XI-HE—78 ^^ 3lSsy!W^ c::v 'tWTSS^I'SPlte 3^T ^WI^, (5Tf1y'|i», Pt<'»wy WI, 200 snisr Tra% (iyf-j«<^() TCiIW;Hfe(3II^T <t>wi<'i<il-i w^vS^te^ <R<«(K "^ <iiRl*1 <HI^I QflminaIAripeal N0^108612001 APPJBLLANT Matlavi Ag R/- p.' :^d Mapavi Soma, S/o Hidma Muria, about 55 years, ViBage Mudse, - KatekalyaD., Di^trict Da&tewada. IVersus (State of Chhattisgarh, Through |lhe Station House Officer, Police |Station Katekalyaa, District IDaatewada. CmMINAL APPEAL d/s 374 (21 OF THB CODE OE- CRIMINAL PROCEDURE D.B.: HQK'BLE SHffi L.C BHADOO^J, & 10 L.C. Bhadoo,J:- Ms. Nirupam.a Bajpa^, Ms. Anju Ahuja, Dei^ State. Heard. This appeal is conviction aad order of se4.ten.ee the Pirst Additioual Sessicl S.T. Nd,96/2001, whereb])- HON'BLBSHSSUmLKUMARSINHA^J. .10.2007) ^, Counsel for ffae appeliant. •t |uty Goveniiaent Advocate for fhe di^ected against fh.e judginent of dated 07.09.2001 passed by 4ns Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur ui 1i, the learaed Additioual Sessions XI-H6 311^T?it R;-1 'C^T sn^?l ^^i' 3^ST •-i<i^l<?i<), ®Tn*1'16,Rf<?»l+<y . ft. -; ,/0 ^J,0;WI. 200 an^yr TRW ( 'RCTIW ^lfet SD^T •? of pay|neat fbrit prosecui|ion Judge at'ter holdiag the offence punishable uader coTnTnittmg uiiiKler of his I to undei^o imprisonmen^ Rs.300/-, ia default for 6 luonfhs, aad R.I. Rs.200/-, in default ofpd R.I. for 2 inonths. Bofh concuirenfly. Case of fh.e at about 12:15 p.m.. viUagers lodged the repo| Katekalyan to fhe effect Deva aad brofher-in-law -| fhe field at about She along with her deceased) aad father-ui-lai fhe residence. At about 2 after consiuning liquor, Madvi Poje and accused/appeUaut was Madvi Somdi went to say s< tried to attack her also; bouse aad stayed fhere ia carae and iaformed Madvi accused/'appeUaiit guilty of the Sections 302 aiid 201 of IPC for wite - Madvi Poje, senteuced Tiim for life and to pay a fine of offine to further undergo S.I. 3 years and to pay a fine of yiaent of fine to ftLrfher undergo te sentences were directed to run Madvi flliat <*l<lli'l41"f Hlfdf ^fe^ <("it$i< ^3tf^H3n^T inibfher- ia brief is that on 09.12.2000 a4vi Somdi (PW-1) along with fhe |rt (Ex.-P/l) iu Po'Uce Station - on Thursday, her husband - Hidiaa after takiag raeal, left for 12' O Clock iu fhe noon. snijifher-in-law -Madvi Poje (since i|y - Madvi Soina (accused) was at p.m., accused - Madvi Som.a quarreiling with his wife - her v«-ith left leg, the h(|)lding kaife ia bis haad. WIien (iinefhiag to accused/ appeUant, he ti|ierefore, she went to her fafher's •pie night. In fhe uiomiug, Lakhiae poindi ftiat body of her luother-in- sltarted attacked XI-HG 3n^t?H'ft;ife; wianSRcai^ 3^r^T;n^r, grfrepT5, (ii0wy ^.....a..A.....j^£^...WI. 200 3n^?r VRR ( TOtRR:^lf??[3Ilt?I J3 law is lying ia fh.e Mun^ Lakhm.e to see fhe body i4 the body of her inother-in-] on both the eyes aad left ligature inark oa the iiecj asked to intorEa. the Villaael and saw the body. TheTe; house, Panchayat was .coi]|< fatfaer-iu-law after committln' Madvi Poje, fhrew her dead] Station registered the mei (Ex-P/4) was prepared by (Ex-P/5) to the Paachas, the body of fhe de{ accused/appeUaiit gave m.e pursuance of that, one ktiiljc shirt was seized under E; under Ex.-P/lO . Site Plsa^ Investigating Officer. Bod postaiortein examiaation Katekalyan. uuder Ex.P/1; conducted fhe postinorteiii] due to aspii^Tda. There w, which was aati-iaortein. nature. He prepared postiiK 'ltWfct'fl-l IWtff'if.i's'.il <t»]«<;n ^•sfflmsn^T ktpond, on. which, she left wifh Mundcipond, where she saw that aw was lyiug. There were iujuries iand of ftie deceased; fhere was a k also. Bamaa aad Sajuiu were .Sarpa&ch-Patel, later on, he came fter, ftie body was brought to the s?ened and she inibnned fhat her murder of her raofher-ia-law ibody in ffae pond. The SHO Police [^ iatunation (Ex-P/2), site plaa. [atka Patwari. After giviug notices [iquest (Ex-P/6) was prepared on peased - Madvi Poje. The ^oranduia uuder Ex.-P/7 and io. was seized under Ex.-P/8, one (c-P/ 9 and one rope was seized (Ex.-P/ 12) was prepared by ttie of Madvi Poje was sent for ^o the Pri.mary Health Centre, ^, where Dr. A.D. Bara (PW-6) aud opined fhat fhe deafli was <s a ligature aiark on the neck, j|id ftie deafb. was homicidal in ^rtera report (Ex.-P/ 16). XI-HC—78 75Sf r*||<||<?iA|, ®Tfl<1'l<o,Iqoiyy __.......^..R..^......10SC:..[°L KTOOT *Ni* •••----•••-•---•••••---y---^200 an^r TR^R (1j?f^?w) SII^I^iTfe'IW 'cpsn'^TT^?T ^Ri^ TCIIW ^lfcl 311^1 ^ ^*l<lf<tl<(l*i 'qR^f ^ls'i^ <Rq<$l< ^stRFTsn^f dn After coiapletion of filed iu fhe Court of Chi< who ia tum coTnmitted Jagdalpur, froin where, Judge received the case The prosecutiou in| accused/appeUaxit exaniijie the accused/appeUant Code of Crirmnal Procedulre appearing against him stated fhat he is ianocenl the crune. The leamed fhe counsel for fhe senteiiced the accused/aif We have heard M; fhe appeUaat and Ms. Advocate for the State. Ms. Bajpayee arguep or ocular evidence. 3 convicted xuerely on fhe aitd recoveiy of fh.e rope, the witaiesses have tunit ^vithout aay legal evidenci^ ]the iavestigation, charge sheet was :f Judicial Magistrate , Dantewada, fh.e case to the Sessions Judge, lleamed First Additional Sessions traasfer for trial. order to establish charge agsdnst lied 10 witaesses. The stateinent of recorded under Section 313 of the ;, in which, be denied ftie niaterial |ui fhe prosecution evidence and aad has been falsely implicated ia Addititinal Sessions Judge after heariug ·especti.ve parties convicted and ipeUaut as atbreinentioned. . Nirupama Bajpayee, Counsel for Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govemment Tbe tttat in fhis case fhere is no direct accused/appeliant has been llfasis of last seen with fhe deceased kaife at his iustaace, whereas, all :d hostile. He has been convicted ;ifc on record. XI-HC—7S SD^I ?iT K-il'* T^T 3TT^?T sh+1)cb '3^ ^l-i)!^, e'dl'y'is, (Sf<rtl<-fy ttWv\{ sbMleb a.A-j,t3..^1°.l .w W^ 200 an^r TH% (ipfgg^T ^<IKR'gftd sn^i r Soriidi Assistbiit On fhe other haa4, supported flie judgment of| PW-1 - Madvi seen, who is fhe daughtei]'- not supported the prosecT^ti' hostile. She siinply stated ia-law and laother-in-law iii-law had iiot attackedl examination by the that on fhe dav of uiciderdt fafher-ia-law aud inother-) has stated fhat it is ID.COII gave beatuig to her m.0fh( When accused/appeUaiit q| she went to her father's hol anytiung. Froin her eviden^ left fhe house, her fatlier-j fhe residence. Madvi Soiui on fhe next day, Lakhine her inoth.er-iu-law- Madvil pond, on which, she went her laother-ui-law. Lakhm.( ao evidence oa record to pond. Apart from. prosecution is • that <t)T'ii?^pfr'T 'RFTcff Tf,'fi1St' <^1^)< ^TajfgH sil^l leamed couiisel for fhe State the trial Court. is fhe witness regardiag last I'-ui-law of fhe deceased. She has ^tion case aad has been declared |that on fhe fateful day, her father- tvere at the residence. Her father- her m.other-iu-law. On cross- Public Prosecutor, she stated |t, ia fhe noon, she alongwith her tn-law was at fhe residence. She ^ect to say that her fafher-in-law ^r-iu-law after consuiniag liquor. |uarreUed wifh. her (Madvi Soindi), |ise aud thereafter, she did not see ;e, it is estabtished fhat when she -in-law aiid inofher-iu-law werc at |.i did not retum in fhe night and aad infoi-med her that body of |Poje was seeu lyiug tn the viflage |to fhe pond aud saw the body of has not been exainined. There is as to who put the body ia fhe this evidence, case of the fhe kaife and rope cAme SlllOW an^I.^t'f?;ti9> wrsn^r *4i+ GR.PRJ — FS/2 •Sv^ ^i<<i<7i<i, ^iTfly'Ko, Riciiyy MIM^I *<4|ch^..A...A.........o.£.c/c^ 200 w^r li^gf (i^if.js<<tT: ^aiWHft'a sn^i c were recovered at fhe iastaac •2 has tunied hostile. PW-3 Subamath, laeuioranduin aad recoveiy < presence. Another witaess the accused used to quarr^ consumiag Uquor. She den^i Wlfepfrt-WTOf-? feA-(f^R ^? siRn an^i ofthe accused/appellant. PW- Iwbo is the w-itaess to the ^f fhe kiufe, rope, has stated in fhe cross-exaiaiaation fh.at t|ie police persons caUed him m. fhe police station and obta^ued his signature. The seizure was made in the police stalio|i and fhere only, rope aad kaife were shown to tiim. It is cob'ect ttiat ffae recoveiy was uot inade froin the accused/app^Uant or at his instance ui his l.e. PW-8 Muchald Hidiiie Iias turaed hostile. She has stat^d that it is iacorrect to say tliat 1 aad beat fh.e deceased after id fliat the m.eaiorandiim. was prepaiied ia her presence. '^herefore, bofb. the iadependent witnesses regardiag ineiuorajidum. aad recovery of lcnife, rope have tumed hostile. PW-10 - Kosa has alio tumed hostile aad has stafed that no information was feiveu ia his presence by fhe accused/appeUaat regardin^ kaife, rope aud no iiecoveiy was effected.' Moreover, fhere iq no evidence that fhe rope in tulation offhe deceased. (cgoing reasons, we are of fhe question was used for straug Therefore, for the fo-j considered opiaion fhat fhe prosecutiou has utterly failed to establish. the crune agamst|flie accused/appeUaut, as there i-- L 50 ,''..,d-ta3=^S' tiWdt *t41eh -3=5^ ^w^^^ W^V'ie, fsKrtl'M^ zi.....^...^....^^../^ ant?T l5(% (iyl^«<<w) 3II^T W K;-li<* '?TSTT STT^T sft<4i=ti '^nwoftg an^r Q- cbi-ill<n*ili HWc'iT '^\'fe1[3t' <^!^1< ^aifinsn^i Shyna is no legal evidence, byj accused was ftie aufhor oi In view of fhe ab| imposed upon the accu^i aad 201 ofthe IPCare s4 charge. It is stated ttiat ffaj smce 10.12.2000, therefcjre iiot/-~nauu^d ia aay other ^..c. Sd/: BHAD Jl/Cfiffe OQ which, it cau be held that fhe the crim.e in question. ove, the conviction aad sentence ied/appeflaat under Sections 302 [t aside. He is acquitted of the said |e accused/appellant is ia detention :, he be set at liberty forfhwith if •ase. ——^ —— Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge ^ -- '^^^-^ ^h»t-'-< S4.'-3»%* .^&l ,-?6^^< r^"^: r4Il-l^faraa ./?'L.-