WW,W,W Wm a 200 W'm (W) ammm am m?!W WWW WW W éimm F3 " 1 L”- 1 . A... x é Cal rimin Haxiy Sai Gond, agad about 62 ycaxs, APPELLANT S/ o S RESPONDENT 'a CRIMINAL APPEAL u s 7 PR D.B.: (6 JUDGME L.C. Bhadoo, J:- Shri Namndra Chanda counsel for the appellant. Shli Akhil Mishm, Pan 1 Lawyer for the State. Heard on I.A. No.01/ 2 O7 for condonation of delay in mg this appeal. As pe appeal. RS. Prem Nagar, Distxi 't Sarguja (C.G.) ' Jangi Ram Goad, R/o Village Umes warpur, Versus The S te of Chhattisarh, Thro gh , RS. Pram Nagar, Disin'ct (C.G.) 2 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL ,EDURE, 1973 HON’BLE SHRI L.C. BHADOO, J, & HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. 38.2007) NT r the 0&ce report there is delay of 2629 days in filing this W O al No.622 20 e 07 g Learned counsel for the apfellant submits that he has been engaged by the High CourtkLegal Aid Committee. Being time barred, the accused has sent a letter for delay in ming this appeal. The letter of the accused sent through Superintendent of Police, Central Jail, Ambikapur, is also annexed with this application and it has been specified that the accused] appellant is a poor person and for Eing the appeal, the certified copy of the judgment was taken by his son, but on account of illness, poor financial condition and illiteracy, he could not hie the appeal and thereafter, accused was able to obtain a copy of the judgment on 25/ 5[ 2007 to tile the appeal. In View of the grounds mentioned in the application as well as letter sent by the accused through Superintendent of Police, Central Jail, Ambikapur, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in iiling the appeal should be co ned. Delay is condoned. The appeal is admitted fo consideration. With the consent of the c unsel for the parties, as the appellant is in jail since March 1997, the ppeal is heard nnally. 1. This appeal is direc against the judgment of conviction and order of sente ce dated 7.3.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions J dge, Surajpur, District Sarguja (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 44/ 1997, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, afte holding the accused appellant guilty for the odence puni ‘ able u/s 302 I.P.C., for committing murder ’of his wife nlarnely Bifaiya Bai, sentenced him to _\‘ mm W @ 4- x9 - mo' gig/0% '20“ mm (Wag ) WWW. 3 Wma‘fiq‘wm $aifd‘qm months. 2. Case of the prosequiic Bifaiya Bai was the WJ alongwith big wife, t undcrgo imprisonmem .for life and to pay a @e of Rs. 1000/- in default of paymenti of nne, to further undergo R.I. for 6 ‘n in bn'ef is that the deceased namely fe of accused] appellant. The accused ;on- Sitaram and Samj Kumar and Guddi @ Pranpah', son and daughter of Sitaxam, were residing together. On 22/3] 1997 at about 8:00 p.m., aiter taking dinner, Sitaram went to the vicinity of village. At that time, his father (accused1appellant), mother -—- Bifaiya Bai (since deceased) , sor. and deceased — Bifaiya Bai staxted — Hanyax Sat Gondt - Samj Kumar andr daughter-Guddi After Sitaram left the house, accused were at the resideucgr l quarrelling. The acJ:used/ appellant attacked Bifaiya Bai with an axe. When Sritaiam returned to the house at about 9:00 p.m, he saw Bitaiya Bai lying in the courtyard of the house, blood was oozing out of the injury on the head. Accused/appellant was not present in the house. Sitaram was informed by his Uncle namely Ramsai that at about 8:30 p.m., the accuséd/appellant came to his house, and he said that on account attacked Bifaiya Bai has died. The First ‘information Report (Ex.P/ 1) was lodged by Sitaram. The Ini‘vestigating omcer after registering the 302 of the IPC, left for the scene of of quarrel between him and his wife, he with an axe, as a result of which, she .7 case under Section WW 200 . .....é £)N06Z’L/O% Wm (W) WWW;- 3911mm WW F§$W %;a#fanan%¥1 mmm q occunencc aftzr giving notices (EX.P[ 1-A) to the witnesses and prepamd inquest (Ex.P/ 2) on the body of the deceased. Plain’ soil and blood stained soil wem taken into possession under Ex.-P/3. ‘Weapon of onence i.e. axe was seized under EX.P/ 4, broken bangles of the deceased were seized &om the place of occurrence under EXP/5. Body of Bifaiya Bai was .sent for postmortem examination to the Pn'maiy Health Centre, Prem Nagar under Ex.P/6-A, Where Dr. Amrit Lal Soni conducted the po stmortem. He opined that the cause of death is shock and h emorrhage due to head injury caused by hard and sharp object and death was homicidal in nature. l-le prepared ostmortem report under EXP/6. Site plan (Ex.Pl8) was p pared by the Investigating Ohicer. The recovered article were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory from whe report (Ex-P} 13) was received an‘d Serologist report (EXP / 14) was received. After compleh'on of the usual investigation, charge sheet was hled in the Court Surajpur, who in tur Judge, Sarguja, hon Judge received the ca The prosecution in t to of Judicial Magistrate First Class, x1 committed the case to the Sessions 1 where learned Additional Sessions se on transfer for trial. )rder to establish the charge against accused] appellant examined 10 witnesses. The statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which, he denied the WW,§M,W @ WW () W 200 m W ........... _........................................H1 . &v/~1«/1/0‘ ézz/[osé‘ mfg% mwm ,h WW#E€IW %WW&¥T liquor. been falsely implicated in the crime in question. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge aftsr hearing respective counsel and perusal of the record convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioued. 6. Learned counsel for me accusediappellant mgued that in this case, the prosecution has utterly failed to connect the accused/appellant WJth the crime in question. He also argued that the accused/appellant placing confession made by convicted‘ the extra judicial him. On scrutiny of the evidence of witnesses, the prose ‘gution has failed to establish that the accused] appellant made extra judicial confession before any of the witnesses. He further argued that even though in the FSL report, it has accused were stainec pinion regaiding origin of the blood. ained counsel for the State supported the judgment of the mal Court has xeliance on come that the axe and lungi of the L with blood, but as per the Semlogist report, on account of disintegration of the blood, it was not possible to give any c 7 . On the other hand, 8. We have heard lean‘ned counsel for the respective parties and perused the prosecution evidence available on record. material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. However, he admitted that he alongwith his wife consumed Ultimately, he stated that he is innocent and has 'ai Court. g§g§g mmmm g [ Wqgglggm 9. PW—l - Sitaram, son olfthe deceased and accused] appellant, who lodged the repoqk — EX.P/ 1 in the Police Station, has stated that after takiJig his dinner, he had gone out of the house leaving belgind his mother, father and his children namely Saroj Kumar and Guddi alias Pmnpati. Reganiing extra judicial confession made by his father before him, he has tuxned hostile and in cross-examinah'on, he has stated that he does not know whether his father and mother after consuming liquor. On cross-examinau'on by quarrelled the A.P.P,, he stated that on enquily h‘om his father about the incident, he disclosed that on account of some quarrel between him and “s wife, after consuming liquor, he attacked her, but in e cross—examination by the counsel for the accused, he stated that his father did not say anything about the a tack made by him on his wife. On the he has sta d that when the villagers were sitting contmiy, in his house, accus dfappellant came in the house and asked that what ha happened to his wife, then villagers replied that somebo y has murdered her. The body was lying outside the ouse, thus, this witness has not corroborated the F' t Information Report lodged by him. Neither his evidence ‘s reliable or cogent on the point that \ ‘his father made e judicial confession before him. \ \\_ 10. PW‘3 - Madansai h s not supported the prosecution case, who is another son o accused] appellant. He has stated that not r ..... r y mw,m,m inimical to accused and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive for attn'buting accused, words spok accused is the oEend r wimess which may evidence to rigorous te t on the touchstone of credibility. As far as blood which was found on the axe is concerned, 1 the place of occurrence and not accused/appellant. Moreover, the Serologist report shows that the origin of blood was not detected and there is no evidence on record to connect the accused/appellant with the crime in question, unless Serologist mport suggests that the blood, which was found on the Lungi of the accused/appellant was human blood and that too of the blood group of the deceased. Solely on the ground that the blood was found on his Lungi, the accused/appenant cannot be connected with the cn'me in ‘ question. 15. the axe was recovered at the instance of 14. GRPRJ For the foregoing reasons, it is established that the prosecuh'on has not been able to bring on record any legal cogent and clincl ling accused/appellant with the crime in question, therefore, nndings of the trial Court convicting the accused/appellant _ under Section 302 of IPC cannot be sustained. evidence t0 connect the an untruthful statement to the are clear, and unmistakably that the and nothing is omitted by the ate against it, after subjecting the e ‘ ‘t n e , [Ltd Il/a' €ZLG9' E 200 W m f mm (W) . l gmmgg—dm g a mmdww w'mm diamante v Q; #Woé ?% 09* . m m m 200 m W (W) mat WEm WWWw fa'éW ‘1 amimm 16. 111 the result, the appeal succeeds. 17. The conviction and sentence imposed on accused] appellant under Section 302 of the IPC are set aside. He is acquitted of the said charge. The accused] appellant is in detention since Maxeh 1997, therefore, he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Sdl- ‘ Sdl= ’ L.C. JBugAeDOO ' Semi u Kumar Sims; g fa image i shyna ‘ ERPRJ FS/246 *2/2007 50,000.—