~T V[-^^. |aM89/(All) ' P. S. P. R. 1 T/94/2,000 CF0000060509 APPEAI-. QF PRTSONER "'^Nch^Criininaf) a.........\g.^..................».....;i<ame..... i^" •^T^S^^ Father'SBame^^^^,........................................ |tesidence ^^.^^^^^^^^...W-^; •^^"'ff ••• '•.. : '-.'•.':."•, |entencedto^^^^^.^^^^.^ JUnder section ~^gfl^.^5^^...ft<'!ji-"-"—by VS7-y7<S } It is explained to the prjsoner that ifhe states or wishesfo be Tepresented by legal .i^tCtitioner the Appellate Court will Tiotproeeedwith the base for seven days unless th^^legal^ytitioner appears If the legal practitioner does not appear within seven i^^gra&<ffn6t heard at all . If the prisorier states that he does not wish to be repre- senjt.ed by l^aL.pi^i'^^er the court may proceed at once witfi the case and wiil not be Ige^'\^^^a<'^qaj;}%gjo any legal praetitiorier who should appear . ^licationfor copy ofJudgement, ... ..../^.^<.9^..-./.^;. C®/:?y..^f- ?hich copyreceived ..................... .. .. .,fc;..>$.. .9.j3 . ite on which Appeal seat...... ..... .-»^...........7is^-<^-' 9-•(C Y!s'~' / ._.. . : .• : . " ': . ^'- . '• ;. '' , '•• j 4 f Whether the prisoDer wishes tp be represented or not - i^ / No ;.. Name Jail •^^"(^7<y r3^er"7""""""'"'" •••••••^^syyi^'^'" No.......^^^y^.^<^g....Dated,.^^t.4-.^.;.. 199 . Forwarded to tEe CHtEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE^. .'^?v5\^T^' ^«re ^atherwhich a copy ofjudgement or order passed inthe case for favour of trans- -ti ini.ision to the proper Appellate Gourt. T^-ftTo^. ?.&-^ SupennlChdent Q-^?^773r7 -^V•^^?^7^®(^'y©^"^g^;^te^; ^ v^y(VS-] -!^. ;\;^;'t-' Dateofreceiptin........... .....^........^......office f . ' .• - Date pf-reeeipt record. lo^iccompany the .......... t^A iV| -^jf/^'V' 'Memo of.Appeal to -tlie Appellate court :^~ ND 6^/^. .^.'^ y]U.'^.v ."EatedC%. to the ^..l-<=^4€:^^-^fr^^lZ^&-f^&.f\.&? !^. ^n^^-^-^^^M £^ ""••"""••••"1;«;?| .'^Nilfs"^ Date;oP]^eii%'ii^ppeUatefG3urt^..^:"..^ 'Xi?r'?? '"'.**'-•>'?''. •S{'V.^^^ HIGH GOURT OF JUDICATURB AT KLASPUft CMHMTISGARH Crimmal ADpealNo. 938 of 1996 Ramlal Vs. < State of M&dhy Pndesh Criminal AppealNo. 939 of 1996 Lalsai Vs. State of Madh^i Prwlesh Criminal ADbealNo.940 of199S Sukru Khed» Vs. Stateof Madh^i Pradesh JUDQEMENT FOR CONSIDBtATION ^f.';-.^ HQN'BLE SHRI LC.BHADOO .J. Sd/- DHIRENDRA MISHRA Judge Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge -. / POSf FOR JUDGMENTON 6n;FEBRUARr»Oe Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge '•'..^ ^\- ,-=t-tg @ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri L.C.Bhadoo & Hon'ble Shri Dhjrendra Mishra, JJ Criminal Appeai No. 938 of 1996 Respondent Ramlal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeai No. 939 of 1986 Lalsai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal No. 940of1396 Sukru Khedia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Appellants by Smt. Savita Tiwari, Advocate. State by Shri U.N.S.Deo, Addittonal Public Prosecutor with Shri Bhatia, Panel Lgwy^r. I.P.S. >. / JUDQIVIENT (Delivered oh 6'^02/2006) Per Dhirendra iVlishra. J The above eriminal appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. . ]-\ l^ ., i e.;; i£2a! 2. The appellants of the above criminal appeals have preferred these appeals through Superintendent, District Jail, Raigarh as they have been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/34 of the IPC and three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 201. of the IPC by learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh vide his judgment dated 16.04.1996 passed in Sessions Trial No. 152/95. Both the sentences Vi/ere directed to run concurrently. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Budhuram Khadia iodged the report of Ex.P/7 dated 21.03.2005 in the Police Station-Lailunga, Distt- Raigarh mentioning therein that on 28.03.1995 in the evening at about 7.00 p.m. his elder brother Mangal Sai went to the house of one Rupdhar Mahku! on invitation and did not return in the night. When in the morning of 21.03.1995 at about 6.00 a.m. his neptiev/ Phul Singh v^nt to fetch water from the weil constructed in the fieid of Mangal Kanwar he found the dead body of Mangal Sai Khadia lying in the weil and he informed about the same to the compiainant whereupon the complainant narrated the incident to other viliagers and Sarpanch- Tarachand Paikra. Thereafter all of them went towards the well and saw the dead body of deceased Mangal Sai. They also saw injury over^ right tempie near eye of the deceased and bloodstains over the dones ofjagat (the high platform surrounding a well). They further spotted the trail of blood drops from well up to the house of Lalsai. Blood was also spread in the courtyard of Lalsai. On enquiry Maniram Uranv- father of Lalsaj inforiy'ed'that in the nigh't of Monday i.e.20.03.1995 at about 9.00 p.m. Si^krij Khadia came to his house and demanded kosna (home- made liqifor) and thereafter-Sukru Khadia called deceased Mangal Sai and ail of them consumed tosna. In the meanwhile Sukru Khadia started abusing Mangal Sai and assaulted him with club and told Ramlal and talsai to beat Mangalsai otherwise he would beatthem. Thereafter, Sukru Khadia, Ramlal assaulted Mangat Sai with club and 1-alsai be'at him by handand fists. When Mangal Sai died theytook up © & his dead body and took it towards the forest. On the basis of above report after registering the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC investigation vras commenced. During investigation merg intimation of Ex.P/8 was recorded on 21,03.1995 and inquest (Ex.P/2) over'ihe dead body of Mangal Sai was performed after due notice to the witnesses in their presence. Dead body was sent for autopsyto Community Health Centre, Lailunga, Distt- Raigarh and Dr. Shailendra Upadhyaya (P.W.8) conducted postmortem and submitted his report of Ex.P/10. According to the opinion ofdoctor cause of death was asphyxia due to compression of chest which v/as caused due to blunt injury over the chest and the death was homicidal in nature. During investigation bloodstained Dhoti and woolen shawi of the deceased sent in a'sealed packet by the doctor were seized. Panchanama of Ex.P/6 signed-by Narayan Prasad Paikra, Sudarshan, Dayaram, Ghurau and Tarachand Paikra was prepared. Spot maps of Ex.P/13 and Ex.P/14 were prepared by Halka Pat\>vari (P.W.10) on 28.04.1995. Spot map of ExP/16 was prepared by Assistant Sub- Inspector (P.W.11). Bloodstained stone of jagaf and bloodstained dry grass were seized from near the wetl vide Ex.P/19. Bloodstained soil and plain soii were seized from the courtyard of accused Lalsai vide Ex.P/20. On the basis of memorandum (Ex.P/21) of accused Sukru bloodstained ciub was seized under Ex.P/22. On the memorandym (Ex.P/23) ofaccused Ramlal another bloodstained club was seized vide Ex.P/24. Bloodstained clothing' of Sukru was seized vide Ex.P/25. Bloodstained Lungi was seized from Lalsai vide Ex.P/26. Bioodstained Lungi was a!?o -seized from Ramial vide Ex.P/27. The above seized articles wepe sent for chemica! analysis to Forensic Science Laboratory, RaipurvideEx.P/29. The F.S.L. report ofthe above articles is Ex.P/32. The articfes on which bloodstain was confirmed by the F.S.L. were further sent Jor examination to Serologists who found human blood over shawl and DhoS worn by the deceased and opined that shavd and Dhoti werestaihed with htmian blood, however, blood group ofthe stains on the items cannot be determined as the sample was not sufficient for test. The Serotogists further reported that bioodstains over the other articles being soil and lungi were disintegrated. Report of the serologists is Ex.P/33. 7. After investigation charge, sheet Was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Raigarh and the tearned Additional Sessions Judge received the same on transfer for trial. Learned trial Court framed charge under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the iPC against the accused/appellants. The appellants abjured their guill. The prosecution in a!l examined 12 witnesses to establish its case and thereafter statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 ofthe Cod'e of eriminal'Procedure. The appellants denied the circumstances appearing in the prosecution case against them and submitted that they are innocents'-and have been falsely implicated in the offence. After hearing learned counsei for the respective parties, learned trial Court held the appellants gui!ty under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced them as described above. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is no eyewitness to the said incident and the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused through circumstantial evidence as none of the circumstances retied upon by the prosecution has been proved by any cogent eyidence. However, learned trial Court relying upon the -^/ ______ Panchatiama of Ex.P/6 and further relying upon the circumstance of iast seen together, recoVery of articles on the memorandum of appeliants, has held the appellants guilty ofthe offence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgmerit ofthe trial Court. •soi|od sqi^q pejedejd g/d'xg JOAO sejnieuBis. jisqi psniiupB os|e SAeq pue g/d'xg jaw ssjn}Gu6!S . jieyi psffliupe 3AEL) nejnqo pue UBABJEN 'pueqsejBi sssssu^m 9[!}soq 1541 pue ejijied pueqoejEi PUB nejnijg 'wejsfsQ 'ueysjBpng 'BJ>|iBd pesejc) UBABJBN p eousssjd 3L|} U!pejed9jdSB 9/d'x3 P suBueqouBcl-lGMl (3 •pej9A038j sew peseeosp ^o Apoq p^sp sqi sjei|» LUOJJ. |]aw 94} o} dn lesie-] pssnooe'-j.o ssnoq siji uioi). pstEUBiug punoj. san sdojp pooiq ys IIEJ} sqi teyi (q - •jawun>j |EBuB|fl| j.o |]sm SL]} uio^ puno^ SBM Apoq pesp siy jsy.esjsq} pue euso^ BUI>|BI JOj. IBS |B8ueifl| psseeosp ps||eo peq ies|e-i pue nj>|ns s)ue||sdde }Bt|i paiBjs seq ^BUIB |n4d 9'M'd 41 (s :s 0]|o.t se si qoiLim eouepiA®leiiUBtsuinojio j.o siseq 34} uo Ai|inB s}UG[]eddB sqi pisy sey jjnoo ]BU} psujes-i •g|, {. Q |eBuB]rt psseeosp p t|}Bep joj. eiqisuodssj SJE s}UB||3dde 84}j84)8i|m -si uoi}ssnb puooes SI|}MON "Zt, •ejnieu ui lepjoituoy SBM 91UBS 31)1 pUB }S8qo JSAO Ajnlu! }un|q o} snp iseijo p uoisssjduioo j.o ssneosq pssneo SB qoiiim ei»<qdsBsan qwap .f.o ssneo tei|} peuido pue usijojq squ 4}4Bi9 'qiueASS '4}Xjs 'tqBu pue iunuj8}s ys Aqqoq 'squ tiynoj. 'pjiyi 'puooss 'D.S] 'suoq eiqipueui iqBy punoj. uoiieuiLuexs |Euje}ui uo pue pssesosp eiji p sAs tqBu 0} [BJSIEI pue mo|9q soej. eqij.o spjs iqSu JOAO punom psiejsoB] suo pue peeq p epis IL|BU JOAO spunom p8}Bjsoe| owq puno^ pey EAeAqpedn '-IQ vodsj lusvoiuisod sij} ui SB peysiiqeiss si eipeiixieg IBSUEIN pssBsoep p qiBsp lepioiiuoii Q(./d'X3 jo iiodej iueypiu)sod siji ^o |Bsnjsd uiojj. SSIWUSLJIO usAg •eindsip u! iou si eipeLix leg |e6uE|n pesEeospj.o iiiesp iBpioiiuoi-i •i.j, •pjoosj uo e|qe|iEAe souspiAS sq} pssnjsd PUB ssjiJEd sAipsdsej 34) JOj. issunoo psujee] pjesLj SABLI SAA "01. SBI| s|-| •||SM 341 uioj^ jsiB/n qois^ 01 )uam eq ustyn jewuex |BBue|fl| p ||em 04} ui jsyiej. 514 jo Apoq pesp 04} punoj. 94 Buiujoiu.sy} ui pue }t|B!U SLJ) u! ujnjej )ou pip JSMIBJ sii) jeueejsqi pue ssnoq 814 ui eusoy Suiije} joj. jsqtEi 514 peijeo !es|e^ pue ru>|n9 }BI|] p8)E}s seq pssBsosp syip uos - q6ui9 |nqd 9 'AA'd '^l-ieiiiuis •qnp q)im IBS |BBue|fl| psiinBSSB pei| iES|e-| pue m>jns pssnooe leyt peujjo^ui uiejiuen iEqtp9}B}sj,8q}jfy sey eH 'iBSje-] p qepuejsA pue pje/^noo sy} ui lussa^d P.S|B sjem suues sqi pue ies|B-| j.o ssnoq sq} 01 dn i|8 eyi luojj. Buiieueiue suieispooiq 8t|} U38S pB4 94 }E41 p8)B}S SBq lucjnqpng 9 -M'd '!BS|E1 pssnoae p jsijie^ - LUBjiueifl ^o ssnoq 04} 0} dn punoj. sjam ||am 04} LUOJ^ BUIIBUBUIS suieispooiq ei|} pue i|3UBdies sq) sjo^eq }|inB jisq} psssej.uoo peif suosjsd pssnooB sqi leq} p9}B}S seq SSSUIIM siqi qBnoqi •Buiiil^ue uiiq ||B} }ou pip suosjsd pssnaoe sqi 154} p8}eis A||eouoBstBo SB4 34 se 8|!}soii os|e si tuejnejnqo t? '/v\'d "ies|ei p pjeAjjnoo sqi ui suiBispooiq y> eousisixe si)} psiuep jsqynj. seij e[-| '©ousssjd siq ui pspjoosj ueeq aAB^ 0} pies si s}ue||9dde3L|i j.o uoisssj.uoo uiejoiim g,'d'x3 y> S}us}uoo sij^ipeiusp set| etj pue ©seouojinoesojd s4l p3}joddns }ou OS|E SEI| pesejcj ue^ejeisj £ •M-d 'SLUBS sqi Buipesj }noq}m sjniBuBis SIL| }nd A]dujjs ©4pue jopsdsui p suoipsjip 9l|! J9d SB Ue}}!J pBJ. ui sew }U8iunoo.p pies 94} )e4) petijiuqns pue LUIIJ Aq usHjjm sem 9/d'x3 jo iusu-inoop sq} IBLJI psiuap jsqyn^ sei< e|-j 'IBSIB-I pssnsoe ys ssnoi) ©410} dn ([am aqi LUOJJ. suie}spoo|q J.O 93US}SIX8 9L|} pSIUSp OS|B SBl| S4 pUG UOI}n08SOjd Sljl J.O SSBO 81)1 psyoddns }ou sey ©BBIIIAsqi jo qouBdjes - BJ>|!BC) pueyoBjei s -M'd •punoj. ejaw suieispooiq !}OL|a PUG qnl° 'lios 'iBun) •s'l sspiiJE pszies jeqio sq} uo pue pszies sjam pesnooe pue pssesoap syij.o s]ejedde BUUBSM peuieispooiq 'qnfi) psuieispoojq !BS|E") pue |B|Luey 'ru>|ns s}ue|]eddB j.o uinpuejoujsuj p siseq 34} uo )Eqi (e '9/d'x3 u! pepjooej se/n qoiiim ej>|!Bd pueqoejBi pue nejnqg 'LUBJBABQ 'ueqsjepns 'Bj>|iecj pBsejd ueAejEN sjo^sq )|in6 Jisyi pssss.tuoo s}UB||8dde sqi )Bqi (p 17. further stated that bloodstains were present from the well up to the house of Lalsai and his courtyard and verandah. On being questioned by Sarpanch - Tarachand Paikra, Maniram said that Sukru and Lalsai assaulted the deceased by club. However, P.W. 7 Maniram has denied that the accused persons assaulted the deceased in his presence. So far as the circumstances of appellants being last seen wth the deceased white he was alive is concerned, in the First Information Report of Ex.P/7 P.W. 4 Ghurauram had informed that the deceased had gone to the house of one Rupdhar Mahkul on invitation at about 7.00 p.m. and thereafter did not return to his house, P.W. 8 Phul Singh has also stated jn paragraph-2 of his statement that his father went to the house of Rupdhar Mahkul jn the night and he had admitted that as he did not accompany his father to the house of Rupdhar Mahkul he cannot say whether his "father reached the house of Rupdhar or not, therefore, the circumstance of appeliants being last seen in the company ofthe deceased vrfiile he \was alive, has not been estabiished. So far as the circumstances of existence of bloodstains from well up to the house of Lateai are concerned, the same has not been estabtished by the report of F.S.L. and P.W. 7 Maniram has also stated that biood like stains present in his house and verandah are of kukri (hen). Therefore, in the absence ofreport of Serologists the circumstances of existence of bloodstains cannot be held to be estabtished. The learned trial Court has further relied upon the document of Ex.P/6 beingthe Panchanama signed byNarayan Prasad Paikra, Sudarshan, Dayaram, Ghurau and Tarachand Paikra which contains apart from otherthing^ the confession ofthe appeliants. However, none ofthe aforesaitl witnesses'has stated this fact in their statements before the Court, therefore the Court below was not justified in reiying upon the document of Ex.P/6 to hold that the appeltants had made extra judicial confession before the aforesaid witnesses. The witnesses of memorandum have also not supported the memorandum of seizure. Even otherwisg the articles seized are the articles which are commonly found in the houses of villagers and there is no evidence to show that the seized articles contain human blood and therefore, seizure on the basis of memorandum of.the accused persons is ofno help to the prosecution. Thus on the basis of aforesaid analysis, we are of the eonsidered opinion that the prosecution has failed to estabiish the circumstances which may connect the appellants with the offence and the finding of the trial Court holding the appellants guilty of the offence under Sections 302/34 and 201. ofthe IPC is erroneous and the same is based on inadmissible evidence. In the result, all the three appeals preferred by the appellants, are allowed. The Impugned judgmentof conviction and order of sentence of the trial Court is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges leveled against tbem gnd they are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, ifnot required in any other case. ___ Sd/- Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge Dhirendra Misfara Judge •• /