APPELLANT (M jézydw Q¥\\W 1E1 We R 9% \i" gym? U " R“ g RESPONDENT ‘ K F3 AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 411 / 2006 s’rijlal Gond K S/o Chhertu ram Gond Aged about 3O ears , R/o V111age Chandarpur P Surajpur D1st Surguja (C G ) Versus State of Chhattlsgarh Through S H O Pol1ce Statlon —Surajpur, / Distt- Surguja (C.G.) / APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37412! OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE / K IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH 7 HIGH CGURT 6F CHE-EATT‘ESGAREE AT EELAS?UR SB : HDN’BLE MR. JU$T§I¢E PRETii§IKER DIWAKER. mug. 1w. 94jzo§3§ EL A??? Sri1'131 GGnd i V€1‘sus r‘ R aEBEE’F Sate Gf Ch ExatiSgar'h E ' $ 1‘ Shxi Rakesh Panéley amuse! for" me awmllant. qhm Pravssn Pas, Dy A :cr the Saw i APPEAL EJEBER SEL‘TEGN 374§23 {)? TEE CREKQ. ‘ JiiDGMEN‘T i1?°03.26§ EE mhe massm‘ ampeai N rimcta‘; awm‘zt me Augmem $5 0m {iair-{I 31 01 2906 nagsad by she F1r§t écidmmxaT Sewmm ud Smawur, dlhtua \5urgu3a m Ea? N . a6/2G03 canwctmg ihe acctw6ifappeilant i‘br the ef?a13cs ’puuisbabie unciar S€ctim1 3G7 9f tbs IPC and ssn‘mncing him to uladergo RI far Swaa years with fina' 0f V Rs. 1m) i1; cisfatEEt of fine i0 fuxfhm” unciergo RT for 0:16 menth. '2. Bmef mot?) a: ‘fhe (“axe ax: that 011 '28 (M i m wuq loagsd xv ‘ Huan Smgh (P W 2) iathw of tm myxed RaYgu Ba; ’P W — l} (172c‘gmg that 01} that &ay at about 10 3“ p m 13$ Qaughm; Ragga Kmnau wae l‘ , ' bumLt by fha accusadgappahann aftet panning Ram-$611.6 am (m “Hr Thjé mformafioa wa§ rcliucai i1“ Wining i3 th? Sarg'ha Vide Ex P’ 1‘” by Kuma} Sal Thakdr (P W ~12} If is xurt‘aer (‘aoe vf 1h? nm<s€mmmi that the Vlchm Ramu kumm was has}; mkZ€i £‘mu‘ 9C} 6 ”’QOJP ta 2 7 ()4 Govnmmsm HoqgmaL Am‘nkamur emd thc reafhr Qhr yaw Areferrca to Holy Cmss P0§p1taL A him 1m" whe shg wasx hospifah‘md from 2.7.04 i0 13,9,€)4V FER {EXPHQ} was mgistsrmir agaiuSt the acctxsed/appejanf or; 16 1 i 20G4 for thf: offaiics pum‘shahk umisr $€ct10n 3&7 n;t ‘hé PF ALEI‘ iavestigatiah, chaEan f way med on 14 12 04 unvler Section J}? G the 19C g' 3. ' m onier to estabh'sh the guilt of the accusad.‘ the Ewesacu‘rion has Examined 14. witnesses. Statemsnt of ths accussd; ampallémt wa$ a}SQ mcorded undar Sftciion "H‘E 0f {ha (hiPIJ, in which ha dwiied fiha chafgw lave'i16{1 agamst him aJtid‘ plsadéc‘i his innocenca and faist: imyii ..tiou in tha ca$a. ‘ \ k 4‘ Affar imagmg 9.6111156} for thg partieS, the. mai Caurt has C(m iii 511d. $Entsncgc}. rim ac6iasedfappei’3am for the oilfence. as maationie’ti aEiovsV Hanaj ibis aygwa}. Aw 5. g Cantanfiolf of Shri Pandey. cauns€1 for the ap@6ll&mi iS that liners; is §m inord’iu‘ate d€}ay 'ul I‘egisfration of ths FIR. H6 submits that gtha,’ incidant is‘lallaged to have, fakan piace on 28.6.34 Wharaas {he E‘IR has been mgistered ox} 16.11.2004, He further submiis thai: the éccusedjagweliallt has been falsely implicated juet because he hae failecl to fulfm the demand raieed by the father 0f the deceased Le. Hirém Smgh {P,W.—2)‘ He further submits that. Ramesh {D.W.—'2.§ has categoricaiiy depeseé, that he was infermed by fhe Victim that when she was lifting me chimney if. fell down aed she caught fue. He fim‘her submits that the appeh‘am: has already unéergone ‘Lhe en‘fire sentence and Therefore the order of acquittal be passeéi 53m his favour because he was a govemment employee. '6, 0n the other hami, suppori‘mg fhe jmpugeed jugigment it has been argued hy Shri Das that me delay k1 registration of The FIR is mainiy because fhe contiition cf the in§ured was serious aed from 29.6.04 to 2.7.04 she was aemitl'ed in (me hospi‘ial emd thereafter from there she was referred to other hostisz‘rai. He fuifher submits !he_f. fhe aepeilant is 1.101: enfifled. for any benefit. on the growls! of (£e1ay because the matter was immediately reeomeci by Hirae Singh (RWHZ) father of the injurea accompanied by her anti fhe FIR oegh? io have been recorded oe that daee itself but ihe emry was ma(1e in the rojeamoha Selma viée EXP; 15 C... He su‘Gmits that px‘esem is not a ease where the report waged was an afterthought rather a very promot informatjor: was given. to the police autiioxities regardieg the act of the accuse] appeliant. He further submits that mjlured Rania Bai has categorically aeposed against the accusezif appeliaet as to in w v whw. Hammer sh? was Lvrm by Ium In rssvgec. of st«x€men.t cf Hiraja IDW z‘ regardmg m6 ciemcmd of mo ‘ ‘ d has basn argu d Lbd: ms m16 anount was demaALded hV hlm m the: ho<zpltal fowavd‘: thc 6} wmimu‘a tz (16 Ew hun m Jprowdmg we ule‘jt {o h Ky 7. (‘Ourmei for mt‘ State further arguwi ’rHa4 stare‘ntnt o; mJurEd Ran“; Bal (P W 1} 8m Hu‘an Smgh (P W 0} has b€€n duly suyporfea by Da§a1 Ram (P W ’3} He further submits ”(hdi mere‘y tbs a}meLanr has aiready undf‘rgong th? entire §sntence would nof €xou€rats hm: fmm%e present case and h1s conmctton 1s stmchv m accordaIiCE w1fh law i 8. Rangu B31 (E5 W 1) m her court statenmm has stated that the accuswianpellant 1s her husbagd and out of fhe wschock th€v are havmg fouz 1$§Lies ami at tbs mile of the mclmsnt smé was Lanymg pregnancy of two manth's She has statad that Em accu §euf appeilaizt wa$ a dnmkara and af‘er cmwummg 11mm: useni $0 ‘maai her f>he 7 has gated that on thé‘ date of meldent Tht: Socu%6{1/ eppc-EaJa? Lam€ alouo “nth hls Lneuds and con‘hxmem liquor and “736?: ghe ohwxma ehe wa§ wddad &, heated. SE16 has furfher statexE that the: accusatijappdllagt‘along with one of his fn'énd conked maat m the. houSS and after taking dimmr Wh€n> aH his fm‘snds left, cams insidt: fhs room where'she was sXEEpjnO‘ with hm" children, dr wEd her om tanJ beat ner mereafter poured kerosexxe 011 on her aml set her or iire. Sim has stated that she could not escape because the accuseti,‘ aopellz—m’r had bolted the doc} and when she caughi fire he opeoea the door an& she oame mama? Lowarfi‘, the coutyam and ‘Ee dovm Que has stated that when her body cauaht fee he Lee'i to tum oi? {hot eafter he went mside the room and aeam came oatsuie stmtea. abuame her savmg that he “71H Emil her Whereugton she h1de herse f m the cattie she-Ci She has stated that ‘hereatter he searehed for bet but when he could. not fmd her he went msuie amq lee—cert the root? aim .‘eee to save herself she Went to he, earems house She has stated that on the Way, Dasat Gond {P W ’3} saw her axle he took her lo her parents house wilere she amated me entae mex‘ent to aem and thereaftm her father Look he1 to the hospital mad then the report was lodged, She has stateé that, initially she was hospitaiized Sm g :, 1 v v L the <i1<3+n€+ haqpna} Rmbmaptx but 1ookuw tn) hPr condmov‘ ‘1‘ wag xéfermd to MLsaxon Hospltau Ambjkapur Where ghe wa hospnaaysd fax kmg pF-x mi and afier *he (ML? of meldent $he 1 rm; m9 wx’ih L161" 1~arcnt§ g L1 I “oss axamma 1011 qhE W?$ var] {rm arxri hag r€atele?er‘ me sntife mcxdent, A.“ l Hirarl Sixwh (PW 3‘9 gamer Gf the. pmsmmrix has $iat€d {Eight ac t: 11 anpamf 1's 111s 5011—221 law aivi N1 ’she “ia’rs oi mcident a£iier E 1 ‘ ' t ‘ , ' ‘ _ ‘ h&8%‘ ‘1? 1:}:3 vow? ox Dasax Parr‘ {P W 11} when X19 u‘mzkd tn? {$3013 he. 5am} fx‘ 1 da1wh+m m a gum x wondmrm 93d was Gamma}. .Ha 329% Staicti , +ha§ 111$ daaghwr mformtr} hug abmn in? Pntme maven tbs“ 1%; took heg to the hosmtai and the report wag lodgFd In para a 0f hm § ‘ . ‘ ‘ L ‘ cross exammat1on.he hah statea that dumg thc psmoé‘t of treatmem, a§ he could not affsnd h1$ ”ork ho (ismamied Rs 15 000 1mm the accgxseo ] appeliam and Rs 3000 was giveri by the acougedj appslialxt Lo one Hna bal who was mkmg Cuia 0f Qcmjix Bal H9 has catogoricaLy domed that “(he moon, was lodgeR by hm bocauso ahok acduséd! appellant failee to give him Rs. 15,900. 1:. g DaSai Ram (P.W.—3) wok £njured Ranju Bai to her pa}:nts’ houseE'm a burnt condition has’ aEso sdgqgorteri the prosecwjon ease ané has stated tha’t he saw the VEctim in a bung coedifion mad she had informed him as to m what maimer she Wae bumi by me. ,accusE:&/ appeilant. I Crawahar ingh {P W 11E took the victim to the hosuital on his motorcycle airmg Wim HKail §mah 1p W 1}} Balpt Plasar’i {P W 51 is the §e1zure wamess of “a P; 3 1e Beadhmd twket D1: ‘§ N Jalswa1 (P W -o) at the 1elevant tone wag postmi at Commumty Heaith entre Surajpur haé exammed the mjuroc’i axld stated that she had suffered 7G% bum mjumes ami the mjumee sustamed by hm vere gmevous m nature and was su§iolent to cause death m the ordmaq co arse of nature Dr Faisal Hasaxl Fudosl treated the mjureé Ramu Bel m fhe Governmem‘ Hoeoital Am‘yikapur from 2Q 6 2004 till ”37.04 has aEso deposeo th t the Vtaotxm had qufi‘ered 709/0 burq mime» JNFaBdLey (P.W.—8) haé‘ referred the, nliureci rfor' medioai ‘ ,examix1ation., Amresh K’Lxmar Singh {PAM—1Q} isvfhe Pat‘waxi who r prepered fhe soot map ExPl‘l. He is aiso fhe wimess of Ex.Pj7,8 5:» ‘ s $ § “ Q T§usiixan1 Ehamn‘ (D W 13‘ is ma invasiigmmg Officer has shmmrmd the pmsecutmn (9% Ruma; 8‘ Fhakm“ ’P W ) Asslstanf Sub In§pector mad€ the envy m ‘he romamrha §cmim1 vmie Ex P/ 16C pr Vgay Anand Qmgh {P W }?} m the (ice or W119 h‘fzafed the vxctlm m the Hoiy (row hovmaa] from 9 7 O4 till 3 Q O4 hm statev That tha Vichm smTeiEd 60 65‘ 0/ b‘uTi myumR Veer 5a; Lakra {P W 14} s the police Constahle who ’rook ihs wc‘dm far madical d1sm1§s€d . ; /\‘\qx d/ ’ j i ‘ exammahor‘ x z < 10. Mmute €xammanon of thE av1d6i1CE makes 1t dear that 0n V > 98 & 2004 fh" avcused [ap )elkmf hurt Ens Wm, Ranju Ba; {P W 1} a9 a remhg (fwhxch.$h€ smTered 700/9 bum mymms and thé‘lezow big comm t101~ under Section .107 of the: EPC‘ 1s juqtmsd and tha same 1s. majmamed “11‘ x fwd 0 tome 1n the argument of Shn Pendey thaf mere 1's an merdmate welay m 10d0 11g the FIR Fact reveals *1 a+ on thr eate oi .mudem 1t$elf 1e. 28 6 O4 iather of the wctun had lodged the repozt in the yohce station and the same wag re orded m the mmameha sarfw vnie En P/ 16C Mere fact that me FIR iiself wae Inf regmterm? 0:1 i t V, R 28 6 043 WIH not give any benew t0 the aeeuseufaapeliam Elmy in _ ,V f "V‘ V {he réhzamcka sanka hae been duly armed a}, me myureq Ran “u Bei ‘ ‘ t (P W I} HLran SmOh {PW 2) u. Kumar Sm“. hakur {3W La) E‘urther ‘ 9’; i flmi 130 torce L1 the argument of Sim Parmev than“ as me appellank ‘ ham aheady untie1 gone the emjre senteme he be acqmi‘sed because he is. a governmem‘ servgmt Once fhe commemoe of the 5' accused] ampellemt i<a ueheid' under Section 30 of the {Pb qziegurm oi 111$ 9equutal only on the ground of hie umiewomg the entire, sentence does net anse In the result the appeai falls and aeeordmgy the same 1's Prltulker Dlwaker Judge f‘ T ‘7