C—78 an^iy Vw* '^\ -sv^ sta*ii^ 7531 ^WW-il, •3'iS\WI<a, KlViWy, -—....£^:.A»..^o.;.^a.<:^.._ •WRTT y^^--^—1-'-1-1^——'^^^---^ 200l^ 3nS!?r TBR? (1Iclf35R?T) APPELLANT: -\f4Irsus- RESPONDENT: <f. :•.( (Criminat appealundet .B.: - Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhaddo & Hon'bSe Shri Dhirendra Mishra. JJ. 6-7-2007:- Oral judgment dictated on L.C. Bhadoo.J. This appea! is directed ag age ofsentencedated 8-11-2001 pa; Surajpur, in S.T. No.65/2000 after holding the Section 302 of the I.P.C.; for Chameli, sentenced him tbtinde The case of the PW-1 Viphal Ram lodged a r<ra «*l<l[^f^l-l_*fi*i^ ^^siT <P4^i< "^ ^iRtfl^ni^f Jageshar @ Timoriha, S/o Ramsunder, aged 29 years, Occupation Labour, R/o village Batra, P.S. Jainagar. State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Jainagar. Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C.) ocate witti Shri Anand Pandey, Advocate Shri D.R. Sharma, Sr. Ad+ for the appellant. Shri Ashish ShuMa, Ad()itional Public Prosecutor for the State/ respondent. Dais. sinst the judgment ofconviction ahd order tsed bytheS Additional Sessions Judge, wtlereby learned Additional Sessions Judge accused/appeU^nt guilty for commission of offence under tcommitting murder of his wife namely, j'go imprisonmentfor !ife. pr®secuti|onis that on 28-9-99 ataboeit 11.30 p.m. tport in the.police chowky Karji, Pqltee XI-HG—78 S^ET "fnw^, •s^\wi<c, Isicii'y^ MWv^V *^|ch Wt. 200 W^T ^1% ('^?^5W> •3II^I'?ff1^RT TfKn ^TT^T shqiqi q>n[<l<i)l *fl*«^<f fe'S^ ^IW^R ^SJfOT 311^1 Station Jainagar to the effect th| was taking his meal,^ccused ^ that he has committed murder (j enquired from Jageshar as to v| shs wanted to 'eave his kibusel •^ Eioint some attercation took pla< he called Somarsai, Loro @ R^mbudhi, Ramsunder and Sukhanand he made extra jydicial confession Officer left for scene of occurre body of the deceased. He pr< ^t in between 8.30 p.m. to 9 p.m. when he |ageshar came to his house and iriformed |f his wife by attacking with axe. When he ^hy he had attacked her, he disclosed that twhereas, he wanted to keep her, on that ;e and he attacked her with axe, on which before them. Based on that, FIR Ex.-P/2 was registered. Merg intimati(|)n Ex.-P/14 was given. The Investigating |nce and prepared inquest Ex.-P/10 i0n the Ipared site plan of the place of occurrence under Ex.-P/11. One axe, on^ bucket, broken bangles of the deceased, p!ain soil and blood stained soif were seized from the place of occurrence under Ex.-P/S. White dhoti a under Ex.-P/4. The dead bod^ hd T-shirt were seized from the accused of the deceased was sent for postmbrtem examination to the Primary H^alth Centre, Bishrampur where PW-11 Dr. Ashutosh Gupta conducted po P/16-A and opined that cause ^ death was haemorrhagic shock and head injury. Deaft was homicidal in| After completion of the Court of Additiona! Chief Jij committed the case to the ^tmOrtem, prepared postmortem report Ex.- nature. investigation, charge sheet was filed in the idicial Magistrate, Surajpur, who in turn Sessions Judge, Ambikapur from where learned Additional Sessions Ji^dge received the case on transfer for trial. The prosecution in oijder to establish the charge against the accused examined 11 witness^s. Stetement of the accusedwas recorded \ - 1. -. . under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in ^vhfch he denied material appearing against XI-HG—78 3rcT "i(iq|(rt<<, ®T(i<H'|iS,.fs|<4|y^< *1t*1dt shtilcb "^200 SS^f 1I31% (iyF-|«l<il!l) 311^1 ?iT R(-<i=h TPff -3TT^?T gb+iw <bi<if<n<ni 'HFT^f^ls1^ <fa|^i< ^r^tRnTsn^T him in the prosecution evidence, falsely implicated in the crime. Learned Additional Sessi^ for the respective parties, con|victed aforementioned. stated that he is innocent gnd has been ns Judge after hearing learned counse! and sentenced the accused as ii. We have hsard learned Learned counse! for the al virtually there is no evidence tcj question. The case of the pro^ judicial confession before PW-1 and PW-4 Budhi. All these witnl not supported the prosecution Court has convicted the accusedl was found in the house of the ac< the accused whereas, there is| establish that the accused committed during the day and thf connect the accused with the On the other hand, lea| supported the judgment ofthe Having heard learned evldence. It is true that PW-1 ^ and PW-4 Bydhi have turned prosecution case. Even they that accused made extta judit eommitting murder of hiswife. cdunsel c6se. fortheparties. at;cused/appellant argued that in this case connect the accused with the crime in tecution is that the accused made extra Viphal Ram, PW-2 Somarsai, PW-3 Kisun i^sses have turned hostile and they have He further argued that learned trial |on the ground that body of the deceased :used and the matter was not reported by not an iota of evidence on record to seen in the house. Offence was ire is no other cireumstantial evidence to inquestion. 1-ned counsel for the State/respondent Court. for the parties, we have perused ppha! Ram, PW-2 Somarsai, PW-3 Kisun llostile and they have not supported the not supported the prosecution case ;ial confession before them regarding ?, only question remains that body was was crirtie triil coUnsel hbve Now, XI-HG—78 311^15^ R;"<i?h 'tTSTT 3n^?T sh*l Barve ~S^^W^, w^wis, Ri^i'yy MIMrtl **<!* WI. 200 an^OT ^ra; (ljt<('l«i<{w) found in the house ofthe accuse police? But there is no evidenc^ w^s seen in the houss where de] was seen nearby the house. As] the matteris concemedl 'i-~f- •• requjred to bring som®e^idencl withln the knowledge ofthe acc| fhe house. But there is nothind though as per FSL report, on Dh| blood was found. But there is nd blood that too of the blood grou^ the basis of FSL report the accu^ question. There is no other ev crime in question. Therefore, conviction and sentence impo; Section 302 of the I.P.C. cannot aside. In the result, the appeal| imposed upon the accused/appeplant set aside. Hg is acquitted of th< stated to be in detention since should_be relea.se.djorthwith, if n4 Sd/. L.C. Bhadoo Judge 7 cbi<itct4ii^p^'^^^ <r3i<^« ^sfRprsn^CT d and he did not report the,matter tothe to show that during th®day the accused ad body of the deceased was found or he far as question that the accused has not in the first instance, the prosecution was i on record that establishes that jt was ised that his wife has been murdered in on record to establish that fact. Even 3ti, Baniyan and T-shirt (G-1 , G-2 & G-3) serologist's reportthat blood was hUman of the deceased. Therefore, merely on ed cannot be connected with the crime in dence to connect the accused with the we are of the considered opinion that ;ed upon the accused/appellant under se sustained and same is liable to be set is allowed. Conviction and sentence under Section 302 ofthe I.P.C. are • said charge. The accused/appetlant is 29-9-99, therefore, it is directed that he i.t required \nanv other case. Sd/- ; Dhirendra Mishra Judge