{—•w'm ® I^F'0'(;0'006bl71 ^ IN THE HICai COURT -OP JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. |^|S^ OF 1998 APPELIANTs r;" ^-:c'-,'fCrfr^ (IN JAIL) ^;.<.<.^fc^~ ,,^^,. .^—,AJv^alft ^f^. Amr±t Yadav S/o Chait Ram Yadav, aged 24 years^ Resident of Jala^pui:^ Near Deewan Talab^ Dhai^.tari^ Police Station - Dhamtari^ Tahsil-Dhamtari^ District - Raipur (M.P.) VERSUS iPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh / CRININAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973 . r^ XI-HC-22 ^ni^^i f^w3Tri^T WRT^ ^jf^O ^~ -^^ ^ii^jj^, 'S^FI^, ^iHTy ^m^n ^HI^te.-.^^-^-^L^ 'fN^r 3:H^T ^n^T';Rf^T DIVISION BENCH:- HON'BLE MR. L.C. BHADOO AND HON'BLE MR. V.K. SHRIVASTAVA. JJ. Dharjitari JMdge, 07-12-2005 Ku. J.A. Khan, counsel for t|ie Shri U.N.S. Deo, Additionsjl Bhatia, Panel Lawyer forthe Stat^/r Oral. By this appeal under accused/appellant Amrit Yadav h< of conviction and sentence daljec Additional Sessions Judge, learned Additionai Sessions . accused/appellant guiity for the 302ofthe I.P.C., sentenced him t^ The case of the prosecutio^ 8-97 at about 9.15 am Panch Ashok and one lady of Lohrasi branch ofthe bidi company. Whe|i the bidi in ,the branch, Panch Namkeen. Panch Bai and the othjer of Panch Bai. The personswho v{< Dewangan raised the cries "( Ashok threw Namkeen and saw B^i w^nt * ^FFrf^Ffr?f'HPT^f 4 fest'(f^^R iT^R^H^I appeltant. Public Prosecutor with Shri M.P.S. respondent. pection 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. i^s questioned the legality of judgment daljed 25th April 1998 passed by the lartitari, in S.T. No.413/97wherebythe Dhamtari after holding the (tommission of offence under Section undergo imprisonment for life; t, in brief, is that in the morning of 7- B^i (deceased) along with her brother to deposit the Bidi in the Dhanjtola they were retuming after depositing pai and the lady went to purchase 3th|er lady were ahead of Ashok, brothe'r fj/ere working in the agricultural field of Gllarwala Dadiwala Ladka" has killed. jthat the sister was tying on the earth ; [Tft^ ^fe^ ^^.,S?^^??^^M^%?.'%^ffiS;SMS XI-HC-22 STT^T^T 'f^N^fii^ ^RW^T^T ^^ ^l^tid4, ^ft^T?, ^Wty WH^T^W^ '^ 200 •^^?" Sub Eix and accused-Amrit Yadav was Amrit Yadav started running. Wh| that blood was oozing out of the report, PW-5 Sahdeo Thakur, P/1 at Sr. No.258/97 under intimation Ex.-P/7. He teft for th^ the site pian Ex.-P/8. He took ir|i and plain soil from the place of into possession the broken piect PW-11 D. K. Sharma, lnspector,| Panchanama of the dead body deceased for postmortem under Dhamtari. He also took into pos^ the deceased under Ex.-P/14 ^ Science Laboratory for Inspector, took irito possession clothes of the accused .from the| memo Ex.-P/18 for medical gave a memo ,Ex.-P/19 for the After completion of the ir Court of Judidal Magistrate, 1st the case to the Sessions Court, Sessions Judge, Dhamtari examiijiation investig^tion Qlass. receiv^d '^OTf^FThT 'RfTR^f ^ fe^t <F^1^S< ^3?f^R3il^T attjackingwith the knife. On seeing him, Wh^n he reached near his sister, he saw jneck and she died. On receiving this Inspector, registered the F..I.R. Ex.- S^ction 302 of the I.P.C. and merg thjs scene of occurrence and prepared possession the blood stained soil o4currence under Ex.-P/9. He also took )iec^s of glass bangles under Ex.-P/10. jafter giving notice Ex.-P/2, prepared (.-P/3 and sent the dead body of the |Ex.-P/4 to the Government Hospital, ^ession the viscera and the clothes of ^ind sent the jtems to the Forensic PW-12 B.S. Jagrut, Sub Ihe knife under Ex.-P/17 as also the possession of the accused, gave a exahiination of accused Amrit and also eixamination of Baniyan and the knife. i, charge sheet was filed <in the >, Dhamtari who inturn committed (Raipur from where learned Additional the case on transfer for'triai. [Tft^ q[<^^ XI-HC-22 •^^TqjqR^, '^^FI%. t^RT^; y ^rR^ii^w^ '^ '200 "fa^^* ^TI^T^T f?;ti^''srr^r ^i^'^fi^ 3?T^¥f'i^T^R ^rfiH <^i<Mf<n<i)<i' 'RTR^ff ^ ftx^ ^T^R '^'^^FT^Tl^r The prosecution in orde to prove the offence against the accused/appellant examined 1$ witnesses. On the other hand, statement of the accused was Cr.P.C. in which he denied the prjosecution evidence and stated that he has not murdered Panch Bai. faisely implicated in the crime oi^ day and time, when he saw frorr| husband of Panch Bai, was runnj recorded underSection 313 of the She has been murdered by Komal Dewangan. He further stated t|iat he is innocent and he has been account of animosity. On the fateful his residence that Komal Dewangan, ng carrying a knife in his hand and'his clothes were stained with bl^od, therefore, he chased him and snatched the knife from him, anejl in that process, he also received the injuries. On account of animosit^ with the father and brother of Panch Bai they have implicated him (n .the crime. He aiso produced one witness namely Kripararrt Yada^ in his defence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing Pubiic Prosecutor and couns fche arguments of learned Additional 3l for the accused convicted and sentenced the accused/appellarlt in the manner as mentioned in the eariier part of this judgment. We have heard Ku. J.A. K(ian, counsel for the appellant ahd Shri U.N.S. Deo, Additional Public jProsecutor with Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer for the State/respojndent. The fact of homicidal natu|"e of death of Panch Bai has not been disputed by learned counsel for t|ie accused/appellant. Apart from that, from the evidence of eyewitnes^ name{y,PW-1 AshokDewangan and [Tft^ ^R^^l T XI-HC-22 ^iT^r^r Rvii<=h ^i^i •^RW^I \-— 73t ^W^n. '^RPT?. fN?'iR?y ^ W^^II ^WI^ "?R, 200 the evidence of PW-9 Dr. Ratnesh Tripathi, who conducted the postmortem on 7-8-97, and ha; wounds and one abrasion on the ^l^fo^l 'WT^f °^'fe^t 'tf^R?1^ '^^rf^R^i^T stated that there were 6 incised body ofthe deceased. The cause of death was shock as a result of ^xcessive bleeding andthe nature of death was homicidal. Therefor^, in view of the above evidence of eyewitness and the medical evid^ce, it is established that the death of Panch Bai was homicidal in natur^. As far as the question of in^ commjtting the murder of Panch ^olvement ofthe accused/appellant in ?aj is concemed, learnedcounsel for the accused/appeilant argued thjat the accused/ appellant has been faisely impiicated in the crime | deceased. The accused/appell Dewangan. While drawing the afl -she argued that the persons Dewangan said that "Gharwala further argued that PW-1 Ashok w on account of anjmosity. In fact, husband of Panch Bai Komal D^wangan attacked and murdered the ^nt snatched the knife from Komal lention of the Court towards the F.J.R. ^tanding in the agricultural field of Padiwala Ladka" has murdered. She fas nbt the eyewitness to the incident. Qn the other hand, Shri U.h?.S. Deo, AddJtionat Public Prosecutor with Shri M.P.S: Bhatla, Panejl Lawyer for the State/respondent supported the judgment of the triap Court. In order to appreciate th|e arguments advanced by learned counsel for the accused/appell^int we have perused the evidence available on record.PW-1 AshoH and lodged the report Ex.-P/1at , who is the brother of the deceased the Police Station, has stated that on [^t^ ^ra^ XI-HC-22 ^TSF -^Tzn^?, ^at^Fre, "f^rray ^H^T^l f<4J<i<=h ^ii^i ^RW^^T ^I^^T^^IT^ "^200 '^^ST' w^re nec^k Shiv the fateful day after depositing thje and the other lady of Lohrasi him. When they reached near accused Amrit came with a knife knife on her waist, chest and He ran towards the accused to with him, they chased the accu^ Dwarika also met. His father alsd chased the accused, who enterep also entered the Potice Station, lodged the report Ex.-P/1; The prepared Panchanama. PW-2 has stated that Panch Bai and cycle and he was sitting behirtd assaulting Panch Bai. PW-6 La){r per the prosecution case, has the Dhanitola office of the bidi Shiv came out. Panch Bai also! Namkeen,,she was ahead of reach her house. Panch Bai w^s accused came and he pushed down, on which Panch Bai st^t< frightened and ran away. She After declaring her hostile, orji ^FRfer^ ^TH^ ^ft^ A^K ^"^f^R^TR^ bidi in Dhanitola factory, Panch Bai returning and they were ahead of 1jhe house of Sukhram, he saw that ^nd assautted Panch Baiwith the said e4k, as a resuft of whtoh she fell down. ^atch him, his brother Badri was also i^ed, on the way, his second brother met on the way and all the 4 ofthem the Police Station, Dhamtari. They ihformed them about the incident and flolice persons came on thespot and Prasad has turned hostile but he l.axmin were ahead. Ashok was on him. He had not seen anybody <min Bai, who waswith Panch Bai as that after deppsiting the bidi with j;ompany, she along with Ashok and deposited the bidi and after taking Bai because she was in hurry to followjng her. All of a sudden, the P^nch Bai, as a result of whichshe fell raising the cries, S.he became the accused pushing -Panch Bai. cross-examination by the Public sWed Pahch sWed s&w [TT^^fe^ w XI-HC-22 W^T^f 'f^n^'sRi^r 'pRt^^ifi^ T^ ^?P??^T. "s^Tre. ^ffHy €> W;R-C4l ^Wch" "H^ 200 "^^ST' ^IT^T-^RIT^R '^f^T --6 that Prosecutor, she further stated Panch Bai with a knlfe. Laxm^n examined as PW-7. He has st sitting in the Kachhari. At abou^ running carrying a knife in his h^r that he has murdered Panch Bai. His sons Ashok, Badri and Dwa^ along with his sons to the Police| the scene of occurrence. PW-}8 deceased has also corroborated report Ex-P/1 which was lodgedj by thaton hearing the cries ofthep^r Dewangan and he saw that the a|ccii aknife. It is true that most of the deceased. Being close relative order to find out the truth. The and PW-8 Badri has been namely PW-6 Laxmin Bai who ^t Bal has atso stated that she savj/ assaulting her with a knife. that when they were chasing Police Station Dhamtari carryingj corroborated by the evidence ofj ^i^<n<41-{ ^s^^f^fe^l' <Ri^« '^3^R3n^r she saw the accused assaulting father of the deceased has been {ated that on the fateful day he was 10 am he saw that the accused was ^nd stained with blood and was crying He ran towards the Police Station. I'ika were ch^sing him. He also went IStation. Thereafter, the Policewentto Badri who is the brother of the !the above fact. In theflrst information PW-1 he has categorically stated )^rsonswho were workjng in the fietd of a|ccused was assaulting Panch Baj with vi/itnesses are brother and father of the jtheir evidence needs close scrutiny in e^jdence of PW-1 Ashok, PW-7 Laxman corr|oborated by an independent witness the time of inctdent was wjth Panch ^ the accused pushing Panch Bai and Ashok and Laxman havestated accused, the accused entered the ja knife in his hand. This fact has been PW-5 Sahdeo Thakur, sub inspector, [^.^f^ . Witnlesses ttlie ®iillil^tfi®l?iJ^%iiWilliiilgiiiI^ gSigW$SRiNili5|li!?%%W8i^^ ^^if^i^%^:^^w^%%^%@;%^^ <XI-HC-22 3^T^T 'f^TW'STI^T ^*iich <-i[^a ^. \ ~3~5Ef <<(H|<nq, ^Tll^Ko, foKrtl^y 3Tli^T XT5(^ © Hl^dl 5b44|cb""""""***"*r****'****'*""*%^p^ 200 .^^........................ ^n^r'^TTW^yf^T who was in the Police Station. In counsel, he has stated that the| carrying a knife in his hand. Th^ further lends support to the fa^ accused were seized in the Poli( 11.30 am within one and half evidence of Laxmin Bai and P\N\ knife from the accused in the Poi| with knife corroborates the prose) Dr. Ramesh Tripahti (PW-9) eyewitness as 6 injuries were foi accused also received the injuri( by PW-15 Dr. A. Rashid 6n the s| !n view ofthe above clinc^ any substance in the accused/appellant that the 4 jmplicated in the crime. Nothint cross-examination or otherwis^ unnecessarily falsely implicate was not committed by him. In view of the above evic|< Yadav has rightly been rejected argurjient; cr)i^?<rt^1^ HR^ff ^ "fe^ iPsl^K '^3Tf;OT3TT^T |the cross-examinatjon by the defence laccused came in the Police Station fe seizure memo of the knife Ex.-P/17 ^t that the knife and clothes of the ^e Station, Dhamtari itself on 7-8-97 at |our of the incident. Therefore. the {5 Sahdeo T<hakur and recovery of the |ce Station itself where he came along ibution case. The medical evidence of also corroborates the versionof |ind on the body of the deceased. The js in the process which wereexamined ame day. ing and legal evidence, we do not find jients of -learned counsel for the |ccused/appellant has been falsely has-been brought on record in the as to why the Police Officers will ;he accused/appellant when the crime •nce.the evidence of DW-1 Kriparam 'y the trialCourt. [Tit^ ^P^^ XI-HC-22 'S^ ^i^icrt^, ^^^l<o, fa<ni^^< 3TI^T'^T f^ri^'sn^T s^)^ict) <-if^a ^ .(- Ban/e ^f ^ni^r T^ra? ^ HW^[ ^^^••••*-——••••—•——^F^ 200 •fgn^T""""""""""""""""" cbl<;if<n^1r1 'HW^f ^ ^S ^PSI^K '^ 3?Tf^PT 3TT^T In view of the foregoing dis(jussion, we do not find any ground to interfere withthe finding of thetria|l Court. Thefinding of thetrial Court isbased on legal evidence. In the result, the appeal (las no merit, same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismiss|ed. Sd/.. L.C. Bhadoo Judge Sd/- V.K. Shrivatava Judge [Tit^^fe^