IN THS HIGH CQVS.'S OS MftOHXA PRADESH AT jaaaLPUR CR. &PPESL KD. APPEfcLANT (Accuseci ) (IN JAIL ) ".-^ --< ^.tei /95. GAiStESH SAINSMI aged 30 years S/9 Kondo satnaml, resident of village Maro, police out posl: Maro, pQllce station Hause KSwagarh, nistt DURG ' ^ , > y»; T ^ 't/- "^ versus n'y- ''A7 RESPQ.NDEST s State of H.P. ' • ^ — ^ ' ^ vi^-.& £,;,^»-»~~'^^ (J ^^^n... ^/^-->^< ,^> ^,' ^l^SS-^ ^._... _-„.-._..—..—.._. ja...fl_. _.._!._.__._._ APPEfiL^ U/S 374_(25 _CR. PR_._CQDE :h •• / •*i»- XI-HC-22 3TI^T?iT R-fi+3TT^T shlitidf?^ Hoa'ble Stoi Jastice V.K. Sbs «iB?:lli 3;sg'aTpn?pr, »Tflfl'ls,Rldl'Hy sn^yi 4sT<sb ^WWI IfiW^cZl-j^^^0-^^ ^.-^.-.,.............»,^. ^p , R<>«d sn^TWdTwafN Shri V.G. Tamaskar, Shri G.D. Vaswani, D.K. Gwah-e, Dv. Govt. Advocal Oral iudgiaent dictated d L.C. coitisel Adi&itionai This appeal is directed aad oi-d.er of sentence 'dated Sessions Judge, Durg, CaiD.p 336/92 whereby leamed Addi the accused/appeUant guilt}' ^ Sectioa 302 of fhe IPC, sentei for life. • 'The case of fhe pr6secu1 of 05/07/1992 Sliiv Kumar, house of fhe accused in searcll accused/appellant, butwhen when Iie entered fhe house accused/appenaiit was assaul? Iviag dead near the cot. Then this, Kotwar rushed to the P< '*)l<l?M<fl-f ITTO?if ff fS^S <Fa|WK ^i ari^pT sn^r for .tfae appeUant. Public Prosecutor wiffa Shri e for fhe State. a Dcas. laaaiast the iudginent of coavictioa 221/02/1995 passed by VI Addinonal lat Beinetara, in Sessions Trial No. |fional Sessions Judge after holding Isr conuaission of tlie ofience under [uced him to undergo imprisonineiit tion, ia.bnef, is that in tlie momias Kotwar of village Maro went to th.e oflabourer. Shiv Kumar called the ]te did not coiae out fi'oia the house, of ffae accused, he saw that the tine Iiis wite wifh laufe aiid she was fc was blood OQ Uie grouad. Seem.K j)Hce &ut-post Maro as.a. gave inerg (^y^) XI-HC-22 3II^T5|iT f^iwsn^r gOTWdfStf ^ *IIICTI a>ii<») 3^ •<)l4l<'l<i|, ®Tl1wi$,l°ifiitiy 3)1^1 <4s|tt» ^..................... ^ 2g() f^^ SfI^T STCTRTC lrf?cT -2- intiiuation (Ex.P/9},-based oj3 for coiuioission of offence uitds same was sent for registrati^a.. Nandghat where first Hitbrm4tion The Investigatiug Officer left t): aotice (Ex.P/55 to the Pancttas (Ex.P/6) offh.e body ofdeceaj accused/appeUaiit gave 3ais| pursuaace of ttiat fhe booli| Ex.P/3 aad fhe kaife was seizt §aiwas sent for postmorteial Centre, Bhatapara, •yhere Dr. postmortein, prepared Ihe opined fhat cause of deafh haeniorrhage due to injuiy o| resulted in shock aad deafh< After completion of the| iii tlie Coiu-t of dudicial MagJ tura coiiunitted fhe case to tU he received the case for trial. The prosecution in'oii accused examuied fa'teen wita' recorded under Section 313 o niaterial' appearuig against 'hwfi-i'ifl-i t<itich'ffteI^<Ri<^i< ^isrf^Tsn^r fhat criiae No.0/92 was registered der Section 302 of the IPC aad the s..of tfae case ia fhe PoUce Station report (Ex.P/18) was registered. ) the scene ofoccurrence ai'ter givias as aad prepared the inquest report .ed-Bena Bai. Duriag police custody laem.oraaduia stateinent aad in of "Salyalcatha* was seized under ;d under Ex. P/ 4. The body of Bena examiuation to fhe Prmian' Heslth O.P. ,Sharma (PW,/15) conducted the postmprtem report (Ex.P/19) aad of Bena Bai was due to excessive carotid artery aad trachea which investigation, charge-sheet was filed strate Rirst Class, Beiaetara, who ia Sessions Judge, Dui^, froia where |er to establish fhe charge against 'sses. Statement ofthe dccused was )ftheCr.P.C. in which he deaied tlie h^m ia the prosecution evideiice and (tft^^f^) /L(4 XI-HC-22 SD^T^T f^ri^sn^T ?^iN;a1ia' •il »118E'ti^!» ^^•^{^-. t^^lr TS?aiF(RfST, a^flwis, Rldl'My 3iiq^i ^iach TTHWI sn*<icn V^ 200 f^i^; sn^r^gRKBfN -3>- stated fbat at the time of iait: and he does not kaow how ft been falsely implicated ia the| Learaed Sessioas Ju4 Additioiial Pubnc Proset accused/appellant, convictej cientioued in para one of fhis| We have heard Shri V.' accused/appeBant aad Shi| PubHc Prosecutor for fhe Stat) Learued counsel for t| hoinicidal death. of Bena Bai. of Dr. O.P, Sharma (PW/15) when he was workiag as aa Centre, Bhatapara, on the TC! Station: Naadghat he condu< Bena Bai aacl aoticed two-.'in the abdomen of fhe. deceased excessive haeniorrhage due te Therefore. ia view of the (PW/15), it is established hgiaicidal ui nature. ^~>, >. / +i'iiFft'l(1-< t<i^<'i1'ffte^l'<Ri«,i< ^srf^q-sn^r ideat fae was ia his agricultuial field incident has happened aad he has crune. ge after hearing tlie argiiiaents of 'utor . and couiisel for fhe and sentenced the accused as judgment. }. T.amaslcar, leai-ned coiinse! for the G.D.Vaswani, leamed Additional |ie appeBant has aot disputed fhe Apart froin fhat, as per fhe evidence |who has stated that on 06/07/1992 l^ssistaat Surgeon in Primary Healfh lu.estof Station House OfBcer, Police 1'ted the postiaortem on the bodv of uries o& fhe neck and one iajiuy on IBena Bai aad she died on account of injuiy of carotid arten- and trachea. tbove evidence of Dr. O.P. Sharma 1-that the deafh of Bena Bai was (ifl^^W) y 'K f t':li K 'K. RE'-. ii^..:' i XI-HC-22 .an^rw f^fNian^T shfisb(rf5!T tilltl!Es-:R8at l:Bi^»:!ia» TSf rt|t«lcl<l,OTn'U'IS, ficlltiy 311^1 laqi lli(iish^i<n ••••••••••••••'•••••• yy^ 200 3TI^lB«lieRHf?(T ^u- As far as iavolveinent criine ia question is concei-nt criine was witoessed bv Shiv the report fhat on the fatefil accused/appeUant ia search fhe house of the accused/: assaulting Bena Bai witii hostile aad he has not suoi other witaesses Iiave turaed knife, the weapoa of the offe^ conceraed, krufe was atreadvl and it was seized froia therej fhe acciised Iias no relevanl weapon of fae offence w?-s •nt oiily. Apart iroai fhat, as pet Daaiya Bai and PW/5 Konda| ruoi-mne offateful dav thev alc to fiie agriculfiiral field aad -sj fhev came to know about the thev caine to fhe liouse of presence of the acciised at the| aot been. established at the vU is no evidence on record ci-iiae ia question. The findiiij . / +l'!|?d''fl-< Nl^clTfftecit<Rl'w.l< ^sri^Tsn^T )f the accused ia comraission of the ;d, as per the prosecution case, the Kumar, Kotwar (PW/2) and he lodged dav he went to the house of the >ffhe labourer aad when he enteied ppellaat, accused/appeUaat was [aiife, but this witaess has tiimed ioiled the prosecution case. Even, 1 h.08tile. . As far as recoven' of the •e at fhe iastaiice of the accused is stuck ia fb.e aeck of the deceased, fherefore, the iiifonaation given bv •V. It is not a case tbat the knife, itliia (he knowledge of tlie acciised eb~ the prosecution witnesses, PW./4 @. Shuklava have stated tliat in. th.e ^ngwifh fhe accused/appeIlaatwenT. 'hile they. were workuig ia tlie field, iticident aad on receiving uiforaiation the accused. Therefore, even the Itime of coininission ofu.ie crime has ^ce of occurrence, as siich, tiierefore jonnecting the appeUaat with tlie t of the trial Court is not based on (ift^y^) III ^fc XI-HC-22 3TI^T?iT f^IR'an^T Stl1 flf?a' Raju 8(:1! •^ . A ..:^r o ^'.y ^ ' "^ €^ "7 3:sg'xiwi<i<),siT{)ri'is, ft<;jitiy 3TT^?T qsrai *n*ictT stiwfr V^ 200 R<)«A anv legal evidence. coiuiectilii criine ia. questioa, therefore, f|ie reasoDis For fhe foregoini aiid senteiice imposed on fl)i 302 of tbe IPC arc set aside not required in. aiiy ofher cas^ Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge <»ii<<F<-i<I1-f wraf fr' fs^S rfsrezrc ^?3T^T3n^T tlie accused/appeUant with the same caruiot be sustaiiied. is, the appeal i& aUowed. Conviction ic accused/appeUaat under Section and b.e be set at ]ibemr fortliwifii, if ^"' __-. „.^ -___ ___^__, Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge •- / (^^fe^)