371^T ^T ^i<=h Tf^T 3TR?T 5h^l<=^ -SvS( ^W\^, ^Tfl^^Ko, is)<7il<1^< NINdl *<41<* ^200 3n^?T TR^ (44^^) '^nw^rf^T^^^r HIGH COURT OF CtHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON. HON. SHRI StiRI CRIMINAL At APPELLANTS In Jail 1. 2. Versfis RESPONDENT F>rcsent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, ShnU.K. Chaadcl, {15th| Dhireaidra Mishra, J This criniiaal appea| conviction and order of <=hi^f<n<I1Ti 'RT^f '?f^^ <P»t^i< ^ S^RTH 3?n^r DHIRENDRA MISHRA 85 T.P. SHARMA, JJ PEAL N0. 513 OF 2002 Chunthiirani, aged 45 yrs, S/o Dharainsai.; Jaganram, aged 32 yrs., S/o Dharmsai, Bofh R/o Paadaripaai, Baghaapara, P,S. Pattlialgaon, Uistt, Jashpiiniagar, State of Chhattisgarh P4n< *ounsel for appellants. acl Lawycr for thc Statc. QRllLJUDGMENT Febmaiy 2008) is dirccted agaiast the JudgBient of sen|tence dated 21st March 2002 passed ui :3:5^ ^iWW^, ^•^W\d, fs)<^|y^< NINdl *Nlch "l-<^":"<"""^ •"<'•""."."".^ 200^ ?H^?T 1131SR (^f^^T) ^n^Tj^T^hF WT 3ETI^r)$r»^Iq) -<i ^RHW ^Tf??T 3^T ^L Jashpumagar has convicted ea<| 302/34, 201/34 of IPC and <n<ili *iH<?iT'^f k^ <H»S^l< ^fRl1:T3TI^T S.T.No. 149/2001 whereby the l^anied Additional Sessious Judge, ioiprisoninent pay a fiiie of ^s.500/- & in defaiilt thereof, to undergo additional R,I, for tw^ three years, pay a fuie of R^ undergo R.I. for two niontlis, re] |h offh^ appeUaiits under Sections [»entenced each of them with life months aiid to undergo R,I. for 5007- and ia default tliereof, to ^pectively. Both the sentences have been directed to run concuiTen1|ly. 2. Case of the prosecution, |in brief, is ftiat tlie appellants had land related dispute with fh.e On 14th June 2001 at 19.00 retumuig from Tainta market appeUaiits caught him on wa}| stick, as a result ofwhich he di 3. Report of Ex.Pf7 was l^ the deceased on 15.6.2001 af €| fh.at his son Laxmaa had gon| abont 10.00 a,ni. aad the app^ market at about 12.00 noon. leceased aad his faraily niembers. lours when deceased Laxniaii was to his viUage Pandripani botii the and assaulted hun with axe aiid ?d on ti.ie spot, (dged by PW-1 Mahtoram-father of (bout 11,45 a,ni, mentioniiig fherein. ^ to Tamta market on 14.6.2001 at (Uants had also gone towards Tainta (Wheu the deceased did not retum home in the night he enaui3|ed about hiui ia fhe village. On 15.6.2001 his grand-son Saat^am iiifomied hmi that Chuithiu-aoi aiid Jagaa have kffled Laxmarj whereiipoa they went to villag^ aad hidden his dead body in a pit ; Taiata aad found fhe dead bodv of 1^1 ^tl^^ S^T ^OTT^ /y^'" ^&^, ^ ^ ^ '^;^. ^:..: <n^ "Mi^Kr'xii, oxfl'y^KS, fs|<»l»iy^< ,.<3c^...;.........^3..._.___ _ , *«WCTI tbKjcb "•""""••""-""•""—".".."........."..^ ^^ ^ ?n^?r ^^R (4cj^<^) ^?r^Tf?;i}^ WT 3U??T 'l ^tiy^-M ^N^r g^T '^RiTW^f^r 3?i^r Laxman tyuig in a pit ui the fiel^ causecl by sonie sharp edged w^ cr)i<if<n<ili *<i*t<iiT ^fftlst <P»{^1< ^3ffW3TT^T with several iajuries over his head apon. JHe also iafomied tliat laiid related dispute is pendiag i|i tlle Jashpur Court with fhe appellaiits, He has also meutio^ied tliat his sons Laxinaii aad Raai had beaten the broth.er of app^ because of this aaiaiosily ttie acj 4. After registeruig fhe offer iiiquest over the person of decjeased Laxmaii was performed vide Ex.P/ 13. The body ofdeceased Healfh Center, Pattiialgaon wh^ [Uaat Chiiittiu namely Sildhar aiid cused persdns have murdered hiai. ce aad inerg intiiaation of Ex.P/8 ^7as sent for autopsy to ConimLunity ;re Dr. P. Suthar (PW-7) conducted postoaQiorteni aad gave his repor^ of Ex,P/23. On tlie niemoraiiduni (Ex.P/1) of appellant Jaganra41 weapon °f offence axe, two iron plates and one half shirt st^io-ed with blood were taken iato possession vide Ex.P/2. O^i fhe raemoraadum of appellaat Chmfhu of Ex.P/3, one bamb was prepared by the hivestig^ Chuitthzi was sent for medicsl ^o stick was taken into possession vide Ex.P/4, Lungi seized fro^a the place of uicident was pzit for identt&cation where Filimsai (pW-3) identified the said Lungi as that of Chuifhiiraoi vide ident|fication memo of Ex.P/5. Site plan itmg officer vide Ex,P/9, Appellaiit 1 examm.ation where Dr, P. Suthar (PW-7) examuied him and gav^ his report ofEx.P/20. The medico legal examination report of a^ exammation to C.H.C., Pattha| 'peUaat Jaganram is Ex. P/ 21. The weapon of offence seized fx|om the appeUaiits were sent for gaon wherc Dr. P. Sufliar exainuied 1 3?n^r ^T'f^ri^T TT^T 3^TT^T sh^i<=b ^VMMHM^- y ^'. 7c^' "MNI<?'»<<, ^iTfi^Ko, tc<01-y^< MW<?\\ *N|cb ^. ^ f^ '^ 2002- 3H^T ^q? (4^^<^) '^<TTW ^lf^T ^T^T fhe saiae aad gave his rep|c fhe uijnries prcsent over by tih.e Tan.gi (axe) aad Di The relevant pages of Paftthalgaon were also whereui fhe deceased and| as accused persons for appeUaiit nainely SUdhar. ort of Ex,P/22, m which he opiaed tliat tpie person of deceased could be caused tiida (stick) seized from the appellaats. |the cmne register of PoMce Station coll^ctecl during uivestigation vide Ex.P/18 his brother Rain have been oientioned coDiniitting inurder of brother of the 5. After coniplefmg uiv^ Coiirt of ChiefJudicial the case to the Court of Sds received on transfer by 6. Duriiig trial the pros^ Thereafter, statenients offl|ie Section 313 ofCr.P.C. in agaiast tiieBi in the prose^ false iiiiplication, 7. Leamed trial Court parties convicted aad nientioned ui paragraph on| 8. Honiicidal deafh o otlierwise, froin the evid< <sbi^(<n<i1i ^i^i<nT ^fe^ ^^K ^3?TRp7W^T ^stigation charge sheet was filed in the Ma^istrate, Raigai'h, who in tuni coiiiiaitted ^ssions Jude, Raigarh aad fhe saaie was leai|aed Additional Sessious Judge for trial, leariaed :cution exaiiiiaed seven witaesses io. all. accused persons were recorded zuider they denied tlie evidence appeariiig ution case and pleaded ianocence and \¥|hich ^fter hearuig counsel for tlie respective i|entenced the accused/ appellaats as of this judgnient, Laxmaii is not ia dispute. Even (nce of PW-4 Bhagatram, who is aa :3:5? ;3TraT^', ©Tfl'M^Ko,|s|<r!i|^^< , ^y- ^9 . ^-/ ^ NWdl **<Jch' ^ 200 ^ 3iTiST ^^K (4?(^<tST) ^n^r^TR^icb <TO ^n^T )sb^ll<ib ^wi^R <if^a 3?n^r 6- eyewitness of fhe mcident, aac Sufliar (PW-7), who condiicted deceased Laxnian aad gave hi|< noticed foUowiag iajuries aad haemorrhagic shock aad coms head and the deafh. was homic Laxman is estabUshed, Oxi exteriial examinatiosi (i) one big iacised woiin^ froni the nose to right cm braia deep, braia (ii) One uicised wound ov^ (iii) One incised wound ov^ x x/2 cm, (iv) One iacised wound o^ Va cm x ^ cm. deep, Oia iaternal examiaatioai Frontal bone, occipital oiembranes were nipture| cr)i<it<!i<Al "W^Tf^ 'ft^^r^^K ICW ^i{^\ also frora the evidence of Dr.P. postmprtera over the person of s report of Ex.P/23 whercia he opuied that cause of death is due to injuries over vital orgaa dal in nature, homicidal death of preseut over forehead, extending teinporal region, 10 cin x 2 cin x 2 lij^uid was comiag out Ir left frontal region, 1 CBI x l/2 CBI, r left padeto occipital rcgion, 5 cm r occipital rcgion ofhead, 5 cm x b4ne of fhe head was fractured, bram aiid braia elements were also cut. ^ti^^l'M ^NUr /o. v^-c-cj '^ww^, yxflyKo, fs|<r'>l^^< -^...e^...^.....^.Ll. NWdl tbNlcb """"""""""""""""""""-""——"-^ 200 2- 3ni(?r xra^ (ijcil^^) 3?n^T^rR(w<iob WT ^l^ 9?^ ~y -^, ^Kll^R tlfca 3TT^T recoRtiize 9. Leamed counsel for fhe oftlie appellaats is based on fti^ who clamis hiinselfto be ftie ey< in-chief he has adinitted that h( and has only stated tih.at appj person, whom he does not been cross-exaoiined bv the exaoiiaation he has not stal Jagaiirani. He has fiirther argu< witaess it would be evident that persons only froni veiy near i,4 adniitted that at the tiaie ofuicj was alreadv dark when he cam( see aiiyfliuig because ofdarkne^ He rushed straightivay to the dead body and did not disclos mormng. In fhese caanot be based on fhe solitary youse circumstailces 10. On the other haiid, leam| inipugned judgnient oftlie trial 11. It is true fh.at eyewitne; aUegation agaiast appellaat ^ examiaed by the prosecutioii a^ cr>i<if<n<fli Hi^<riT ^f f^^ <fa^i< ^3fRPT37T^T i^peUaats submits that conviction statenlLeut of Bhagatram (PW-1), dtness. However, ia exammation- cannot see properly in flie uight ^Uaiit Chunthurani and aaother ^ had caught Laxnian, He has [prosecution aad in his cross- ted anythiiig against appellant |d that froni close scrutiny of tliis |ie is weak-sighted aiid caii see the 2-3 feet. This witness has also ^lent it was ramiag ia tlie oight, it out of his shop and he could not |s. He is also very hard ofhearing. ofTaj Khaii after seeiag fhe the incident to aiiyone tiU next ^ conviction of Uie appeUants 3stimony ofthiswituess. d counsel for the State siipported ^ourt. s Bhagatraai has not made aiiy a.gaiirain, He has been cross- he made departure from his diary 1 ^ll^^ ^t^T 00. <5-TJ^ '-siW\V>^, W^W\Q, ^vftW^ —.......<S3C...6.....^./-3. ^Wv[[ th*<Jcb •""—"•••"——""•••;""^"""".""" ^ ^^ ?n^?T ^w (^cil^^) j^n^T^rl^rt^ WT 3ff^r j^roNr ^wi^R ^a 3ff^T 7 statenient of Ex.P/6 and flie pr| cr»i<il<n<ili'RPT^f ^T fe^t ^^K ^3ifRpT3Ti^T secution could not ellcit aiiyfhiiig ui his cross-exaoiitiation ag^iast alppeUaiit Jagaiii^m. In examination-m-chief he has stated that on the date ofmcideat he had goae for seUuig vegetable i^i Tainta inarket aiid Laxman. had gone to work in. the honse of R sunset he closed his shop ar| bicycle, He was ridiag bicycle night aad on way he inet Laxm^ fast When Laxman was at a d| [ainesh Seth at Pattiialgaou. After Id was retumiag to his honie by ilowly as he caanot see properly at ii, who was also coniiag on bicycle^ However, Laxraan was ia a hui^y, fherefore, he went ahead riduig the shouts of Laxraaa rcstraiaed nie for beatingff, wli| Chunfhuram, on which Chunl else the^3r shaU. beat hiia also|. person accoBipaiiying Chuuf( tiiereafter, he fled froni fhere oj( whom. he iiifomied that ^Chunl his cross-exainination, as ai| ^stance. ofabout200 yard he heard ^t, come fast, Chuntiiu etc. have Jereupon he rushed fhere arid rn.et piuraoi asked hini to ran away or He firrther stated that aiiother |iuram had caught Laxmaii and |iit of fear aiid met Taj Khaii on way Ihuraiu and Laxman are quarreliag, you go aiid separate flieDi". Tpiereafter, he wenf to his honie. In gued by leanied counsel for fhe appeUaats, there are some | discrepaacies in. his stateraent, however, in our considered opijaion his version in the examitiation- ia-chief so far as he has (Diade atlegation agaiast appellaat Chunthurani, uispires our confidence notwithstandiag the ^ii^<^i^ sNt^ g^-.., /^, ^5^ '<INI<?>'i1, y»Tf1y^|<g, fs|ci»|y^< ^TOW 9WW"" ""•"'"•"••/'""';"-""rf'""^ 200 3n^?T XRyq? (^d^^) ^n^r^rR'iicb WT WW sb^lch ^/ -J^. discrcpaacies pouited out by aad his evidence caaaot be 12. PW-1 Mahtoram, father o| named report agaiast bofh the ^ sou had gone to Taaita market <] retuni honie on fhat day. Ii| iafonned hini that Laxiaaii has] cr>i<ifa<ili ^H<nlf'^'fe^'<rji^|< ^ 3ff?TH 317^ l^anied counsel for the appeUaats iajtoto. disc^rded appeUants. On beuig iaformed fhe deceased, has also lodged a LppeUaiits. He has stated fhat his »nfhe date of iacident and did not fhe foUowiag niQniing Saiitrani been done to death near Tongari. He also stated that fhey hav|s land related dispute with fhe they went to see Laxman towards Tongari aiid saw ttie dead bo4.y of Laxman. lyiag in flie rivulet beside road, 13. Morcover, version of Bh4gatram is also eorroboiuted from the statement ofTaj Kliaa (PW-|2) who has steted that Bhagatraai came to theni aiid said, "two ^ersons are assaulting Laxmaii, go and save hmi", whereupon tliej lying fhere. However, fhey went fhere aiid found one bicycle did not find aaybody there aiid retumed to fheu' honie. On t|ie foUowuig day a dead body was found fhere, which was identifi 14. PW-3 FiUmsai has identified froni fhe place of iacident as| ?d as thc dead body of Laxman by fhe family raenibers of Laxiban. He is also a witness of nienioraiiduni ofEx.P/1 aiid ^ecoveiy ofweapon of offence Ironi fhe appellaiits. the lungi, which was seized that of Chunthuraai ui tlie test i!IW<^1^ Sf^ ^000. —78 -sii^r ^T R-ijch '^CT 3TR?T 50Hlcft 7vSS ^l^)^^, ^T{)«il<S, Isl(^W^< '^INdl sbHII* ^^- a ^/3 '^ 2002- OT^?T ^^F^ ((i^H^<i^) '^TT^T ^E^ 3?T^T identification parade condi^ Apart from. the above evide4 Qiedical exaBiiiiation after exajiiining appellaat Jagan| abrasions over elbows, kne^ (pinna) aad optaed that the] also exaimned appeUaiit CV^ abrasion on tlie upper poftion duration of injury four days.j iiijuries sustaiaed by appeU^at Jagaarani 15, Thus, froia the abo^e opinion that fhe evidence 4 involvenient of appellaat saoie uispires our con^ Bhagatrain was not abl^ accom.paiiyhig Chiinthuram| appellaat Jaganram on th^ sustaiaed. 16, Iu the result: > The appeal prefeiTed t| of substaace deserves) disniissed, ^l^?<ri4^ -4lH<?lT ^ff^c^ <fa^K ^'^J^R.STi^r cted by the Tehsildar vide Ex.P/5. .ce, the appeUaiits were also sent for their arrest oil 18.6.2001 aiid after [^m, Dr, P. Siithar has foiind old :s aiid lacerated wound over left ear mjuries were siaiple ia nature. He lunthuraoi and has obser^ed siniple tlon of left han.d aad assessed the However, he has not given fhe age of o^e evidence, we are of the considered |>f Bhagatram, so far as it relates to Cljiunthurain in crmie ia question, the [dence, However, consideruig fhat to recogiiize the ofher person at the tinie of uicident, conviction of i^ evidence of Bhagatraai caiinot be y appeUant Chuiithuram beiiig devoid to be dismissed and is accordmgly, —78 'srr^fT ^T'f^ri^r TT^T 'STT^T 5FHN7 H TCTT ^li^l^, ^rO^'Ko, is)^l^^< ^Wdl ^h^lch ,c^c....B....^J.^.. 3^?T ^r^F ('(5Glt^S^) •^ 200 '^TTW^f^T ^TT^T /& > The appeal, so fai' asj allowed. His convictiob IPC and seutence iml acquitted of the above fherefore, he is du'ect^d required ui aay ofher c^se. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge <=hl14i<rt4lT1 'RTO^Tf '^\f^t^ <Pn^K '^3TRR31T^T it relates to appeUaiit Jagaiiram, is under Sections 302/34, 201/34 of osed thereon, are set aside. He is 'harges. He is mjaU smce 18.6.2001, to be set at Uberty forthwith, if not Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge L