m. 200/. 200}{a‘%’ 3w$§q a!” 2000/-m} BRIE-g 302 ”$ Pff‘gm. 13 W“ ) ”allvtted by the High Court Legal ” )erwcks ‘n " -omml 'tt aa" 3&1 mama mug-1&1 m wmm $Wivi$i0n Bench k Immunj Ma ama£a aim— 374 gzg ¢g WW RTE?” / yq-i-a, -§7‘€ gqaféf m-(WEL WV?” 3”? 28 aé /,‘ / aw. 13%? arr ‘ i” a‘? Hi??? WT «31% ab~9‘TTa:n-'gqfa’ WET a WT— Tram-WE gingog ,£ ‘ I, faw #:39'%T W97? ff arm- mgr §$$ WWW WT. wwwa 113% aiw m$ H E" 39 L54! aarr / HGT XI—HC—78 v HW,WW,W b A (z‘ti7“ a1 200a WW' WW(W) mmwm Shrivasfava (PW—6), Chowkidar', Ia WW WW éqwm rere on dufy. A? abou'r 12 mid night ‘;’he accused entered Tho? miii which was noi‘iced by Koiiko Prasad Shrivosi‘avo ukimafeiy 'Hqe accused was caugh‘l near E9 fan of fhe mi” and was locked in a bafh mom. On enquiry, he dischased his name as Subhash and said Thaf he 3s working in fhe adjoining miH. (Swiner 9f 5hivmfh Rim Mi}! was informed cébou‘r fhis incident In ‘Hne mornin§, The accused asked To a5low him 1'0 go far afkeding '?he ca” of na'rur'e, bu? !r 1 e was informed i‘ha’f he cannot be allowed, on whic§1 fhe aécused fhrem‘ened Wm? 'ne wiii c'ommif suicide. Owner of ’rhe mi” wins informed :md fhe owner Affer opening ‘i'nemioor‘, ine accus i'ime, owner of mil! come and whe owner of fhe mi”. fine accused 1' repori-ed io ihe Poiice under EXP- ‘i'he owner of Rungia §ice Mi”, iod coil from saniash Agrewai, owner asked ihese oersons io open ine door‘ ed came and so? on i'he s‘i'aircosei A? ihai‘ n ihese persons siari‘ed hiking wi'a‘h i’he aking chance ran away. The marker was ~3 'oy Mohendra Rungfo (PW-2} ihoi‘ “he is toy a'i‘ aboui‘ 8 am. he received o ieiephone of ‘H'ie adjoining rice miil, who informed him ”the? one i-hief has been coughf in ihe nigh? by Munnaiai, he has keen iocked in a ‘ooi‘h room. in ‘ihe m opened, i‘he person ran away a: murdered, on which he wen'i- io fin blood on 'i'i'ie floor under il‘le siairi oovered by J'm‘e bag". §eceiving This repori‘, ‘ihe STo'l‘ion House Officer, Police Sio‘l‘ion: Loloog regisfered offence under .‘Seci'ion 302 of The IRC. and le‘f‘i for 'i'he noi'ice EXP-1 io The Ponchos, he fook in‘ro i i 9 x i l i arning when door of ihe baih room was 1d ‘rhe Chowkidar of my mill has been : spoi‘ along wifh Soniosh Agrowal and sow :ose, i'he body of Subhash was iying i‘here P.T.O. scene of occurrence Afier giving rXI—HC—78 23’ EW, Wan—qr, Wmm WWW mmwm WWEWW éqwm y?) one Chaddar, one pair of Huck sh under EXP-2. One biack cobur' A1 which, ‘Hne name of Pramod Singh, red pain‘r, was seized under EXP: mi”. Whiie in police cusfody, ré‘gEr-ding The sHpper of decease #haf he go? recovered Rs.400/-, Ex.P&7. Affer‘ ”cuh‘ing naiis of passession under“ EXP—10. Ieque prepared by fhe Invesi'igafing O‘ accused was conducfed by fhe memos ExsP—E, P-11, P—13, P-20 & 'a‘he siippers of deceased Subha; Magis‘fra'i'e and Tes‘f idenfificafic Subhash was sen? for poef—mari Rajnandgaon where Dr. H.K. Jos% Subhash and opined fha‘r The cat injuries fo vifai organ and The dea body of The accused were also e‘ The reporf EXP-18. Recovered ar To Forensic Science Labora‘fory, 1 received. Si‘ie plan EXP-26 was Seroiogisf's repor‘r EXP-SO was re i 1 i i 1 i P.T.O. < Wm .Qh.}.;..o%:i$... an 200 mW<W> possession one dagger sfained wi'ii1 blood, one boi‘i‘ie of coun’rry made iiquor, :e: one ju'i'e bag and one empty mafch box ias cycie No.MP320077 on *he backside of Simian ?ara, Ward No.9, was wri‘i’fen wiih 6 from The place of occurrence, ihe rice fhe accused gave memorandum EXP-8 d Subhash and Rs.400/—, in pursuance of siipper, one pan? and sando banian under i'he accused, same were aiso Taken info sf on 'ihe body of Subhash EXP—14 was Fficer. Tesi- iden‘rificafion parade of ihe Execui'ive Magis‘rra‘ie and idenfifica‘iion L21 were prepared. Tes? ideniifica‘rion of sh was also conduci-ed by fhe Execui-ive n memo EXP-25 was prepared. Body of em examina‘iion i'o Governmen‘i- Hosbi'i-ai, i conducfed posi-mor‘i'em on fhe body of ise of deafh was excessive ioss of biood, H1 was homicidai in na‘i'ure. Injuries on fine (amined by Dr. 5K. Mondai who prepared ficies were sen? for chemicai examinai'ion Sager, from where 'ihe repori‘ EXP—23 was prepared by ihe Invesfiga‘iing Officer. ceived. a } XI—Hcr78 1mmm mi 200 7D WW(W) mww WWW WWifWW MWWW QKWMW Affer compkfb’n of invesi'igation, charge sheaf was “fiied in fha Cour-2‘ of Chief Judicial Magis'rmfe, Raj mndgaon, who in wrn cemmi??ed 1‘he case +o fhe sessions Judge, Rajnand , from whera iearned Addifionai Sessions Judgé, §ajnandgacm received ‘ihe c'rse on fransfer for trini. In order To es‘i'abiish char e againsf The accused, 15 wi’messa wera ekamj'ned by fhe prosecufion. Sfa emenf of The ascused Was recordw under- 5ecfion 313 of fhe Cr.P.C. in whit: he denied The maferial appearing agoins‘r him im‘r‘ne prosecufion evidence a d sfm‘ed ‘rha? when he was going for eome work, ‘a‘he Police cough? him, Ther‘ offer, he was given beefing, he has been impiica‘reo in a foise ‘cr-ime and'h has not commi‘r‘ied fhe murder. Before ihe idenfificai‘ioni he was shown i ihe wifnesses in ihe Poiice Station. Affer‘ hearing counsei f r- respeci‘ive poriiesi iecimed Addii‘iomi $essions Judge convic'i'ed and sen enced ihe accused as aforemeniioned. We have heard Mr, KK. h, ieorned counsel for ihe appellan‘i‘ and Mr. D.i<. Ewalre: iearned Depui’y eovi. Advacafe on behoh‘ of fhe Sioi'e/ respondent Af The ouisef, Mr. K.K. Singh has no? oisputed ihe homicidal deaih of Subhash. Moreover, Dr. H.K. Jo: ihe body of Subhash, has srafed chesi‘ & s'i'omach, i'he dea'rh was shock 8i excessive bleeding and i m accouni’ of 'l‘he injuries on vi‘rol organs. 'hi (PW—7) who conduc‘ied pos?—morfem on 'l‘ho‘i' i'here were incised wounds on neck, homicidal in na‘iure and was as a resuli' of P.T.O. g n 5' 3 XI—HC~78 HW,W§,W Wm .Si?..$.;!£?-.f§éa. In 2000 WW(W) XI—HC—78 WW,WW,W ~ .@2;.€s;.<.2>£€/x/. WW ’aizooa WW(W) WWW mmm WWW%'WWR mmwm aamm r and idenfified in fhe Tesf idenfifica+ion parade by Munnaicd (PW—5) & KaHkn Prasad Shrivasfava (PW-6) m fhe premises of Shivna'i'h Rice i in; 2. fhcrl', cycie of i'he accu ed was recover-ed near The Diace of OCCUPT‘ef‘Ce: 3. ?ha1', slippers of eeceased ubhash were recovered m‘ fhe insfance sf u " fhe accused from his resid nee: and 4. “that haman blood was‘foun on banian & pair-1+ of fhe accused. Firsf‘ eircumswr‘tce: - u As far as The firs? circ ence is concerned, Munmlai (PW-5) has sfafed in his evidence ‘i'hai on The fa‘i-efui day he was working as Mechanic in Shivna‘i‘h Rice Miil, Rewadih, he as on du'iy ’from 8 pm. Tc 8 a.m., Kalika ?rasad Shrivasfava (PW-6) was C owkidar, ai- about 11 pm. in ‘ihe nig‘ni‘ he aiong wi‘i'h Kaiika Prasad Shrivas‘i a was sii'fing in fhe Office cf The miii, a”? abou‘r 12 mid night The accused presen‘r in fhe Caur'r came, $hrivas‘iava no?iced i'he presence of some pe sons and he apprised him fha‘r somebady has come, on which he repiied ih 1‘ our persons Devna‘fh (Si ofhersmigh'r be ihere, fhen again Chowkidar 5hr 'iava had said fhai she person who came in ihe mil! has noi‘ come ouf, fher affer, Shrivasfava and he iefi' 1‘0 see him, he saw Thai fhe accused was w ring baniyan & underwear {Chaddi} He eniered big fan of The miii, fhe ccused was Taken ou? from ihaf piace, in ihe process, some scuffle Took pl ce and on enquiry, +he accused disclosed his name as Subhash. Thereaf‘i r, he along wi‘rh Shrivasfava broughi i-he 1‘ fha‘r, fhe accused was cau PAT.O. “ u f i s XI-HC-78 .o ‘o o “69;. Wm WW, Wm, fa—g4133? .pX’Jj2‘?32—. ~ a1 2000 Wm<W> mam WWW WWW WW§WW ' ’ %?31%1m1%$r evidence of fhis wi‘iness (PW-5) si The bafh roam. Bu? in para 7 of £ouri he is no‘r able i0 ideni-ify “he accused as his eyesighf is weak, he is using specs, even offer pu'Hing specs he said ihai' he is noi able i‘o iden’iify ‘i'he person. Therefore, only ihe evidence of Munnalal (PW-5) remains To be scru'i'inized. accused in fke Office and o‘rhe v persons were called. On enquiry, fhe accused disdosed fha‘? he is Chowkidar' cf The adjoining mHL he said fha‘r he has come wi‘l‘hou‘i‘ any work. when n, ihe accused said fhai as he is working as painfer‘ iher'efore, some spo fher‘e are blood si'ains on his bani fhis wi‘l‘ness enquired from him as i'o how of ‘i‘he pain? ar-e finer-e on his banian. Thereaf‘i‘er, They closed him in a bafh mom, he asked for wafer and wafer w‘as‘given io him for drinking. Th accused was in baih r-co'm 'iill 6 am and in i-‘ne morning he said Thai he has ‘l‘ go io aifend fhe call of nafure, when fhey repiied i'ha'i' i'hey will no'i' aliow im io come oui, The accused ihreafened ihem of commi‘ifing suicide, ‘iher‘e mom for some Time, he so? on ihe given 1'o him. Thereafi-er, ihe Towards ‘ihe owner, faking chance ‘i'he accused ran away. Thereaf‘ier, The accused was idenfi‘i‘ied in ‘l‘he iden was prepared. Kalika Prasad 'Shrivas‘rova (PW-6) has also corroboraied the iying fha‘l' ihe person was cough? and pui‘ in his examination, he has sfaied iha‘i in The ore, ‘l'hey allowed him ‘l'o come oui’ of baih si'aircase, he asked for Bidi i‘hm‘ was also owner came, when They s‘iari'ed seeing iificofion parade and memorandum EXP—10 P.T.O. XI—HC—78 WWHEIW) h Ha 2006) mmm Learned counse! for fhe a! WW§WW éawm )peiian‘i argued fha‘i ‘ihe accused was shown To The wiTnesses in The Police STaTion before The idenTificaTion parade was iconducfed, fherefore, fhe 'l'es'r id Affer' going +hr‘ough #he ‘accused was shown fo fhe wifnes ideri‘l’ificafion parade is no? prov u idenfifying fhe accused in The (k w§fness is abie +0 safisfy fhe C¢ iden§ify fhe acmsed during The quesfion remains as 1'0 whe‘rher J iden’rify of ‘i'he accused when' f evidence we are of 1‘he View Tha‘i fhe ées in ihe Poiice Sfai-ion. Bu? even if the ad, even fhen ihe evidence of i'he wi‘iness :uri‘ can also be believed, of course, if 'ihe )ur‘r Thai he had sufficieni oppor‘iuni‘i'y +o commission of crime. Therefore, now ‘ihe i/lunnalal (PW-5) was able *io memorize 'l'he accused was caughf in fhe mill and ‘ihai wheTher PW-5 had sufficienT o porTuniTy To idenTify The accused aT The fume of The incidem‘. in *his res; which has been reproduced above he along wi’rh Chowkidar Shrivas himseh‘ behind big fan df fhe mii piace some scuffie also Took piau in a baihroom, he was in ihe bai- accused wafer was suypiied 1‘0 The call of naTure, he was allowed To come l'Ting for some iime on The sTaircase and way. In The circumsTances, we are of The r‘i'uni‘iy +0 iden‘iif’y *ihe accus of The above, The wiTness had sufficienT iecf, if we scrui'inize ihe evidence of PW—5 , fhis wi‘iness has cafegorically si'a‘i'ed fhaf Tova searched The accused: he was hiding l, Thereaffer, he was caughT There, aT ThaT . beTween Them and The accused was closed hroom Till morning, even on demand by The accused ‘ihaf he wanfed To afiena‘ 1im and a? 6 am. on The requesT of The ou‘i of fhe ba'ihroom, he was si ihereaf'i-er, iaking chance he ran considered opinion 'iha'i in view OPPO n , RT.O. ni‘ifica‘i‘ion canno‘i' be relied upon. \ ed and memorize his idenTificaTion. Kalika m.‘ TI l Far W, admire, W .622); . & i . .(.??.c:{.z h XI HC 78 yL/gg wwm ' D& ?f]/. marmo. o m 2000 mmwiamr) ‘ mam wwwm WW§WW éswm ‘i'r'adic‘l'ed wi‘ih fhe paris of ‘rhe previous sfai‘emeni. As per The requirem an? of Section 145 of ‘lhe Indian Evidence Aci, 1872,. counsel for ‘ihe accus , \ \\ i \ l i i y _y‘ ?r‘asad Shrivasfava (PW-6) has c above evidence of the wifness (P‘ accused in fhe Court ' Learned counsel for *he a Eefweee fhe evidence of Munnak 6). PW—5 has Sim-ed fha’r he ‘rm a - fhe mil! whereas PW—é has sfa‘re ?he big fan and s‘farfed running ran Téwards Mun‘nahL Bu? we do nof find any s (PW-5 & PW-é) have sfafed fhaf fhe mil}: fher-eaf'rer‘, he came OL scuffle be‘lween Munnalal and 'i‘hz. Therefore, fher‘e is no confradid in fhe maierial par‘iiculars. Nex‘i argumenf of iearnec are ceriain impmvemenis in i'he fhe fir-51' insiance, ihis wifness before fhe Police. In order fo ccan‘rradic‘r fhe wi‘iness i‘? was necessary +haf ihe wi‘rness mus‘i- have been cor xlso +0 a ceriain exi‘enf corroborai'ed the til-5} excep‘i‘ fha'i' he failed fo ideni‘i‘iy The Jpeiiani' argued fha‘? There is confradic‘i‘ion l ZPW-E) & Kalika Prased Shrivasi'ava {PW— )k ou‘i' ‘i‘he accused from behind big fan of d That ihe accused came oui- from behind iowards him, when he showed him club, he 1bsi‘ance in fhis argument Boih of ihem ihe accused hidcuhimseif behind big fan of t Even PW—6 has sfafed fhaf ‘i'here was accused and so has been s-iaied by PW-5. ion in 'ihe evidence of ‘l'hese iwo wi‘inesses \ counsel for i'he appellan‘i was Thai fhere Cour? evidence of Munnalal {PW-5), bu? in was no? confronfed wiih his sfafemeni‘ ed ough'i 1‘0 have confroni-ed fhis wifhess wiih fhe police s‘rafemen‘i by ind \\\ P.T.O. cafing fhe por‘rion of his sfafemen'i in fhe ,/ XI—HC—78 HW,W,W mm”CD ...'...;...TT;./.:n 7‘1 W91 mm®w> 7,7 #Efk vJm XI—HC—78 WW,W,W trrnwm . Qvu 6. i i??? iv/ a1 200 a! Wm(W) g XI—HC~78 mwm . C” WW F? 20073 mmmaiaaw) XI‘HC-78 mw,m,f§m Wm a1 200 a» WW(E§W) WWW wm'm WM§WW matwaném %a?f§m3n%m evidence Thaf The accused gave memorandum EXP-8 Thaf Qs.400/— and ‘tsiippers were kepf in his room, Ire can 9e? recover fhe same. He also gave informafion ‘I'ha? panf & banian were kep‘!‘ in his room in sui‘i'case and in pursuance of fha‘l', slippers were recovered under EXP-7. The above slippers were puf +0 fesf idenfifica‘rion before Execufive Magisfrafe Sudhir Taram (W13) on 11—4—1999 and before him brofher of fhe deceased Dinkar Rae (PM/‘9) idenfified ihose siippers 1'0 be of his brofher Subhash (deceased) and the Execufize Magisirai'e pr pared The idem‘ifica'iion memo EXP-25. Dinkar Rae (PW-9), bro er of fhe deceased, has sided in his evidence fha’i' he iden‘iified fhe’ s ippers and The slippers were mixed wifh 5- 6 pairs of o'l'her slippers. In ross-examinaiion: he has si'a'led ihaf his bro‘lher used 'lo wear fhose slppers, fherefore, he had opporfunily fo ideniify The slippers. His broThe was wearing Those slippers since lasT few days and The slippers were dam ed by fricTion. Therefore, he was able To idenTify Those slippers as his b er‘s slippers were yellow in colour and on accounT of fricTion, There was impression of Toe on The slipper‘ as such, he was able To idenTify The sa and There was mark of pressing on The place where Toe lands on The slipper. In The circumsTances, from The above evidence of Devlal {PW-4) & 5anjay Pundhir (PW-14) as also Dmkar Rae (PW-9), brother of The deceased, slippers of The deceased were recovered oi The insi'ance of The accused from his room. \ E55 \ \\ P.T.O. // r h m K6 14 XI-HC-78 33W,m,f§amg( ’ k;; ‘..(.o~oq.o?.. W 2 \ WW(W) WW§WW wwwm éawm Now, coming 1'9 1'he arg u n? 0f learned counsel for- ‘rhe appellanf fha‘r no evidence was conec‘red fhe lnvesfigming Officer #ha‘? the room from where fhe slippers were re overed beiongs 1'0 ‘rhe accused, in para 26 of cross—examina‘rion Sunjay Pu dhir (PW-14), lnvesfigafing Officer: has cafegorically sfm'ed fha‘l‘ The 'er of fhe room was Saf'raor, fhe accused k A used 1'0 reside in fhe roam as a fenan‘l' and fhaf was in Sfation Para. :Wérefore, fhe slippers were rec vered a'l' fhe ins'i'ance of The accMsed from a room, as su'ch, fhe slippers we e in The room and wi‘ihin fhe knowledge of The gccused. lie has no? explai ed Thai if fhe slippers were noi- piaced by him in The room,«+hen how he ca e To know abouf those siippers which were lying in ‘i‘he room. The Apex Cour-r in ‘rhe ma +er of Sfai'e o‘f Maharashtra vs. Suresh ‘repor'red in 2000 SCC (Cri) , held 'i'ha‘i' fhere are fhree possibi/ifies when an accused painfs ouf fhe , /ace where ~a dead body or an i'ncr‘im/haf/‘ng maferia/ was concealed wifhouf afing f/mf if was concealed by him. One is fhm‘ he hims'e/f wou/d have conc a/ea’ if. Secoad is fhaf he would have seen somebody else concealing if. An fhe fhird is fhaf he woo/d have been fold by anofher ,oer'son fhaf if was c coo/ed fhere. 3113‘ if fhe accused declines lo fell fhe criminal courf fhaf 17 knowledge abouf fhe conceailnenf was on accounf of one of she Iasf fwo ossibi/ifies fhe criminal courf can presume r'hai‘ if was concealed by live acc ed himself Wis is because lhe accused is Ml lhe only person who can offer exp/anafion as lo how else he came lo know of such concealmem‘ and if e chooses fa refrain from felling fhe couri‘ as lo how else he came lo kno of if, ‘fhe presumpiion is o wellv'asfified P.T.O. e o 2 e WW§WW mmmm $Wm ;(I x(a ’yv‘ course fa be adopfed by f/Ie cri ina/ courf fhm‘ five concealmenf was made by him. Such an Jhferprefm‘i n is nof inconsisfenf wifh #79 principle embodied in 5ecfion 27 of fhe E ‘dence Act simiiarly, in fhe presen‘rr ese, +he accused has ho? expiained as To hiwfhe poim‘ed and how if was wi hin his knowledge fha‘r fhe shppers of fhe deceased wege Iying in fhe r' om, from where fhey were recovered. Therefore, in fhe iigH of fhe ve judgment if can safe!y be presumed fhaf&fhe accused was 'H‘ie person who kepf fhose slippers in fhe room. e In fhe circums‘rances, we do no? find any substance in fhe argumeni- of learned counsel for fhe appellanf fhaf The prosecufion has no? been able ‘io esfablish Thai“ fhe room from where The slippers were recovered was no? within ihe knowledge of +he accLsed. Even if if is no? established The? ‘ihe room belongs ‘io The accused, even fhen, ihe accused can be connecied wi‘ih ihe crime in quesfion on'ihe ground fha‘i The slippers were recovered w +he insiance of ihe accused, even withoui‘ esi'ablishing ‘ihe ii‘ile of The house whe'iher i1- beiongs fo fhe accused or not. In order 1-0 connec‘i- fhe accused with ‘ihe crime i‘i is no? necessmy thm ‘ihe place from where ihe articles (slippers) were recovered belongs 1’0 fhe accused. From ‘rhe above discussion, ihe prosecuiion has been able lo esfablish fhai slippers of ihe deceased ere recovered from fhe residence of ihe accused ai' his insfance. Secfi n 114 of fhe Indian Evidence Ac'l', 1872 l envisages fha‘i “fhe Courf may p esume The exisTence of any facT which iT Thinks likely To have happened, egard being had To The common course of 59 \ \ \\ \\ \\ l \ RT.0. l a X1-HC-78 m mm, Wv . ; 67’&(Z?[/’ . a: 200 ”9’ mWOFE’WI) meanwle does nof mean fhm‘ The blood sfuck on fhe axe wouid nof have en human blood a? al‘ P.T.O. hi e l 18 EW,W,W Wm ogv {. £ . o{o?'?%oé‘o m 2000 Wm (WW) ‘mmm WW§WW mmwm éqwm Ifrcannof b: said tho? in a” cases where fher‘a was failure of defec‘ring The origin of ‘rhe blood, “the circumsfancz arising from recovery 9f fhe weapon wouid s‘rand relega‘l‘ed fo disui‘iliiy.“ ' In fhe presen‘i‘ case, as per‘fhe Seroiogis-r’s repor“? iher'e was hiiman used and fhe accused has no? explained Thg‘f‘how his pan? & banian we e s'rained with human biood. This is an addi‘iional‘cir-cumsiance against i e accused. :Therefore‘ for The fore oing reasons; we are of fhe considered opinion ‘i'ha‘r The ‘prosecu‘i'ion been able fa establish wi‘ih legal and clinching evidence 'i'ha‘i- ihe ac sed was caugh‘r in fhe fa‘ieful nigh? in Shivnai’h Rice Mili: idem‘ified by nnalal {PW—5), +hey noficed blood sfains on his clo‘l’hes, cycle of The cusecl was also found. aT The place of occurrence, banian & panT of Th accused were‘found sTained wiTh human blood, slippers of The deceased were recovered aT The insTance of The accused from his place, of res dence. Hence, all These circumsTances conclusively compleTe The chan which unerringly poinT Towards The involvemeni of The accused and ased on ThaT an irresisTible conclusion can be arrived ThaT The accused wa The auThor of The crime in quesTion and There is noT possibiliTy of commiTTing The crime in quesTion by any Third person excepT ThaT of by The acc sed. In The circumsTances, we do noT find any illegaliTy or infirmiTy in The udgmenT of The Trial CourT for convicTing and senTencing The accused unde SecTion 302 of The E.P.C. for commiTTing blood on pan? & banian of fhe \\ \ The murder of Subhash. \ \ P.T.o, \\ f) l l l i l i i i i ® c h u c mmwm As far as convic‘rion and s read wifh Secfion 397 of fhe Advocm‘e was not able To argue 1“ mm§wm asmsnw ’1 /K :enfence of The accused under Secfion 394 i.P.C.. is concerned, learned Depufy Govt 1m The same is based on any legai evidence, because ihe prosecu‘rion has no? been able lo es‘i'ablish fhai‘ *he currency 'no'res which were recovered wereloofed by The accused from Subhash, as such, There is legal evidence 1'0 c > onnecl‘ The accused wi’i‘h i'he commission of b£fence under Sec‘rion 394 read wiih Sec'iion 397 of The I.P.C. ‘In The resui‘r, fhe appeal and wéhe same is‘parfiy aHowed fa under- Secfidn 3§4 read wh‘h S eonvic‘l'ion and senfence imposed fhe I.P.C. are concerned, 'rhey imposed upori fhe appellan? under I.P.C. are se'l' aside and he is acqui M sdl- ‘J L.c.BHAD,oo Judge of The accused/.appellani' par‘iiy succeeds The exfen'l- of his conviciion and sen‘rence ecfion 397 of The I.P.C. Bu'r, as far as upon i‘he appellan‘i- under Sec‘rion 302 of are maintained. Convicfion and senfence Secfion 394 read wifh Secfion 397 of fhe ‘ffed of The said charge: 5 Sd/— ’ ~DHEENDRA msrmAl a Judge if