3'wT '<I|A|I<^<I|, ®Tn<H'16,Rl<'']|tiy _^.....(^:.A'Mo, 6, NWdl sbMlcb •--•••--•--•---••••-—•»•—•- -^ 200 sm^?r •q'w (ipf^gqw) 3Ii^?[.qiT ^-Hf WTsiR^r gnw ?^IRR ^tfsn an^i SB : HON'BLE SHRI-DHiRBnOKA MISHKA, J. APPBLLAnT'S Sob^nlal Satnami, son of Vishambhar 'vf^f^Tfi or*r'i?rt?:*tion •&'-""• ^^ ' J •-•lAAt-r^ u-ut.-IA^l-1—.l/. tulture, resident of viUage BIunoda, Sarsiava, Tehsil Baloda Bajar, Distrcit Satnjaiiu Agri<| P,S. Kaip|ur 3. She 27 ^h isinail, son of SheKh Raliman, aged resident 'T'F.ll vs. RBSPunDENT 2-8-2007 Stat{ Si_E*T^K'n1 Kaigur A(ivclG^.'ts SIin. AiTiQ.'K.ociiQT', A(ivc*c| Shri Pradeep Singh, Pan^ This criminal appeal i( convictioa aad order ot sentenit No. 207/1987 wheretay fae Baloda Bajar has convicted uiider yection 3U/ reaa witn yi Shekh Isniail uiider Section unclei^o K.l. lor Uu-ee year^ accused ArU Jtias also been'< sentencea to unaergo K.l. tor| persons namety Laxiiukaat '<il<<tt1«I1lWTOf '$ feIZ)' ^R^P ^afRpTsn^r years, occupauon —iJUKafi.o.aTij ot viUage yarsuiva, f.£>. yarsinva, U Baloda. Bajar, District Raipur of Chhattisgarh through P.S. ^nya Telisil BolQsls JBsisi*. District ^te for the appeUaats. bl Lawyer for the State. s directed. against the judgment ot »dated 13th July, 1993 passed iu S.T. leamed Additional Sessions Judge, appeUaat No. 1 SohanJal for ofFence ;ction 34 of I.P.C. and appeUant No. 2 1-B of I.P.C. aad sentenced theni to .. Apart from fhese two appeUaats, under Section 307 oll.P.C. and Uiree years. ine ottier Uiree accused idey, Pauaa @ Panxialal and Seetaram K li20 coiltvicted Pafidey GRPRJ -^ FS/246—2/2007— 50.UUO. r XI-HC-22 an^f^T ^•iicti sn^i 5(i4-ii<^ yl^T 's^ •^WM^, Bfll'M'is, fqcii'yy 3(1^?T 1T^7 _...C3::..(^.M.D..-..fc.^/3-? "^l 200 VWW 91HIV> fq-S^T' 311^1-TOIIW^to proseculion WUUe ODfc who also faced trial.for offf been acquitted. '2.. Uase ol ttie ftisliainaoi Muiuia, wUo is Police Statiou Sarsinva on 5 uiereui ttiat today in ttie ino; tus tattier aad br&tber. Store, appellant Sob.an lal S; was readuig aewspaper, saia uat paper Gelongs to up and startea Jaugnmg. powder on tus eyes aact at lathi on his back of tbe head. Arif Khau, go and catch hiii|i. saul, is accoiuplished, he fe] Arif Khari aud the incidenD Jitendra Thakur and LaUu i me uiiiired. was sent to< Chourasiya (P.W. 1) examia^ F-l. He also aclvised A-ray ^ clocument ot Bx. f-'J, twws^ clunng tnal. Atter conipletipg filed agamst tiie appellaats ftnce uiicler SecUon 12UU ol l.KC. liave ot Jucliciat ^Magistrate t'uf chl^^li 'wr^rf ^ f^st' <f^i'^i< '^aiPaHsn^T t, ui Dnet, is Uiat ttie coiaplamant iv f^-y^ poUce constable lodged a report en the tbe l-3-1987 at about 8.30 a.ni. mfntinnino >tning ne tiacl gone to Bus ytana to see ott ne was stauduig near 'lliaKuT (Jycle ttnami requested 1iini to sit and when he Ram Kuiaar Naindeo came there and i|ii7n. At that time, appeUant Sohanlal got In the meanwtule, soineone threw fhili same tuae, soineone assaulted him by Soiueone froni crowed sfiouted fhat it is L. After hearing that whatever isiuail had unconscious. He has been assaulted by; was witaessea by KaaiKuniar Namcleo, rliakur etc. Atter registering fhe offeace, inedical examuiaUon wfiere ur. U. :d fiis injuries and gave hls report of Ex. )f skuU. The patient was discharged vide ver A-ray report lias not been proclucea the iavestigati.on, charge sheet was faul 4 ottter accused persons ui me (Jourt ^st (Jlass, ualoda Ba]ar wno ui turn [Ttt^ ^1<^4 XI-HC-22 aii^rqr R'li.t* 3f^f stiRi^i •yfsn 'SSt 'ilWM^, e)Ti1^'is. Rx'll'My 3TT^?T •q^ra? ^_..fo:'..^.d.o.:....&8 2-/5-3 "Wf 200 'ft^T' vifffWT sb11<*i SII^I'RHIWHfttf conuiutted me case to ttte] learaed Additional Sessions tnat. 3. cnarge unaer yection accused Arifwhereas charge ot l.F.U. was tramecl agamsl Section 120 B of I.P.C. WE persous includuig appellaat 4. The prosecution examj|l< persons were iTecorded undi denied the ailegations pfeae^lt ."^ and statecl toat ne nas D< corresponaent ot Uauy Auu^ Muitaa usea to maKe uiegal published in fhe daily newsj] aaa, tneretore, lor tms rease) that sorae day, Iie will impUcjat Smularly appeBaut Sohaayi appeanag agamst nun in ttij detence Uiat Ue is a worJKer belongs to y.J.f. t&eretore, qe 5. Leamed coiuisel for th{ lota ot evideiice. against ttie / on the Aasis of the statem^ c tfcT4(lT 'RP^f "^ 'fe^t' T^reiR •^f 3lf:gi? gn^T Sessions Judge, Raipur froin where jiudge received Uie same on ti'aasler tor 307 of I.P.C. was frained against the lanaer yection 3UY read witti yecuon -14 appeUaat SohanJal aad charge Tiader trained agaiast rest of fbe accused |hekh Ismail, who abjured their guilt. [led y witnesses. ytateiuent ot accusect Ir Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Sheidi Isniaii against nim ni t&e prosecuUon case ipjlic^ate ten talsely unpiicatea suice tie is a it Saadesh and coliiplainant Nishamani recoveiy from the truckers aad this was sjpaper Amrat Sandesti at lus iastance ^n. the coinpjaiaant bad Uireatened him mm ui a case aad teacti tiuu lesson. Jias also denied tbe circuiastances prosecution evidence and Uas talcen a |df Congress Party whereas complaiaaat has falsely unpUcated Tiim. appellaiits subinits that fhere is not ao. ippeliaiit and fhey have been convicted ;nt of coniplamaat Nishamaai Munna. t-iiu' ^ro^-f Bl ilii' i XI-HC-22 SII^T^T K'v'h s^y ^*4 ^f^fl T»?"ill'llcf^, ^•dl'y'l'i, (;«'ira3< 3TT^T xpra? c^.^^ (.WLS ''WI, 200 HWWI Shlltt) ^^ST' sn^i ?^arer ^f?d Itiere is no evitlence. availablj witti a coiniaon uitentionl coinplainant Sunilarly, t&ere none of ttie witnesses tiave was seen ui uie coinpauy pt was as a resiut of criminal Isiaall and ottier accusea per^ b. Un me ottier tiaacl, lei impugned juaginent. 1, i J&ave neanl Jleamed co| 8. P.w. l Dr. B. Chourasii 1 aad has stated fhat iu sustainea two laceratea lacerated wound on coinpiaining ii-ritation in his ana 4 were on vital part ot case the injured was not no evidence of this witness sunicient to cause cleatti ui ot any treatment. 9. The conviction ofthe, ot KW. a complauiant version ui tlie f.l.K. Jias stat< woiulids occipi|tal Nishadiaai tailonng snop, accusea yon; °t)|^tf1<4ll Hl^(yll*'4^'^ <^l^dl< ^sifSgqsn^T on record mat ftie appeUant Sotiaalal wittt accused Arit assaulted ttte [is no eviclence ot crtminal conspiracy as Istated that the appeuant S&ekh Isinail fcccused Artt" Ktian or ttiat the incident c|onspiracy Jiatc&ed Detween Anl, yjiekti tons. a^ned coiuisel for fhe State supports the i|unsel tor Uie parties. ra fias proved the injury report of Ex. P- saul uicident, me coinplamant Jias over trontal t>one ot si'cuu aiicl one bone ot sJs~uu and Jtie was also ttoth the eyes. Siace tne injuries No. 2, 3 t body, the sanie could be grievous in ia the hospital. However there is fhe iaiuiy present over fhe skull was oraniary course ot nature ui absence Utie ttie adtutted tUat tlie appellaats is Dasea 011 solitary tesnmony trjiaai Munna. This witness reiterating his id that while he was staadiug before a t^aual came near tiim aua asKea fiim to r ' [TfT^^I<a<4 -=T XI-HC-22 3TT^T^T R;-ii?b aii^r ^RT^ ^if^-ff 'S^ -^WWt\, »fll*<'l6,(Slftiyy 3ff^T -q?RR C^.'^o.^ MIWfftbHlt*) ";ST. 200 i^^vs' sn^r TOnar ^iter occupy fhe bench wherei English newspaper. At that tor ttie newspaper. At tnat and in fhe ineanwhile, aad also assaultect on tu^ number ot persons were staiiauig said tliat ttie assa taereatter bs became stated tnat the person wlio assaulted him on his head snouting t&at Arat fias ue( KJaan tias assaulted him snoutuig tbat me tasK and Laxmikaat, that lias evidence available on rec< complauiant agamst t&e pr| have beea examined by fh< i-'.W. b Jitendra Kumar and ana ui ttieir cross-examiaat elicit aaytnmg against tlie is also witness ot me tact yoJianlal aad conipJauiant| Iias not stated anyUuag uncoDlscious whidh witiin^ii *<WCTI'? feet tfif^K '^siPwsn^r i|pon he sat there and started reading Itijme, one Namdeo came there and asked tjme, Sohanlal got up and started laugfaing soitiebody fhrew cnili powder over his eyes head toy stick whereupo.n he shouted. staading f&ere and persoas wno were aflaut ot Uie coustaDle is Ant ot tiasna aua i. In para 4 ot Jiis deposiUoa, iie lias |had thrown cliui powder on his eyes had pacl since Uie persons ui Ule crowed were [1 after assaulting, he is saying fhat Arif s|nd whfle he was running away, he was was handed over to hiiTi by Ismail Khaa beeii accompiisnea. 1'Jiere is no otner >rd except fhe above stateinent of the( isent appeUants. The other witnesses who prosecution namely P".W. 3 KaniKuinar, P.W. 7 Rudrapratap have tumed hostue lon, tae prosecution nas-not ueen able to Ipresent appeUaats. f.W. 4 Mittulesn wtio |liat at the ume of incident, the appeUaut Nishamani Miinna were sitting togefher, w^iich iacruninate t&ese appeUaats, [Ti^^R^ 30-HC-22 T^ -i<l'lll'rl'il, afll^'is. f«iCTi'M^< an^I^SI R-ii'* S^f SBliiO ^l)?3 3T[^?T XR^; c-^^,^<?.^&Vl WWfT Sh*<lch "(FI, 200 i^-^s' sn^i ^Riiwtifpr AMf shofitiag 10. Learued trial C<3urt on coiuplamant has held that iutentiou with fhe accused was sittmg ttiere aa.d was lauj tias convictea nnn uiicler yec and oaly on tbe evlclence ttia| pjace ol luciaent, ne was given to liim by Shekh Isiuaif, under Section 120-B ofl.P.C. the taterence drawn by me trjji erroneous ancl sauie cannot Qf 11. In fhe result, Uie appe^l Sohgmlal uiider Section 30' conviction of appeUant Shekfi ana Uie sentences uaposea aside. The appeliants are 011 crH^FcT^ TTTl^Tf ^ fs^ <f^<^R '^SfPOTSII^I die basis of the above stateiueut ol tfae appellant SohanJal had a conunon tif of assaulting fhe coinplainaiit as he gtiuig wfien Uie incident tooJs place aad jtton 307 read wifh Section 34 of I.P.C. |t While Arif was nuuung away froni the ttiat Iie ttas accoiaplisned fhe tasls: (, has eonvicted appeUaat Shekh ismail In the considered opinlon ot tnis Court, |al Court agaiust fhe appeUants is totaUy sustauied. is allowed. Conviction of fhe appellaat read with Section 34 of i.P.C. aad Ismail under Section 120-B of I.P.C. ipon fhein under those sections are set •ail, 'i'neu- Dau bonds are aisctiargecl. Sd/-. Dhirendra Mishra ;e t^^fi^