XI-HC—78 w^r^rf^F ^T2TT ^TT^T 5h^|cb ^Hdl sb^Jeh 3^cT "qi^l^-q, ^TO^I^, ic|<7))|^^< _.,c^-A- N^- ^^-^-|93 200 ^w ^^K (^^^r) ^^TW ^rf^r 37T^T APPELLANT/ ACCUSED (in Jail) wtfera^Tw^f ^",-fe^ T(^R ^3:iRPT37T^T igal Jarftu Kam, Rarh Lakda, Resident of Viilage Khamhar, Jun|apara, P.S. Dharamjaigarh, District Rai 3arh,MP(nowCG). flersus- RESPONDENT Sta^e of M.P. (now Chhattisgarh), Through P.S (nq Present:- Shri Rajesh Tiwari, co| Shri Sudhir Bajpai, Dy| |. Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, MP WCG). jnsel for the appellant. Govt. Advocate for the State. DB:- HON'BLE SHRI L.C. 1 HON'BLE SHRI DHIFlENDRA (Deiivered <\ L.C. Bhadoo. J BHADOO & MISHRA, JJ. QRALUUDGMENT n 24m April, 2007) The accused/appeiiant has jj)referred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sent<^nce dated 18-1-1999 passed by First committing murder of his wife B imprisonment for life. Additionai Sessions Judge, Raigarti, in Sessions Trial No.108/98 whereby he has been heid guiity under Secjtion 302 of the Indjan Penal Code for aso Bai and sentenced him to undergo 2) The case of the prosecuticjn, in brief, is that accused Jarhu Ram & Biiaso Bai (since deceased), wife| of Jarhu Ram, had consumed liquor and when they were in the forest near village Kamosindan they sterted XI-HC—78 '3^ ^|^1^>^, ^Tfl'^KS, isf^l'y^< 3TT^T ^T f<rlJch 'cT81T 'STT^T $h<-iict) ^l^dl sbHlch "^ 200 3Tr^?r XRW (4<s<?^<^) '^1TW^TT a?1^T quarreillng. The accused attacked whlch she became unconscious chi^f<n^lTi 'R^ff ^'fe^ <Fsi^i< iT3^TT371^[ ^iiaso Bai with lathi & stone as a resuit of Accused returned to village Kamhar, informed Mohan (PW-4), Sukhrat^ (PW-16), Sugi Bai (PW-5) and other vlllagers that Biiaso Bai had sust^ined injuries on account of falling on a stone. Thereafter, accused aiong] brought Bilaso Bai to his residen| injuries. Accused along with ishw^ Constable Nandram, registered cri with villagers reached to the spot and ^e. In the night, she succumbed to the \r Prasad Rathia (PW-15) went to Police Station Dharamjaigarh and intim^tion was given. Based on that, Head ^ie No.14/98 under Ex.P/16. After giving notice (Ex.P/1), inquest (Ex.P/2) oi|i the body of Bilaso Bai was prepared by the Investigating Officer. Body c|f Bilaso Bai was sent for postmortem examination to the Hospital whejre Dr. Anil Kumar (R/V-11) conducted postmortem and prepared report (^x.P/11). Doctor opined that the cause of death was injuries. Based on that,| commission of offence punishable] Penal Code was registered. First Information Report (Ex.P/17) for the under Sections 302 & 201 of the indian 3) After compietion of investig^tion, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ipharamjaigarh, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Jipdge, Raigarh, from where learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigar!^, received the same on transfer for trial. 4) In order to establish the cfliarge against the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined 16 witnesse^. Statement ofthe accused was recorded under Section 313of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the material appearing against him in | he is innocent and has been falsel^j |the prosecution evidence. He stated that impiicated in the case. XI-HC—78 T^T'^I^I^'M, t$T{)^jl<S, isf(Yi'l<H^< (g) *iW^[ ^W^h 'STT^T ^T'f^W ^T8TT 3TT^T'^TTRF ••^ 200 3^?T X??W ( 4^fTj,<Nc^y ) '^rr^R Tif^r 3?r^r cbNf<n<fl'ri -HI^<^I* ^'fe^t <p3i<^i< "^'stRm ^STT^T 5) Learned Additional Sessi<|»ns Judge after hearing counsel for the respective parties, convicted atid sentenced the accused/appellant as aforementioned. ih< S) We have heard learned coil 7) !n this case, all the witnes^ or direct evidence in order to question. S) Learned counsel appearin himseif reported the matter under injuries sustained by her on fal!in opinion the injuries were caused the Instance of the accused. insel for both the parties. les have turned hostile. There Is no ocular connect the accused with the crime in |g for the State argued that the accused IEx.P/16 that Bliaso Bai died on account of [g on a stone whereas as per the Doctor's by lathi & stone, which were recovered at 9) Having heard iearned cou|isei for the partles, we have perused the evidence. it has come in the evicjence that the deceased was in the habit of consuming liquor. Dr. Anil Kumaj' (PW-11), in para 10 of his statement, has stated that the injuries which wer^ on the face and head could be caused on falllng after consuming liquor. 10) As far as recovery of st< common articles, which are founcj ^ \>ne & lathi is concerned, these are the everywhere. There is no report that these articles were stained with blood| and the blood was of the group of the deceased. Therefore, there is no the accused with the crime in que: |jegal clinching evidence in order to connect ^tion. As such, the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the ajccused beyond reasonabie doubt. XI-HC—78 3:wTr^T''Tl0^t$Tfl^ll(S, fsf<y!>iy^< \^ NINdl ^hNlcb ^ 200 3T^[?T VS^ ( 4<^f^<^ ) ^iT^r^T-f^ri^ T[SH 3ii^^i $^^i<^ Gowr '^ITW^n^TI^T 11) For the foregoing reasons conviction & sentence imposed sustained. |we are of the considered opinion that the ^gainst the accused/appellant cannot be 12) In the result, the appeal upon the accused/appeliant undei set aside; he is acquitted of the since 3-5-1998. He be set at lib case. Sd/- L.C, Bhadoo Judge sljcceeds. Conviction & sentence imposed Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code are ^aid charge. The accused is in detention )^rty forthwith, if not required in any other CM^f<n<fl<i ^i*i<?iT ^'fe^ <p3<^« "^'sfRR 3TI^T Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge