3^' ^WW^, ©xfi'M1Ko, [s|(^l^^< • ^, ^^:....A^.o..,..3..9.7/°.C^ ^ 3n^?T xy^F (^cif^^) (c? ^n^r^rl^F ^TT^TT^T sb^licb k Jali G02 Kol Dh 3|id, Occupation- HaniaJi, R/o village |lyari, PaadaridaBri, P.S. Sihava, Distt,. i^iiits-ii (CG) |uS •Tb St£ ShriD.N. Pra-japati, Adv< Shri Neera] Mehta, Pane ^. 'l'ms crmiiB.al appeal convic-tion and order of sentenj m S.T. No. 269/2004 wherel^ Dhaiiitari has coiwicted the' sentencea to unctergo KA, tor default of'payment offnie, to ii| '^: . Case ol Uie prosecution,) 10.00 pm, a.ppellaiit Jal-iel Sf (P.W. 1) sitaated at Kanidabri| '5omar yaigli, &rotiier-ni-iaw fired al. him aad caAised-Dullt which, he feU down. Somaj|- Dhaintari Hospital for treatin| CM<if<n4i ^i^<nT ^* Fs^) <P»1^|< i^ ^tRpT an^r 11 Siiigh, aged about 45 yeai's, Kaiihai State of Chhattisgarh, through Polk:e |:iou Siliaya, Distt» Dhauitaii (CG) cate for tlie a]3pellaat, Law\~er for the State. ciirectec! agamst me -jucigment ot :e dated 22nd September, 200o passed y leanied. Addifcional Sessions Judge, ai^ijellaut under Sectk5H 307 ofI.P,C. and years witii lin.e ol Ks. ^UU/- anu m ndergo addition.al R.I, for one monfh, in bric^ m fh.al on 17-5-2004 at about igh weut to the house of Dhaniram 'oUiery aiid started quarreimg. When >f Dhaiiiram came out, the appellaiit :t nijuries oa his chest as a result of Siiigh (P.W. 2] was llrst tal^en to nt aad from therc he was referred'to ^w^ ^Nk g^m^r, <H^i^iici:— FS/59—8/2007 —30,000. 3^'«^1<110^,y»Tn'M41<S,IsK'X^y (^r.^-No.l9'7/°s~ ^Wv\\ **<(cb """••"••"••••••••"--•••"•-—•--•"-•^ 200 3H^?T'^ra^ (4clf^<^) 3?n^T^r'f^fw ^T^TT^T sbHlcb ^ Medical CoUege Hospital, Raij on 18-5-2004 at abont 1 mvestigetion, on Uie memoran Bharmar gun was taken iiito sent for medicai examiiiatiDU report of th.e Christiaii Hospit sent for niedical exaBiniation P-9 ajid' his Medico Legal ej /Thakur is Ex. P-11. The Chit victiin to Medical College Hosi Singh of Christian Hospital, E| ofSomar Siiigh (P.W. 2} ofMei- After coinpletiiig Uie uiv( Coii.rfc of Judicial Magistrate F| receiveci ou trajister Dv tiie trial. . Duriiig tri.al, the pros^ 'i'ii.ereatter statemeut ol- tiie a<l( the evideuce appeariiig agai|: pleaded iiiuocence ai].d false| aiid senteuced fhe appelleiit ^ Leamed counsel for fU^ the appellaB.t is based on tliel CM^<n<fl'i ^H<yiT ^f fs^ <p»i^i< '^'^rRwsT^r |ur, Report of tlie iiicideut was lodged .30' by Dhaaii'am DliiTiva. Duriiig tiiim of the appeUmit, one siiigle ba^rcl lossession vide Ex. P-4/The victim.was ChristiaTi Hospital, Dhaaitari aad the |.al is Ex, P-12. The accused was also |.o GoveniDient Hospital, Nagri vide Ex, [amin.atiou report given .by Dr. D.R. Istiaii Hospital, Dhamtari referred the |itai, Kaipur, Uisciiarge ticKet ol ^omar |haiiitari is Ex, P-12. Ti'eatmeut papers lical CoUege, Raipur are Ex, P-14. 'stigatiDn,. charge sheetwas filed iii the [rst Class; Dhaiiitari and me sain.e was eanied Additional Sessious Judge for 'ution exaiiiiiied 14 witnesses ui aii, msed was reconled in which he denied ist hmi ia the prosecutiou case mipiicatiou. 'i'iie tnai Uouil:. couvicteci mentioned in para 1 ofuie judgment. appellaiit subniits fhal coiiviction of statement ofvictini Somar Singh [P.W. we^r ^k y^ii^, <M^i^iic< ^ps/59—8/2007 —so.ooo. ^TT^T^T Ri'ticb WT^T^T $h^l<=b ^3^^ r<<l't<10<<, ^T{1y<o, («1<?'>1<1^< ^-...^:;...^..:...No.:..137^C, ^Wv\\ vhW^....... ."............................^............^ 200 ^^ J^^K (4C<^<^) ^KII^ <if^a ^n^T !2] aiid nis Di-otlier-m.-law Di statement of the victim Som^ appeUant fired at hiiu 4 time| out •trom. his body. He has gh exaiaiD.ation-iii-chie^ he has will MUI iimi aiici 111 tiie cros) accuseci ncver saict D.elore tiie l3.as m.acle matenal uiiprovemt that Dhamiram (P.W. 1) was| iimiseil iias aumrttecl 111 para| tlie person who fired and ev| neeing. . Other eye-witnessej Laxmichaiid (P.W. 7) who hav| iiicident, have not supportec| them have uot stated fhat t] Siagh. Memoraiidum and rec^ the weapQU haye not be^: memorajidum and seizure P^ 5 Motyal have not supported] was argued that P.W. 1.3 Dr. f Singh on 18-5-2004 and gav| aiiy deimite opiniou ebout th4 olfence by which Uie nijuiy ^| Saiiyal (P.W. 14) m pai-a 4 cni^f<rt4i *ii^<yiT'^f f^4i1 <pii^i< '^^fRm^T^T l.aiitrain (P.W.lj. From peiTisal of the 4r Stngh, it would be evident that the however only two pallets were taken jeu coutradictory stateiD.eiit thal iii the |stated tliat the appeilaiit said tuat he |$-examm.ation, he has stated fhat the^ ciate ol mcicient mat lie wili. Kili iimi. i-ie |ut iii his deposition. He furtlier agued •not eve-witness of the iB.cident.as he |5 of his depositfon Uiat he did not see "bn he did not see him while he was namely Balaram (P.W. 6A) aiid been examiiied as eve-witiiesses of t-he tlie case of the pros.ecution. Botli of ley saw tlie appenant firmg at Somar wery at tlie mstaiice ot me appeUaiit ot n e'sta.blished as Uie witnesses ol' V. 3 Chhaiin-Li, P.W. 4 Pusau, aiid P.W. tu.e case of the prosecutiDU. Las'Uy, it (oshaii Upadhyay who examiiied Somar |e. his report of Ex, P-12 has uot given nature ofme iojuiy aiid.the weapon of |as caused, Sim.ilariy, Dr. Ashok Kumar las aclmittea tiiat Irom penisai ot tlie ?TT^k ^Nk g^TTOT, <l^^i^lJc| —FS/59— 8/2007 —30,000. ^i^r^Rr1^ra> ^IT^H^T $CTNr l^ 3:5^':^FTT^T, ^Tt1'y<|(o, {s«»>l<iy _...fe:A:.....^- 737/6^-- *<INdl <b*<(cb ••••••""••——"• T—"""^ 200 3n^?T 1?5RR (4C<^<^) ^ ^nw^Tf^n^r documeuts of Ex, P-13 aiid E: condition of tlie patient was n^ sirapie. On tlie other haild, lean the impugned judgmeut. I have heaixl leanied 001 record as also the iaipugned jt Dr. Ashok Kumar Sairv^ College Hospital, Raipur h operation on Somar Snigh wh|3 2004 aiid was discharRed cn Ex. P-16. This wituess has sf guu. sliot iii]un7 Mi- his teft chej as-m. On 27-5-2004 aiiotlier Ifi chest -of Somar Siagh. He has| me conciitiou ot tlie patient -w| has elso admitted that he is it is not in a positiou to distin| was uot present at tiie tmie that fh@ mjury was caused fi} tiiat iii tue report, rt is uow| primaiy treatment, Uie patie^ inaDility to state as to irom w.|: ^^ 'WT^if "^ f^si' <P»I^I< ^3TRpT3Ti^T :. 14 aad Ex, P-15, it appears fhat the )rmal aa.d injuiy sustaio.ed by him was ^ed counsel for the State has supported insel fbr tlie parti.es. l have penised the idgment. . |1(P.W. 14), General Surgeon of Medical !a^ treated Emd • performed surgical -) was admitted iii his hospital on 18-5- 5th June> 2004 vkie Discharge Tlcket of Lated Uiat Somar Siiigh has sustamed »tand bullet was .taken out Irom his left iiUet "was retrieved from. back portion of admitted izi fhe cross-exaiEiiB.atiou that is iiormai ao.cl ia]unes were smiple. He ot guu siiot specialist anci merelore, lie uish between paHet aad bullet aiid he st operation tlierctore, lie cannot opuie )m front or back. He has also admitted lere m.entioned tliat 311 Uie aDsence ol could die. He has also- expr^ssed his at distaiice, fire was shot at hiai. ^ii^cR^ ^W ^uii^, <i^^i^iH —FS/59— 8/2007 —30,000. ^i^r^r'fN^ WT3TT^T sFqNr fc- 75^ '<<t<11<?»^, t$T{i'y41fi, fs|<»l>l^f^< 79?/^ ^TOCT g^^""" •••••••"•" "rl"^ 200 3^?T Jf^K (J^^^) /^. ^^nw^rf^T^n^r P.W. 13 Dr. Roshaii CM<if<n4i 'HFFJf 'Sj 1^zt- Tf^R^R i73fRw3H^T Upadhyay is Surgeon of Christian Hospital, DhaintBri, He exam|u.ied Somar Siiigh 011 18-5-2004 aiid fouud two injuries ou tlie left ou the back portiou of siz.e 1 ^ ofsame siz.e. There wcre 4 ma.1 tront side ofthe chest aiid two nijuries 1 cm. The Injuries 011 botli sides were 'ks of injuries on the froiit side aiid t\¥o mai'ks on back sicle. After pi-^uan7 tre.at.ment, he refeiTed tlie patient to Medical College Hospital, R< stated iii th.e cross-exaiiiiuaty wea]3on th.e iiyury was caiised] Thus from. fhe stateme the statement ofDr Ashok Ki|i.mar Sajiyal (P.W. 14), it is evident that Somar Smgh sustam.ed gun me vital part of chest on '^ iniuries, iiitentioB.-of tlie ap]l |dpur and his report is Ex. P-12. He has ^n that he caj.iuot ophie as to by what it of victim Somar Sin.gh (P.W. 2) aiid short iiijuries aj.id two patlets/buUets were retrieved from his left ar|ii, Lookhig t.o Uie weapon of offence ailcl 7hich fhe iiijured sustaiaed guu shot cllant of causuig deafh of the 'injured Somar Sin:gh has been rightly|iiilerred, 1-Tomtlie perusal ol tiie] evident Uiat he had gone to t| iiim 4 UBies anci two Du. correspoudm.g nijuries ou 'tl statement ol ^omai" ^uigii [i-\W, 2j, it is b.e house ofhis brottier-iD.-law as guest. He had no aiiy previous e]|imity with the a]3peUaiit whereas the quarrel was, in fact, betwee| iiijured tried to iaterveiie' iii |i- Dnaiirram aiici me accused £m.u tlie !the above quarrel 'aiid accused lired at iets stracK on iiis ciiest, Tliere are ie back of the victiBi also. There is- no ^TTCT^T sNhr g^rr^r, o^^i^in :—FS/59— 8/2007 —30,ooo. ^Wvt\ *Nlcb' 3^sr r<ii<ii0^, ^T{I'MII<O, fsi^i-y^ -]^i^ ..^:A.:..Ht:.....f'?SS^ 200 3n^?r X[^F (^cif^^) ^n^T^T ^Jcb WT^TI^T $b^jch ^Hi: ^ l^ ^«11^R^f^a 3i71^T evid.ence Uiat Somar Siiigh w^ account of aiiy previoiis stated fhat fhere was no adBiitted iii his cross-exaniiiia appeUant uever threatejied suggested in Uie cross-i threatened him of his life is however- tiie witness has statemeut. 'l'iie cietence couKl wituess Dy iiis cross-exam.uia| given in th.e exaiD.m.ation-iu-cl'l P.W, 1 Dhaiiir.am has five giiests were preseiit iii about 10 ni ftie night, flie ap-rt quarrcl wim him. Hawever hj that occasiDn. Thirty miiiutesl the laiie and caiied him. whert to pacm" hirn. but he fired at result ofwhklh she feU ou th.e| Uiis wituess, it is true that h.e| tiine he ,reached outside his 9< plare. aiiiEJiosit^7 eupim7 hiili exaiiliuiatiori cr»nf<n4Tl^TFRff ^f 'feT^t <F3l^|< '^3TRpTW^T |is falsely iniplicatiag the applicaiit on as the victim: has categorically with appeliaiit aad he has also l.iou that before the date of iiicident tlie with his life. Though Uie defeuce has. Uiat Uie allegatiDU that he not present iii his^ diaiy statemeut, |.ot been confronted witli fhe diary not' iiapeach fhe 'credibility of this lion and he has stuck'to his sta.tem.eiit iel. - Iso stated that on the date of Micident, his .house incmdmg Somar siiigh. At =Uant caine to his house aad picked up persuaded htm to leave tlie place at the.realt.er, tlie appe.Uaj.it agaiii came in mpon Somar Siiigh went out and tried liin which stnick 011 his left cliest as a ground. From the cross-examiiiattoH. of is uot the witness of incident as by tbe >use, fhe ajJpeUaiit had alrea.dy left the :?ll^^ ^N^T ^uil^, <H^J^IH :—FS/59— 8/2007 —30,000. ^T^T.^RT ^J^ WT^^ff $b^li<=b ^- 1»- o' 3^^ ^WW^, VS-^WW, ^vftW^ ^Wvi{ **<1ch ••"-•-——•"""K""-—"-""•-•"•• ^ 200 W^T xr^? (4C<^<^) '^TTW Trf^T 3^1^r P.W. 6A Balaram is als< took place between Dhaaira4i pai aaci tlierealter Uiey lieam sa^y that Somar Singh had. si sta.tement of Laxniichaiid. T] appellant fired at hiin wifh hi^ his left portion of his che< evidence, The circumstance? been established from thel wimesses Laxmichaiid (P.W. On t3ie basis of aibif co.usiderecl opiuion tliat the involvement of the appellai^ reasonable doubt. The trial C| rccoiTltiig the fuiding of convi<| Tlie appeal of the app^ same deserves io be disiuisset cr)i<i?<rt<Dl ^i*i<rff ^f fe^ ^^K ^ ^tRpT 3Ti^T a witness of mis fact that fhe q'liarrel aiid the accused betweenlO to 10.30 ' the souud of gun fce iii the iiight aiid ^staiaed gun shot injury. Siaiilar is the bie evidence of Som.ar Sio.gh fhat fhe gun aacl he sustajiied bullet iiijury 011 >t is also corroborated froiii inedical ni wiiicii, me ollence to.oK place lias statement of Dhanirajii aiid oth.er ) aiid Balaram (P,W. 6A), 3said ejialysis, tliis Couil:. is of the ^rosecutiou has been able to estabUsh t iii the aforesaid criine beYond all mrt has not committed aj.iy megaiity by 'tion. [llant is withoLit aiiy sufostaiice aiid tlie and it is aceoixiiiigly dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^\W^ S^T ^uil^, <H^i^|M :—FS/59— 8/2007 —30,000.