. mm «3. ‘ C r. @ 200 (now WW,€§W,W aw. No, 5’32 ‘LWF mm (WW) WW,W,W Wm 1n 200 mm (W) WWW WWifséftfmg-R awfrmm afTer holding The accused/appeallan‘r guirry for commission of offence under Sec‘rion 302 of The Indian Pena? Code (far shorf ”file IPC’f) sen‘renced him To undergo imprisonmen‘r for iife. 2) Case of 1'he prosecufioni in brief; is ‘i'ha‘i' as ihe buiiock of The accused grazed The paddy c‘op of Madia Rawa‘r (since deceased); he demanded compensaiionl on accoun‘i' of fha‘i' in 1'he foiefui nigh? a? obou‘i' 1.00 a‘m. 1'he accused wen? To fhe house of Modio where he was sleeping aiong with his family members and shof The arrow; which hif on fhe ches‘i' of The deceased and he succum 1'0 fhe injuries susi'ained by him. PW-3 Samar-i Bai, wife of fhe deceas d,. hearing The cries of her husband woke up and saw The accused running a ay carrying bow. The ma‘r‘i'er was reporfed by Jaganna‘rh Rawa‘i' (PW-5) in olice STafion Tongpal under EXP/6. He aiso gave merg ini'imation (Ex.P/7). 3) The Inves‘riga‘ring Offic r iook up ‘rhe investigation and ief'r for fhe scene of occurrence. Affer giving notice to the Ponchos; he prepared inquest (EXP/1) on the body o, Madia Rawat, Blood stained soil & plain soii was seized from the place of o currence under EXP/2. One bow was seized from the accused under EXP/3 Arrow was seized under Ex.P/4. The body’ of Madia was sent for postmo em examination to Primary Health Centre, Tongal under ExP/S where Dr. P.N. Sandilya (PW-2) conducted postmortem and opined that the cause of eath was shock due to heavy bleeding from b d mm wL 200 Wm (W) ’WWW WW#§€IW aaaifcmméw lef‘r lung and punc‘rure of left lung. Deafh was homicidal in na'rure. Pos‘rmor‘l’em report is EXP/11. 4) Affer- completion of inveéfigafioni charge sheaf was filed in fhe Courf of Judicia! Magis‘rm‘re; Firs‘r Class; Sukmqi who in #urn commif‘l‘ed 1'he case To ‘Hne Cour? of Sessions Judge; Bas‘rar' (Jagdaipur) for friol. 5) In order 10 esroblish 'l' charge against ‘rhe accused/appellanf 'rhe orosecufion examined 6 witness s. Sta‘i’emen‘i' of fhe accused/appelian'i' was recorded under Seci’ion 313 of fhe Cr.P.C. in which he denied ‘rhe material appearing agains‘i" him. He sf ed ‘I'ha‘i' The witnesses are liar and he has been falseiy implicated in The c ime in ques‘iion on account of animosi‘l'y. He examined Mangdu as DW-l in h 6) Learned Sessions Ju ge affer hearing counsel for fhe respecfive par‘ries; convicted and sentenced ihe accused/aypellan‘r as aforemem'ioned. defence. i Ufakarsh Verma, learned counsel for 'l'he appellant and Shri Akhil shra‘ learned Dy. 60w. Advocate for +he S‘i'a‘l'e. 7) We have heard Shri 8) Learned counsel for 1'h accused/appellan'r has no‘i dispuied The homicidal dea‘ih of Madia Ra Moreover, PW-Z Dr. P.N. Sandilya'. who conducfed postmortem on fhe body of fhe deceased; has caregorically h i w HW,W,W sftrred fha‘r there was a sfab mound on left side of 1*he chest (near- “the nippal) and 1'he same was on accoun‘r of piercing of arr-ow. The size of wound was 2" x 1" x 5.5". He further- sfafed The? dea‘rh was homicidal in nai'ure. Posfmori'em report is EXP/11. In view of fhe above medicai evidence; if is established 1'ha1’ The deafh of Madia Rawa‘r was homicidal in nafure. . 9) As far as complici‘i’y of fl e accused/appellanf in fhe crime in question is concerned; the conviction rests on the testimony of PW—3 Somari Baii wife of the deceasedi who has ated that in the fateful night at about 1.00 a.rn. she along with her children & husband (since deceased) were sleeping in the courtyard of the house an hearing the cries of her husband she woke up. In cross-examination she has stated that on the first cry of her husband she could not woke up. Thereafter; on second cry she woke up and saw the pierced arrow into th chest of her husband. She gave water to him. Shedid not see any perso there. It is correct to say that the person who shot the arrow went in th forest. She went and informed Jagannath Rawat (PW-5) about the inciden . Jagannath Rawat (PW-5) on receiving the information from Somari Bai W—3) lodged the report in Police Station under Ex.P/6. He also lodged the merg intimation under EXP/7. In the report he categorically mentio ed that‘some unknown person has shot the arrow on the chest of the d eased. Therefore; from the evidence of Somari Bai (PW-3),. it is clear t at she did not see the person who shot the \ arrow on the chest of her husb d. Had she seen the accused attacking the \ ‘ WI, m W 200 mm (W) WWW ammm mmm wwwuiwm §€a‘1%mamé§1 WW,W,W mm 1a 200 WW (WW) WWW wwwiffgém émimanéw deceased *hen she ought 1'0 ve discEosed fhe name of 'Hne accused 1'0 Jagannafh Rawu‘r (PW-5) fha‘t he accused shof The arrow on The ches‘l’ of her husband and in The? c ‘Hne firs? informant Le. Jagannafh Rawai' (PW—5) oughf 1'0 have men‘rione ‘fhe name of ‘rhe accused in fhe reporf fha‘l‘ fhe accused is ‘rhe person who hof The arrow; buf fhe reporr was Iodged by Jaganna‘rh Rawa‘r (PW-5) on 'rh information given by Somari Bai (PW-3) was fha‘i some unknown person has hof The arrow on fhe chest of +he deceased. Therefore‘ from scrui'iny of dence of PW-3 Somari Bai i? is emerged Thai-l. in fac‘l', she did no? see person who shot fhe arrow. Even in fhe inquest repor‘i' (EXP/1L i‘r has been mentioned Thar some unknown person sho‘i' The arrow on ‘rhe body of 'i e deceased. 10) For The foregoing reas we are of The considered opinion ThaT The finding of The Trial CourT regar ing compiiciTy of The accused in commiTTing The murder of Madia RawaT can oT be susTained. 11) In The result. The app convicTion & senTence imposed upon The accused/appellanT under Set‘i'ion 302 of The IPC are seT aside He is acquiTTed of The said charge. IT is sTaTed ThaT The appellanT is in jail since 5—7-1996. He be seT aT liberTy succeeds and The same is allowed. The l forThwiTh, if noT required in an oTher cdse. 1‘. - Sdl— Sdl- L.~C.BHADOO i 1 T. P. Sharma sf) Judge ‘i‘ g Judge i a a i e o ,.