^aajay. Moreover, PM.8 Ashfaq, M3 SaDJay Kumar, scribe of the ^sed the crime m qiiestion has accused persons attacked with on the head aad this €>cular evidence is corroborated ^y medical evidence of Dr.Lal Mohimnad (P.W.6) who coii|ducted the postmorfem, He has stated that as maay as 16 injuries on various-parts (rftihe body and fatal iojuries on the he^id of tfae deceased were iiiJHicted, even fhe skuU bone was JS^tured, braia matter was comiag ^lly^ W —30,000. ^nit^j^r ^w^ wsi ^TOT ' \.^ ^ ^IH^ ^NN @ 3:5?T ^|<q|<»'>'q, y»Tf)^'|^, IslOl^y -^........C^.±:.....^M... NWdl <bNlcb """""""""""""""""""""""" """"^ 200 ^ 9n^?r TIS^ (4cj[^<ygr) '^RITW 1fffe?r 3?n^r why he is askiag for Rs.30/-^ only Rs.30/- which he has t^ axid asked his associates tol caEae wifh Farsa (battie axe)j attacked wifh Dcindas, as a cni<if<rt<ilTi TnTI^f "^ fe^t <pyc^i< ^i'3fRPT 3TT^T ouf aad said that all fhe iajulries were ante-mortem in natuiie. He has further stated fhat tfa^ cause,ofdeatfa was head iajiiry. In view of the above ocul|@ir aad medical evidence, it is established that the deafh of| Banti @ Sanjay was homicidal in nature. (7) As far as the compUcjily of the accused appellai^s ia crune ia question is concerD^^d, their coxiviction prlmarily rests on the ocular evidence of P.^,8 Ashfaq, P.W.ll Maxioj Kumar & P.W,13 Saajay Kiimar, wt|o have stated that when fhie bus was retunimg to Durg aiid rcjached near Hasda toU tax barrier, Banti@ Saojay (smce decea^ed) and Babloo alightecLfrom the bus aad went to the barrie^ of toll tax for payiiient of tax, Babloo offered Rs,20/- on ^hich fhe accused Muniia asked him to pay Rs.30/-. Banti r^pUed that the rate is ofRs.20/-, Munna said fhat fhey are taldiag pay, Thercafter Miiiuia took out a country made pistol and h|e put it on the chest ofthe Banti, attack hioi. Rajesli muaediately he attacked oitthe head ofBaiiti @ Saojay, as a result of wjhich, he fell down on the other coraer of the road. Muiina|took that batfle axe &OflQi Raje^ he also attacked on the hlead. It is stated that thereafter Tarachand also attaeked wi^h Dandd and ofher persoi^ also Iresult of which Baiiti died on tfae spot. The matter was rep^rted by Saajay Kumar (P.W.13). The evidenfce of fhese 3 ttptnesses is consistent as fer as ?0,GOO. ^T^T^T Rriich WT 3?TR^T ^RTSF ^TTO^T^ 3:5^'?2TFIT^q", yiT{1y<|<o, (s|<»'>|^^< , L^.A- ^sr ^W^ (b*<|cb""""""""""""""""""""""" •""•^ 200^ 3n^?r ^^F (^?^<<£T) '?^ITW ^rftlT 3TT^T accused Rajesh & Munna ar^ not been able to bring aay {niateriajl on record in the cross examiaation which may d^scredit the evidence of fhese witaesses. (8) Shri Yashwant Tiwad aji^ued fhat the weapoxia were not shown to fhe Doctor durit^g fhe \evidence ia fhe Coiirt^ fherefore, it caaiiot be said tljiat ftie injuiy was mflicted to the deceased with the saiae battl connection, if we peruse th|e evidence of Dr.Lal Molmmiad (P.W.6) ia para 4 of his evid|snce, he has categoncally stated tfaat on 22nd July, 2000 fhe sent to him for examiaation opinion as to whefher the ia; @ Saajay could be caused b^ tihiat it was possible to cause the weapon ia the Court to| doctor aad fhe documents his opiaion caiinot be ignorc^ (9) Learaed counsel for iS^ ia fhis case, Babloo was also| Therefore, xnercly on the e^ <=M<if<rt<flTi 'W^ff ^f^S <pyi^i< ^3fRm3?n^?T conceraed aad fhe defence has axe, which was seized. In fhis |seized artides ie., wea|»oaswere ^longvrifh a rcqiuMtion fi>r gxviaig |uries fouiid on the body of Baati those weapons. A]Pter mspection of the weapous aad the pos|tmortem report, he gave opimtoii iiijuries by those we^oiis wliicli were found on the body of flie deceased* He has proved his report as Ex.P, 18. In view of|this evidence, Hiercly aiot sfaowi^ the Doctor, the evideiice of fhe mdered iato evidence regaiding appellants fiirtter ai^ued ^tet Ipresent at flae time ofoccurrenee, in fact, he oflTered fhe toll ta^c but he has aot beea examiiied. idence of fhese 3 witaesses the ^rime is not estabUshed agaxpst (he appeUaiits. In fbe present -30,GOO. ^n^r^r R'ljcb WT 3TRST ^b^lch <...- 3:5cT ^pTf^T, ^Tfl^'Ko, (s|<''>l^< , ^.^. 4^s- Nl^dl <b*<14»"•"•""—"—""'—•••—•""—"—••" ^ 200^ 3Tii(?T XR^ (<jc(Iy<qcT) '^cITW^fSTT 3?n^T case as has been mentioa^ already been exainiiied aa^ respect pf the attack niade Merely non-examiaation oJ| witnesses cannot be rejected,| (10) It is settled law fhat fh| chi<if<n<DTi Tm^f ^f f^l<l <F»(^K ^s ^tRpTs^n^T |d earUer, 3 eye witaesses have fheir evidence is CQnsistent ia ^y fhe accused Muiuia & Rajesh. Babloo, evidence of theae 3 b quality offhe evideace has to be considered rcgardiag iavolve^nent of accused ia crime aiid aiot the quaatity. Therefore, loo|dag to the evidence of fhese 3 .' witaesses, even if Babloo ha^ not been examiaied, tlie evidence of fhese 3 witaesses caanot|be brushed aside mex^ly oa fbe ground ofnon-examinationo|TBabloo. (11) Shri Tiwari also sub3 armnosity between the app^ deceased, fhe quarrel starte^ intentioii to cause death. W six ofher accused persons h^ itfed fhat fhere was no previous pUtents Muaxia & Rajesh.aaid Ae ^. at fhe spur <rf momexit wifhout preparation and premeditati^ii, the attack was made without ? furtfier ax^ued that m tfais case, ye already been acquitted aiid fhe evidence of these 3 eye wito|esses is to fhe extent that ia the first iastaEice accused Rajes|i attacked with Farsa, thereafter Munna took that Farsa from| Rajesh aad he also attacked wifti the same Farsa on the headl with a club whereas as manl injiides were found on varicj Rajesh. The death of Banti ^ of Baiiti and Taracliaad attacked 'f as 16 lacerated^ iacised aad ciit ^us parts of fhe body ofdecea^d aad only 2 head iojuries h^d been attributed to Miinaa BEKI as the cuniulative effect ofall fhe iajuiies, ia fhese circiimstaiaces only fhe knowledge caii be 1 ^lt^<ft4 ^ —30,000. ^n^r^r'Rpri^ ^._ ^3^^ ^lj^<r(l (b^lcb' <^NI<«'><4, ^Tfl'y'Ko, [sf<?)Wy 6-^-A- 4^8- 3:(T^?T 113RF ( 4c([^c|<{^) V^ 200% '?^ITW ^?r ^n^r attributed to the accused Mi as such, fhe offence against f|ie accuped Rajesh & Musina does not travel beyond sectioa £ reMance on judgments of fljie Apex Court ia the matter of Stafe of Moharashtra, J^03 SSuresh Sltareun Surws -vs AJR SCW 4834 & Bhinw. others -vs- iState ofSSeihar^shtra, 2002 ASt .SCiy 3553. (12) On the other haad, Sl^ri U.K.S. Chandel, Paael Lawyer appeariag for the State sup Court. (13) In order to apprcciate Yashwaat Tiwad, we have a^ eye-witaesses namely P.W.8 Lookiag to the number of iij number of attacks must ha^ was as a result of cumutetiv^ replied <tNoy. Aa mjuiy wa^ that, ftie brain matter cam^ <=M<if<n<fli TTTOTf ^* 'fe1^ <F»i^i< ^73tRPT3TT^T dina & Rajesh aot the iiitention, 04 Part-II of I.P.C. He placed ^ Bhinwrcw Sida Kcsmble cmd ported fhe judgment of tihie trial the arguments advaaced by Shri ;am scrutmized the evidence of3 Ashfaq, P.W.ll Manoj Kumar & P.W.13 Sanjay Kumar as a^so the evidence of P,W»6 Dr.Lal Mohammad who conducted f^epostmortem. (14) P.W,6 Dr.Lal Mohinijaad ia paa^a 4 of his CIDSS exammation stated that fhetre were 3 incised wauads, it is impossible for him to aasw^r as to whefher atl fhe iacised wounds werc caused by one ^eapon or more thaa oxie wea^xiM juries, it caa be said ftot. eqiaal re been made. In ao.swer to fhe question put by learaed cou4sel for fbe defexice fhat fhe death effect of fhe mjuries, ^ie Doctor on the braia and oa account of out and that was the cause of ^eafh. Therefore fhe doctb^ has speci&caUy stated that fhe ^rra^r ^ —30,000. 10 3'^T^I^K^^, ^Tfi^41<o, f^^W^< Nltldl CT>*iict* ^u'^- ^58- "^ 200J ^n^ij^ Ri^^i ?Fn^ 3ni(?r T^^F (4€<^<yr) '^RIW^f^^n^T deafh was due to brafca ial categorically stated fhat aft^r abusfiag ict fhe itame of fhe mother, accused Munna ask^d his associate to attack Baiiti@ Saajay, ia pursuance of thg|l Farsa (batfle axe) on fhe hea( down fhen Munua took thaK head. Tarachaad attackedl persons also attacked the de^eased. Therefore, fhere is clear jmjuries which are attrfeuted to these accused Rajesh & Muiiiia cut evidence regarding head] Rajesh & Murma that each o| injuries, particularly about l^ is no clear cut evidence fhat caa be iaferred from the backt made, fhe conduct of the comxmtted, the xiature of th< (15) In Mght of the above cbl^id^l'1 ^l^ldf ^? 'fe1^ <F»i^i< ^3fRFT3T^T ury. The 3 eye witaesses Mave accused Rajesh attacked witfa , as a result of which, Baati fell Farsa, he also attacfeed 011 the with club and ofher accused ioflicted one blow on the h4ad of fhie deceased wifh Parsa. Accused Tarachand also att^cked with fhe club. Por otlier other mcised cut iojuries, fhd'e who inflicted those injudes. In order to ascertaiii fhe mtenUon of the accused as to what iatention the accused was c^nyirig ia his miad, for fhat 110 dircct evidence caa be adduded, The mtention of fhe accused ground ia which the attack was ^.ccused durmg fhe cnme was weapon vrifh wNch fhe attack was made, the force wifh wlii<|?h fhe attack was made»the part ofthe body chosen by ftiem fc|r fhe attack, these factors caxi be considered as has been said b^ the Apex Court ia the matter of Thangcdya -vs- State ofTaa^l JVadu, 2005 CW.I^.JT. 6S4» [principle based 011 ocular asid medical evidence, only iiifere^ice caa be drawn that the head ?rra^ -^/2007 —30,000. ^n^Tj^r R^ WT 3n^?r $r»*iw —• 11 3^5T ^WW^, ^•^\W\<c, ^(ftW^ c^/\' Ly5§- NWdl 5b*<14»"•••••"'—"———•"—"—•"—-—-^ 200j^ 3n^?r xnw (4€<^<?T) '^<nw^n3?n^T iajuiy which was responsib Rajesh & Munna with a Fatsa. The oral evidence has to be appreciated taking iato coD^ideration the medical evidence aad those mjuries were res^onsible for fhe cause of death. The nature offhe weapon us^d by accused Rajesh & Muaiiia ia attackmg fhe deceased on fh|i aad the force with which fhe was fi'actiired and even fhe sustamed fhe injuiy and ? head i.e., vital part of the body [iajuiy was mflicted ie., the boaie forafca inatter caine out tihat also fhose iajuries were mflicted by Munna & Rajesh, therefore, s|s far as accused Mimiia & Rajesh is concenied, m view of t(ie evidence and fhe nature of weapons used by theuL and distuiguisliable on facte. In were found on fhe chest, wh^< offhe deceased aad ia those caused aU the severe injiirie^ caiinot be said to have cr»nf<n<fli *II^I<VIY ^f f^l<l <Fyi<^i< ^7 3fRPT 3?TI^T le for the death was caused by the part of fhe body chosen by them where fhe attack was 4^ade fhat too after sayiag "attack him39, makes it clear that fh4se two accused persoas attacked the deceased with an ioitentidn to cause death. (16) As fer as fhe jiidgmen|ts relied iipoii by leaaaed couxtael for tlie appeUaiits are c4nceraed^ these judgmieiits are ?ase of Suresh Sitctram Suwe -vs' State of Maharashtra (supi|a), the mjuiy attdbuted to fhe appellaat was by Gupti on s(bdomen whereas 4 ofber ioluries ch were responsible^ fbr the dteafh circumstaaces, the Court rcached to tbe conclusion that it caajiiot be iaferred that the appellant or the fatal mjuries, thercfore he iatended to cause deatti an<I ^l^cft'1 )07 —30,GOO. ^iI^T^T Vw^ sb*1|cb 12 T^'^rpn^T, ^Tf1^4i<o, fsi<rl>i'y^< ..c:^'..A.:.....ty..^..t.............. NINdl tb^llcb •"•""—""•-"—•—•—••—••"—•-" •^ 200^ 3H^?r ira^F (4ci^<si<i?T) '5T<nW Trf??T 3TT^T accordingly fhe sentence was &om section 302 ofI.P.C. (17) In fhe matter of Bhimn\ also, a lai^e number of stones aad it was not attacked whoni. The court to coiniait offences under S. 147/149 aad not under In the present case, fhe of fhe body and fhat too above case is of no help to t4< the accused Munna & convicted u/s 302 read wifh reason to iaterfere with the that extent we do not jGnd judgment of the tdal Court. (18) As far as the acci conceraed, eye witnesses P,| F.I.R. Ex.P.38 inwhich he sp| attacked fhe deceased wifh d this eye witaess has stated In view ofthis, fhere is aii iiijr of this eye witaess. More iaflicted by Munna & Raju, tbie attack made by him aii<{l <=hi<if<n4li Tn'R^f Jf {k^\ <F3(<^i< '^3fRPT3TI^T modified to section 304 Part-I |@ Bhtmarao Sida Kamble (supra) armed wifti sticks or pelted as to who specifically that 1±ie coxximon object was 1 sections 323, 325 read with 302 read witli Section 149. appellant chose the vital part deadly weapon, fhereforc, fhe t^e accused appellaats, Therefore^ Yad^ur have rightty been feiectioM 34 I.P.C. aad we have no pndiag of the trial Coxirt and to pers^ns estAblished faleld se^tion accu^ed Wl1|tl RaResh ^ny mfinxdly or illegallty ia the ised Tarachand Nixixialkar is .py.13 Sanjay Kumar lodged the sciJBcaUy stated tfaat fhis accused bib whercas ia the court evidence Ihat he attacked with fhe sword, iiiJLprovement ia fhe court evideiiee [over^ fhe deadty iiyuries were t^ierefore, it makes doubt3Ral about he is entifted to fhe beiiefit of 1 ^tw^ i07 —30,000. 3?n^r,5pT f<<ijcb WT 31R^T ^RRRT Rao 13 3^5T^en^T, ^TH'y'ic, {si^i^y ^w^l ^hWGh^ ..(^;l.A.:.....^;.3..r. "^ 2003 3n^?r TRRR ((ic(^<^) ?^TTW^rf??T 3?n^r doubt Hence the conviction u/s 302 read wifh sectton 34 (19) In the result, the app^ succeeds and he is acquitted section34I.P.C. hmi is also set aside. He required, iaany ofher case. (20) TIie appeal of Munna & fiable to be dismissed ajad it Conseque^fly aad sentence imposed upoa hmi |caruiot|be sustaiaed, 4al filed by Tarachaaid Nirxaa ^r 1otthe charges u/s 302 x^ead wfc&i ;i|tly»the sentence imposed agaiast b|e set at Hberty forfhwith, if xiot Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge cM<if<n<flTi TFR^Tf ^* 'fex^ <F»t^i< ^^fRpT^n^T Rajesh Yadav fails, The same is > hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge m^^f ^NN- ^"ll^, <l^^i<JIH —FS/59— 8/2007 —30,000. 1