H§GH CUU§§T if)? €HH§TT§SG¥XRH AT 5ILA$PbF< l $8.: §<ii3N¥§iE WW JUSTECE $6Nii KEMAR SiNHxiEeéa HQM’B E “f3! JUu 'a D: I“ a K25 PMSFE SiYi‘M SWQ €RW RPPXL N3 gm: 9f §§§3 N§ aE i’ f &P?ELL£\N“§‘ Ganga Ram son of Samay Lai $ahu, aged absut 40 ‘ l \ Rio ad53h (New State a? Chhaitisgam) fAFPEA'IL W3§£ER SEfffi‘QN 3% (£3 (3F TEE C§£§E i}? ”R5mlNA‘ 9Rh8¢gdgc 3- Qwpeayansg ; mr x, Bhaduri bounseifor‘th appehani J1. R m aAr‘azW? PaneaLaw‘J‘rerme State QRAL JUDGMENT {68.W2W} The following judgment of fhe Cour? was passed by gamé Kunmr Sinm. .i {1.) This; appeai is directed against the judgment dated 315* i'a 9f March 1%5 passed in ST. No‘2?/g3 by the Third Adxji‘iima! Judge to the Souri af Session Judge. BHaspur. By ihe impugned judgment the anpeliani has been convicied undef Section 3Q2 WC and eenienced t0 undergo imprisonmeni for {Efe and i0 may ‘fine of Re.500f3/-', in defauii, to further undergo R1. for 3 years. r2} Toe facts, briefiy stated, are as under: \ ”S Takhaipur, Das act Biiaspur , V. ¥arsu$ * QESWENGEQT Tqe $iatg of Niad5y'a QWW3i$€ELEEE§§£d§im§§§£i§§9i @ Deceaseci —Manrakhan and appeiiani {Eanga Ram, both had taken differeni pamons 0f agrivcuiiurai iand 0f one Mohan Agarwa§ 0n rem. ge‘th iandsawe‘re situaied adjaceni: to each o‘ihef. Cm imamgz at aboui QQG am, the deceasea was wsrking on has {en‘ied iand. The a§iegatiaris am ihat ihe amjeiiam came there am‘ assauiied ihe deceased 9v lafhi, who ireoeived multioie iniuries and succumbed to those iajuries. The imcjdeni wa$ wiinessed E33! iwo wrmesses namaiy Kajia Bai (PW-5) and a?<am:’ataa3 (PW-6} Ramratam {WV-‘0‘) informed Scre§a% {PW-’1), sea cf the d€cea§ed, aboui the incidemt. {Emeiai (EN-Q iodged the Firs? mformation Repori {Ex.PH}.The invesis’gaimg Gfficer reached to {he piece of accurrencg, gave nmice (Ex.§3i’2) to i‘ne Panchas and prepared inrzuesi (EXFM‘; an rhe bedy of the deceased. ”En a he dead hwy 3f ihe deceased was sent for poe‘imoriem to Cemmuriiiy Hearth Cenire, Takha‘tpur vide requieitian EXEI‘QV The pestmort‘em examinatron was eonducted by BLAK. Sixii (PW-8). He found muitipie injuries on the body of the deceased‘ He also nericed fractures on ‘r‘ne skuH bones and opineé ‘r‘nar ihe cause or deaih was shock arrd haemorrhage on account of ine injuries and fractures sustained by the deceasetj" and it was é! . nomrcidai in nature. Tine oostmortern report is ExiWtG. Case of the prosecution‘was based on the eyewitness account of Kajte Eei (PW-5) and Ramretan (PW-'6). They did not support the case ot the prosecution. The teamed $ession Judge reiied on the testimonies otagoreiei (PW-t) and $unniiai (PW-4) and neid that since the inciderat was narrated to these witnesses by t'ne two eyewitnesses, on which! Gorelai (PW-t) iodged the ELR (EXP/t), which contains that the aopeiiaht assauited the deceased, tt weeproved CRIWT§Ni§L£EE£ék§iQ§§IQEE§L$i§ @ ’that it was ihe appeiiant who assauiied i'ne deceased and the appeimnt was iiabie for punishmeni under Section 3E2 19C. la £33 Mr. MK. Bhaduri, learned counsei appearing on behaif of the appeimnt, argued thaf ihe iwo eyewitnesses mmed hosiiie; they did not suppoe i‘ne case of the prosecutian; even inen, the ieamed Seesions Judge awarded the conviction on the basis of hear—say evidence of Gore1a! (PW-1) and Punmiai (WV-4). (43 On the other hand, Mr. Ravindta Agarwat, learned Pane} Lawyer appearing on behaif of the State-:oppesed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Session Court. (5) We have heard ieamed counsel for the parties at iength and have aiso perused the records of the Sessions’ Case. {e} We gather from the findings recorded in para 13 and 14 or‘ the impugned judgment that the Session Judge has hetd thatKajia Bai (PW-5) and Ramratan {PW-6) were not reiiabie ‘1‘ as they Were won-over by the prosecution. in fact, the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses, named a’oove, were totaiiy disbeiieved by the Session Judge The contents of the First information Report (EXP/t) as atso the evidence of Goreiai (PW-t) wouid show that Goretai (PW-1) was not an eyewitness and he was informed about‘the incident by \\_\Ramratan (PW—6). He cieariy mentioned in the First V‘ o . .- \k SRéMiNw IIPPEXL NG£$$ of 1%55 information Repar‘t that 2§€amraian {PW-6) i‘am him tha’i his famea' was assauited by appeimm Garxgaram if; the €§eid c Mohan Agarwai and when he weni i0 the fieid of Mohan £Agamiat he found i‘nai h§s fai‘ner was Wing dead. 3i further €c0mes in the Firsi informaiion Repon inai he aXso met Kaj§a i Bai (PW-5}, who stated him {hat hi§ faiher was assauited by appenant Gangaram. ‘- i}? As we have already sia‘ted ihat the abnve wo t eyswitnesses did not support the case of 'the oro$ecuiiom iherefore, iha vame of evidence of Gore3a3 (PW-1) wouid be mining more than hear-say evidence. Aimos‘t’simiiar is the evidence of F’unmial (PW—4), another son of the deceased, w'ne aiso stated ihat he was informee by ine eyewenesees about the incident which was aliegediy commi'i’ied by appeiian‘t -Gangaram. The feamed Session Judge relied on The ieetimoniee of Goreiai (PW-i) and Punniiai (PW-4) and heid iha‘i einoe the veysions given by these Wiihesees were cormiaorated by the contents of the HR (ExFH; iodged by Goretai (PW-1) on the information given by ‘r‘éejte Bei (WV-5) and Ramratan (PW-6), it was proved beyond ait teasonabie doubts that the apeeiiant had assauited the deceased, w’ne received muttipie injuries and eucoum’ned to those injuries (8i On appreciation of entire evidence avaitataie on record, we ate of the View that the learned Session Judge erred in iaw \ in tecordtng the conviction oi the appeiiant on the above \ p \ QRimENAL §§WEA£ M9 8% 0f 19% @ evdeme 0f Garelal (PW- j am Punnna: (PW 8) Whssh Was ‘ not mom ihan hear-say evidence and not at aii admissmie against the appellant Excepi ’me above, them is nd other imriminating evidence against the appeliani. ‘ 1%; Far the fwegoing reasons, we are uaabie to aueiain the ‘ conviction of the appeiiani. on ihe evidence of above iwo witnesses, and ihe judgment of conviction deserves io be ee‘i‘ V" ide. 9} Accorngly, ane aopeai is aiioweci ine oonv etion and seences aWarded to Ine appe art undei seciion 302 iPb are set—aside. The appeliant is eoquii‘ied o? i‘ne charges framed against him. The aopeiiani is on baii. His baii bonds are oanceiied and surety stands discharged. I ae m di nt 3/? Sdl—V Y Sd/ Sunil Kumar Sinha R‘S' Shanna Judge ::£7 I . Judge /> /