37T^T^T f<'li<=h TT^n 3TT^T $b^i<=h 75ET -qN|0^, ^>Tn^<l<o, fst^l'y^ ^l^^l »^iich^{{..•......^3../....^.. V^ 200 3H^T Xpra? (^c|f»|c<<yST) '^TTW^f^T 3?n^?r APPELLANTS: -Ve RESPONDENT: (Appeal under Ses Division Bench: - Hon'bie Shri L.C. Bhadoo & Hon'ble Shri SunjS Kumar Sinh 28-11-200T:- Shri R.K. Jajswal, counsel Shri G.P. Kurre,counsel f Shri Sudhir Bajpaj, Depufr Oral judgment dictated on L.C. Bhadoo. J. This appeal ?s djrected ag of sentence dated 31 Octob' <=M<if<n€Dri *IIH<A* ^fs^ <P»i^i< '^3fRm<3TI^T rsus- Jagtaran aljas Taran, Son of Deendaya} Satnami, aged about 45 years, resident of viJJage Kingriyapara, Vicharpur, Police Station Kunda, Mungeli, Djstrict Kawardha, Chhattisgarh Ram Singh a!Jas Ramayan, Son of Chandrika Prasad Satnami, aged about 35 years, resident of villag® Kingriyapara, Vicharpur, Poljce Station Kunda, Mungeli, District Kawardha, Chhattlsgarh. The State of Chhattisgarh ?tion374(2)oftheCr.P.C.) ^.JJ. |for the appellant No.1. |?r the appellant No.2. ^ Govt. Advocate for the State. \Dais. ^inst the j'udgment of conviction and order ir, 2002 passed by the 2nd Additjonal 3^- r^i<<i<^A|, ^^'i^, l^f0i'y^< ^ll^dl w^l€b "^ 200 37T^T^ f<-lich 1cfsn STT^fT $t»*iich 3ni(?T xni^ (T!?^P^) '^TTW^rf^T STI^fT Sessions Judge (FTC), Mungeli, Additional Sessions Judge after] Taran guilty for commission of o| j.P.C., sentenced him to underg| Rs.10,000/-, in default of paym| years and to undergo R.I. for K default of payment of fine t^ respectjvely, whereas co-accusl convicted for commissjon of offN the S.P.C. and sentenced to uhd^ of Rs.10,000/-, in default of pay^ient and to undergo R.l. for 11 default of payment of fine t^ respectively. However, third a^ acquitted of the charges under S< prosecuvon The case of the incident j.e. 24-8-2000 accusecl Sarpanch of the viilage Nagopa|iri nephew of Jagtaran. The accus^ Kingriyapara whjch Is adjacent t4 there was meeting of Gram about 5 p.m. On 1-10-2000, chowky Surajkund, District commissjon of offence under Se< Section 216 of the !PC. On 4-1 over by CJM for investigation in <=bl<lf<rt<fll tTTH^Tf ^f^^zt <F3|^l< ^'3tfOT3TT^r n S.T. No.400/2000 whereby the learned hoiding accused/appellant Jagtaran @ "ence under Sections 302 and 333 of the imprisonment for Sife & to pay a fine of snt of fine to further undergo R.{. for 2 years & to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in further undergo R.l. for one year, )d Ram Singh @ Ramayan has been sce under Sections 302/34 and 333/34 of ^rgo imprisonment for life & to pay a fine of fjne to further undergo RJ. for 2 years & to pay a fine of Rs.5,000^-, in further undergo RJ. for one year, scused namely, Hemchandra has been ictions 302 and 333/34 of the 3.P.C. i, Sn brief, is that on the date of the j/appellant Jagtaran @ Taran was Up a|iri whereas, accused Ram Singh is the ^/appeJIants@^e the residents of village the vicinity of Vicharpur. On that day, jn the village Fasterpur, same ended at Jagtaran was arrested in the police Raridabad jn Crime No.696/2000 for ttions 25, 54 & 59-A of the Arms Act and 10-2000, accused Jagtaran was handed Ihe crime. He was arrested on 6-10-2000 Sabhb accUsed [C—78 ^T^I^Tl^J^ ^SH^TR^T^RNT ^ 3:ScT^TTzn^5'q', ^Tn'y4i<o, {c)0l'y^< TTTOW ^w^; •^ 200 3?T^?T '^^ (yiI^^T) ^KII^ ^a3TT^T dae^jty; meepng by PoliceStation Kunda, Fasterpu^ Police Station Kunda. On 24-8-30( Police Station Kunda as Assistantl £ outpost of Pandatarai, Police St^i Jagtaran @ Taran of village Vic^ committed theft, robbery and sister of Kotwar of village Sar^r committed her murder. The repo|-t No.428 at about 12.25 p.m. Mahasingh Sahu left the place a| accused. On that day, all the 3 meeting ofGram Sabha. The Mahasingh Sahu, Assistant Sub jn^ Jagtaran @ Taran & asked acci| station. Thereafter, Mahasingh Sal persons went towards Fasterpur the accused persons were Deceased Mahasingh Sahu (eft foj iMohd. Yasim (PW-T). Mahasingh accused persons on the way near saw the accused; he stopped the why he has not gone to the Polic^ accused persons asked him as to police station and said that it:wt Tabba! in his hand gave the same| attacked Mahasingh Sahu with cbl^fd^il^ *lHdl ^F^^ <fa<^i< ^T 3TRm 3TI^¥T After the arrest he was brought to the ^OOO, Mahasingh Sahu, was posted at tjSub Inspector. On 24-8-2000, police ion Kunda, received information that larpur along with his associates has i^jty, also he after committing rape with |ngpur of Pofice Station Bodla, has was regjstered jn Rojnamcha Sana (Thereafter, Assistant Sub Inspector about 12.30 noon jn search of the ^ccused persons were present in the ended at about 5 p.m. Thereafter, tpector, (since deceased) met accused |sed Jagtaran to come to the police |u went to Jaiswal Hotel & the accused |chooi, at about 6 p.m. in the evening near Primary School building. Kunda on his motorcycle along with pahu along with Mohd. Yasim met the plrim'ary school. When Mahasingh Sahu |motorcyc!e and asked Jagtaran as to Station Kunda so far, on which the |who was he to ask them to go to the ^". Ram Slngh who was carrying |to Jagtaran, in tum accused Jagtaran ITabba! on his head, at that time stan^ing ^ate I-HC—78 7vS( »<||<q|0-q, t$Tf1'MII<0, (®l<y»l<1^< @ 'WTOT '^"RT^? -^ 200 3H^T XRRp ( llc*^4^) ^n^r w. f^<ii<^ 'cT8?! ^TT^T s^^icti ^' '^RTTW^lf^T 3H^T Mahasingh Sahu was sitting onthe Yasim fell down from the motorcyl Sahu. Accused Jagtaran attackedj Sahu fe!I down from the motord Mahasingh Sahu with Tabbal, as sj instantaneously. Mohd. Yasim (PW-7) lod^ed at about 6,30 p.m. on 24-8-2000^ cM<<I<n<iii *iM<;it ^fe^ <(^i^i< '^3fRP:T3T1^T motorcycle. However, witness Mohd. ;Ie. Assault of Tabbal hit Mahasingh twlce, as a result ofwhjch Mahasingh yc!e. Jagtaran continued to attack result of which Mahasingh Sahu died the report in the Police Station Kunda hich was registered under Ex.P/18 by head constable Ram Lakhan. He r^gistered merg intimation Ex.P/43 at S. No.19/2000. The jnvestigation wa^ taken up by PW-14 V.K. Singh, SHO, Police Station and by Umesh Gar^. (PW-15) Sub inspector, after givjng notice Ex.P/1 to the Panchas, jnqijest on the body of the deceased was prepared under Ex.P/2. The body| (RA/-6) Dr. P.L. Kurre conduc| postmprtem report Ex.P/7. He opjrl was sent for postmortem examination. |ed the postmortem and prepared ed that cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of injurie^ on the head. Accused Ram Singh gave memorandum Ex.P/30, in pu|-suance of that memorandum, TabbaJ was seized under Ex.P/30-A. CJothjes of accused Jagtaran @ Taran were seized under Ex.P/24 based cn t|ie jnemorandum given by him under Ex.P/23. Sjte p!an Ex.P/22 was pr^pared by Patwari. Recovered artictes were sent for chemical examinationl where report Ex.P/39 was receive^ received. As per the Serologjst's| 'Jagtaran were found stained with h^ to the FSL, Raipur under Ex.P/37 from [. Serologist's report Ex.P/44 was also 1 report, Shirt and Pajama of accused ^man blood. r- L^ HC—78 'S^ -q|^|0<<, ^^^1(0, fs|<^l'y^< @ t?ro^' 'sR^?^ -^ 200 3H^?T'q^R (^l^^T) W^T'SFrl^jW WT <^i^i ^rpN? '^nw^CTf^T 3?n^r chl^td^l^ *lH<?ff^fe^ <P»i^i< ^^iRm^n^r After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was fited against the accused persons In the Coi|rt of Judidal Magistrate, 1 CIass, Mungeli, who in turn committed thejcase to the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, from where Jearned Addrtional S^ssions Judge received the case on transfer for tria!. The prosecution in order 1 persons were recorded under Seoti o establish the charges against the accused persons examined 15 wl^nesses. Statements of the accused bn 313 ofthe Cr.P.C. m which each of the accused denied material appe^jring against them, stated that they are innocent and have been falsely imp|icated in the crime. Learned Additional Session^ for the respective parties convicte namely, Jagtaran @ Taran & Ram Judge after hearing learned counsel d and sentenced accused/appellants SJngh @ Ramayan as aforesaid and acquitted accused Hemchandra of 41! the charges. We have heard leamed coun^el for the parties. Learned counsel for the a| homicidal death of Mahasingh Sah| &cused/appeSlants have not disputed \s. .Moreover, PW-7 Mohd. Yasim has stated in his evidence that accusecf Jagtaran attacked the deceased with Tabba! on his head, as a result o|f which he sustained injuries and feil down. This ocular evidence is cotroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. P.L Kurre (PW-6). He has stafled that on 25-8-2000 at about 10 a.m. he was worklng in the Primary S-|eaith Centre, Pandariya as Assistant Surgeon. Onthat day he was call^d by the Police Station Pandariya for n -HC—78 3:n^r^Tft[^ ^CT^n^Twm? 'S^ "i4|A||<r>q, ^Tfl-y'Ko, is)<7'»l'(-l^< 'wmr ^w^ W^ 200 3TT^S?T TR'SR (TI?ty^) ^wiW ^lia 3?n^T conducting postmortem. He con<|ucted deceased at 10 a.m. He noticed fcjjlowing (0 (H) face, size of9cm x2 cm x2 cm near injury (iv) (V) (VJ) (vii) (viii) Incised wound on th^ Incised wound in the| no.(i), Indsed wound jn the|size of 8cm x 1 cm x 3 cm on the right side of Mandible ext^nding up to the neck, size of 13 cm x 2 cm on the right [ tip to the bone, |size of 13 cm x 2 cm bone deep right incised wound in t^| tempora( region deep| !ncised wound in the| tempo parietal region| Lacerated wound in bone on the n'ght sid^ Incised wound in the| the left parietal regior^ Incised wound in the Skul! bone was cut, which v^ There were 9 abrasions, which wei| the body. He has further stated ths mandibie was found cut beneath ir coming out. The margins of the inj present injuries were ante morter^ , and haemorrhage as a result of account of head injury. jn vjew of jt is establishe,d that death of the d< <=bl^fd41»1Wraf '^,fel^t <rai^i< ^3tRm3TI^T postmortem on the body of the injuries:- ^he size of 4 cm x 2 cm deep up to the of forehead, |size of 11 cmxVz cm x bone deep on in the shape of half moon, ^ize of 7 cm x Vs cm. ^as near Occipjtal bone on the left side. fe of different cn different parts of ^t on opening the body head of the right Ijury Nos.4, 5 and 8. Brain matter was luries were reddish. CIotted blood was in nature. Cause of death was shock i|ijurSes. In his opinion, death was on flie above ocular and medical evidence, iceased was homjcidal in nature. -HC—78 3^' .^|<qi0<q, ^)Tn^<|(o, is)<7'»l<1^< '%^yir ^???^ W^ 200 3TT^?T XHR? (4ftf^<^) ^TT^T^TTl^N' WT^R^^Ii^ ^wiW <if^a 3?n^T «=M<if<n<ili *iM<?iY ^fe^ <t^t^i< ^^iRFr^n^r As far as compti'city of the a<| is concemed, conviction primiarily Yasim. He has stated that on thel tcused persons in the crime in question "ests cn the testimony of PW-7 Mphd. fatefu! day at about 2 p.m. he went to Fasterpur to bring certain items fijom the shop of Rajju Mistri. He has stated that he along with Keshav, Manish and Kamlesh were talkjng on the bicycle shop of Manish. Ther^after, they went to tea stal! vvhere they consumed tea. Thereafter, he r^turned to Rajju Mistri's shop where Mahasingh Sahu, Assistant Sufc^ In^ his motorcycJe. He enquired frorr^l then he said that yes, he will go. h| Thereafter, he along with Mahasii^ accused Taran was sitting. Mahas] He went near accused Taran, a^ Thereafter, Mahasingh Sahu aske^ pector, came. He was getting repaired him as to whether he wiil go to Kunda, e has personal work with some person. gh Sahu went to Jaiswa! hotel where ngh Sahu asked him to sit in the hotel; •ked him and thereafter he returned. I him let us go to Kunda. When they reached to a triangle point of M'charpur, they saw Taran, on which Mahasingh Sahu asked him that !^t him meet Taran again where Taran, Ram Singh and one other person ^ere standing. Mahasingh Sahu asked to the police station, on which Ram Singh and other persons asked Ta^an that "Tfl^ "OT^ "^11. Taran snatehed Tabbal from Ram Singh and att^cked Mahasingh Sahu with the said Tabbal, which hit on the head of M^ as a result of which Mahasingh S^ running from that place. Shri R.K. Jaiswal, counsel 1 witness js stock witness of the po!i( ihasingh Sahu. Again he attacked him, hu fe!l down from the motorcycle. He br the appellant No.1, argued that this ;e as hjs shop is near the police station. ^^^, ^. ^.. f&^ 1 1 I [C^78 3^cf -41^1^, ^•<fl'M41<o, Is|0W^< ^Wdl **<l«b V^ 200 3T7^T?FT'f^N ^STT <3TT^T $h^icb 31^t?T ^ra? ( yif^<ysT) '^nw^rf^n^n^r Moreover, as per h?s evidence, bus, which was at a distance o|f but he did not disclose this fact produced by the prosecution. single witness conviction record| On the other hand, learhed counsel for the State supported the judgment ofthe trial Court. appell^nt this Having heard learned c\ evidence of PW-7 Mohd. Yasjrti advanced by counsel for infirmity in cross-examination of this witness or to estabJish that t(i he has deposed in favour of th^ his presence on the scene of because the shop of this witn< ground to discard evidence of t|i of this witness some materiaS presence of this witness as presence of this witness on evidence of PW-8 Keshav. He murder of Mahasingh Sahu wa^ Taran near hotel. He was chev<| stated that Kamlesh, Pavan, the bicycle shop of Manish at aE of this witness. presence of cbi^f<n<i1i 'HTR^f '^,feT^t <f^t<^K ^a^fRm^^n^r ic went to the police station by boarding a 10-12 km from the place of occurrence, to anybody. No other witness has been herefore, on testimony of such unreliable 'd by the trial Court is bad in law. ^unsel for the parties, we have perused In order to substantiate the argument No.1, he was unable to point out any this witness which discredit evidence of t|iis v^itness is stock witness of the police & police in many cases or to establish that oc|currence doubtful. Moreover, mere!y |ss was near police station cannot be a tbis witness. Unless in cross-examination |is brought on record whjch establishes dopbtful on the place of occurrence, rather the|place of occurrence is established by the (as stated that on the fateful day when the I committed at Fasterpur, he saw accused |ng pan near push trolley. He has further Mo^d. Yasim and Manish Raj were sitting on tout 12-1 noon. Therefore, from evjdence j^ohd. Yasim, Mahasingh Sahu and the -HC—78 Tc^T^Fn^-, ?siT{i'yli<s, fci^i-y^< 9 ^IWW ^^l^ -^ 200 ^T^T^Tf^?N? TT^H 3T?t^{'^^NT 3H^?T XRy^ (^l^^T) ^^nw^f^T 3?n^r accused at the pjace of occurren^ cross-examined on this aspect. of Sardarji, has stated that on thej Fasterpur to Kunda. Mohd. Yasirr^ 6 p.m. in the evening. Therefore, rest of his evidence, he has been Yasim traveled in hjs bus from Fa| day, it establishes presence of Therefore, presence of Mohd. Y^ village Fasterpur has been by the evidence of PW-4 !smyle before this Court to disbelieve the i^e is established and he has not been M4>reover, PW-4 Ismyle, driver of mini bus jTateful day he was taking the bus from lcame and he boarded the bus at about |from the evidence of PW-4 IsmyJe, for fcJeclared hostile, but the fact that Mohd. :a^terpur to Kunda at 6 p.m. in the same ^Iohd. Yasim in the village Fasterpur. |sim on the date of the incident in the by his evidence and corroborated ^nd RA/-8 Keshav. There is no reason fevidence to that extent. apsi establfehed As far as argument of lea| PW-7 Mohd. Yasim did not disdol way from Fasterpur to Kunda is c^ place, this witness was going to t^ anything to any witness during disbelieve his evidence unless an^ person met him, there was no net about the incident, as he himself the report and he immediately rept Shri Jaiswal argued that injuries were jnflicted whereas, doctor's evidence, as many as 17| deceased,dyt of those,9 injuries cbl<<f<yl<Ill ^W<^ ^fe^ <f^1^1< ^3ffiR3TT^r I'ned counsel that this witness namely; »eto anybody about the incident on the >ncemed, since murder of one ASI took |e poiice station itself, if he has not said h|is journey, that cannot be a ground to ^body enquired from him or some known t^essity for him to disclose to everybody ^as going to the police station to lodge >rted the matter to the police statjon. |this witness has stated that only two is per the postmortem report and the injuries were noticed on the body of the ^vere abrasions. 37T^T ^T fqil^ TfSH STT^T sb^Jcfr 7^( ^ww^^ ^Tn'yli<o, fs)^i^^< 10 W^v\l **<!<*» "^ 200 3n^?r xnra? (llc(^<?) ^mw^feT^^r -examinOTon r^n Perusal of cross-examin^ stated that he saw accused hjs head twjce, thereafter, he r^i to attack. Therefore, from th\ discrepancy between ocular anc< related to the deceased jn any to implicate the accused perso^ Assistant Sub Inspector of RO{JC|E against Taran, therefore, it was| search of the accused. He pojjce station. Therefore, as f^ Taran is concemed, same is jnfirmity in the judgment of the tr| Ram Singh has been establishe^ stated that Ram Singh and third| Jagtaran @ Taran snatched Ta} attacked with that Tabbai. The question remains as to the extent that he was sharin^ murder of Mahasingh -Sahu, as ^< the first instance, when Mahasin^ the police station, thereafter Mat^asingh Fasterpur on motorcyde, on th^ Ram Singh and one person mo( why he has not gone to the poJic^ cbl<lf<yl<fll "RfR^Tf ^\'fec3t <RH<$I< ^^^Rm^n^r of this witness reveals that he has Tar^n attacking the deceased with Tabba! on away, even thereafter Taran continued above evidence, we do not find any medical evidence. This witness was not rhanner. There was no reason before him |s in a false crime that too for murder of k, as some criminal case was registered [but natura! for Mahasingh Sahu to go in met| the accused and asked him to go to the ir as compjidty of accused Jagtaran @ es^blished. We do not find any jliegality or |al Court to that extent. Even presence of by the evidence of this witness. He has ipersonsaid that <ITTRt ^l^ "^t". Accused >bal which Ram Singh was carrying and whether act of accused Ram Singh was common intention with Taran to commit er the evidence and prosecution case, jn |h Sahu met Taran, he asked him to go to Sahu was retuming to Kunda from way he saw accused Taran along with e, he went near Taran, asked him as to station, cn which Ram Singh along with ~s:^( '-^w\^, ^-^\w\<o, ^^wy, 11 W^v\\ tb*4|cb ^ 200 3H^?T X|5R? (<ic<fj,fl<<^) ^TT^r^T'f^ri^ ^SH -3RTI^[ sti^ic^ '^TOFC'^F^T'STI^T cbl^id^l'l TTIT^f ^r.fe^t <Pn^i< ^^ifim'sn^r ^ utter^d tHe Sirlgh eontmon thlrd person said to have Taran snatched Tabbal which attacked. The word "^ ^HT^I Singh was sharing common int^ the deceased. Even as per snatched Tabba! from Ram act of any kind has been attribi|ted Ram Singh is that he uttered termed as he was sharing the other hand, It can be said the deceased. Therefore, at th^ for abetment of an offence und^ whjch envisages that punishmetit with a different intention from that voiuntarily causing hurt fo duties. Therefore, jt could not commit the murder of the concerned, from the evidencej which Jagtaran @ Taran snaf agai'nst Ram Singh does not tra^ word "W^ ^fT^ ^}", on whlch accused ;o-accused Ram Singh was carrying and ^' cannot be termed that accused Ram intion wjth Taran to commit the murder of evidence of PW-7 Mohd. Yasim, Taran and attacked the deceased. No overt to Ram Singh. The aiiegation against ;he word "^TKt ^T^ ^5, same cannot be intention to commit the murder. On Ihat the accused abetted Taran to assault most, accused Ram Singh couid be guilty tr Section 332 in view of Section 110 IPC, of abetment jf person abetted act of abettor. Sedion 332 IPC envisages |deter public servant from discharging his ?'said that Ram SJngh in fact exhorted to As such, as far as Ram Singh is [available on record and the manner in tched Tabba! from Ram Singh, offence ^el beyond Section 332/110 of the I.P.C. tHat tfe dec^ased As far as conviction of Shri Jaiswal argued that there accysed Jagtaran @ Taran atta his death, rather injuries were jccused Jagtaran @ Taran is concemed, (s nothing on record which suggests that fcked the with jntention to cause infljcted in a sudden quarrei, therefore, ,^^^^^ ^^"^ 1 7vS[ ^||<l||^<q, ^Tfl'y4!^, fsf^l^y 12 KINdl (b^lcb "^ 200 3^?T TRW Cq^P^T) 3?T1^T ^TT f<Tl[<=h TT^T'STI^T 5FRW ^RnW^rf^^T^T cbl^id^'1 'RTR^f '?f,'fec3t <fa^i< i^^tfim^n^T accused Jagtaran @ Taran is SectionSOOofthel.P.C. ntitled for the benefit of ExceptJon IV to On the other hand, jear^ed counse! for the State supported the judgment ofthe trial Court. In order to appreciate th< for the appeilant, we have perus we peruse the evidence of PW-1 that in the first instance Maha^ hjm for about 5 minutes and re| with Mohd. Yasim were going Mahasingh Sahu saw Taran alc| When deceased Mahasingh Sat not gone to the police station so| by sayjng l!:tTKlr ^TT^ ^T'. Taran Sahu with that. He caused as wound on vital parts of the bod^ bone of face and head cut the accused suggests that he weapon j.e. TabbaJ on vital part. he asked the accused to go to case against him. When secon< to the police station so far the with Tabba!. In the first instanc< In order to attract the provisjon I.P.C. it is necessary that there argument advanced by learned counse! |ed evidence. For the sake of repetition if Mohd. Yasim, he has categorically stated |ngh Sahu went to Taran, he talked with irned thereafter. Mahasingh Sahu atong p Kunda cn his motorcycle, cn the way, <ng with two other persons. He met him. |u asked accused Taran as to why he has |far, on which Ram Singh exhorted Taran matehed Tabbal and attacked Mahasingh rfiany as 7 jncised wounds, one Sacerated j.e. face and head, as a result of which ^nd he died instantaneously. This act of ^ttacked the deceased with deadly iron {)f the body. VVhi!e discharging his duties |:he poJice station, as there was crimina} |time he asked as to why he has not gone |ccused became angry and attacked him t, there was no quarrel between the two. i^of Exception IV to Section 300 of the ^nust be sudden quarrel or fight, which js J /f5''^^-^ '^•.. -^. '^ '.^ • ^} E—78 7SSS ^Nl<?)><4, ^>TH<-l<l<o, (S101'y^< 13 TlTfTPIT *NI<=b -^ 200 3?T7^T ^T'R[;ri?T TfSTT 3:TT^T ^HT^ 3^?r'^TO (4c<i^<<^) ^^nw^rf^^^ cbl^id^'1 ^T^f ^f,1^1 'rf^p^ ^^ifipT^n^r aosent in thls case. On the con|rary, Mahasingh Sahu asked the accused to go to the police station, wifhout any rhyme or reason, the accused attacked the deceased while h^ was discharging his duties, with deadly weapon on vital part of the bod^, on account of merciJess attack made by the accused Mahasingh Sahu <pied instantaneously. Therefore, intention of the accused to cause death| of the deceased was writ Sarge. in the drcumstances, we do not find a|iy iilegality or infirmity in the finding of the tria! Court convicting the accuse^ for commjssion of offence under Section 302 of the J.P.C. for committlngj the murder of Mahasingh Sahu. As the lv. accused has been convjcted ahd sentenced under Section 302 of the I.P.C., his conviction and sent^nce under Section 333 of the !.P.C. is unnecessary. !n the resuit, the appeal '^ respect of accused Ram Singh is partly ailowed. Conviction and senten^e jmposed upon hjm under Sections 302 read wlth Section 34 and 333 r4ad with Section 34 of the I.P.C. are set aside and he is acquitted of t^e said charges, instead thereof, he is convicted under Section 332/11C| of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years. It is stated ^iat Ram Singh was jn detention from 25-8-2000 to 25-8-2001 and ther^after from the date of the judgment i.e. 31-10-2002 up to 24-11-2006, ^hereby he has already undergone the sentence imposed upon hjm. V^ie order dated 24-11-20C^ Ram Singh was granted bail. His baii bo|ids are discharged and he need not surrender to the bail bonds. '• .,:^' ";-';-. ^vXI-SHC—78 iw-*&: W^T^l ^jch ^T^T ^n^T $h^|cb ^-^- 3^'^rar^T, »TQ'MII(S, (s)<?»i^^< 14 Nl^c^l sbNlcb ff3 -^ 200 3:n^?r ^S^K (^S^^) '^ITW ^rf??T 3?T^T The appeai of accused dismjssed. Conviction and sen 302 ofthe I.P.C. are maintained. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge c»)i^f<rt<fli^i*i<^T '?,fel3t <F»|^I< '^37^p:r3n^r ^jagtaran @ Taran fails and same is bnce