XI-HC—7S 3^T "lil^l^, Wlf1<1*l<S, Rlc<'ray ^INdl *<4|eR c^.A- ^^/^o| --^ 200 31I^?T'qiR? (l^f^^T) 3ni[g.?ii R;-(i<* TPTT SIT^T shHiqi T' ?siiwafro w^i APPELLANT/ ACCUSED RESPONDENT Harir^m Yadav, S/o Dhalloo Ram Yadav alias |Ba!doo Ram Yadav, Aged 36 years, Agric(ilturist, Resident of Village Muglani, Outd(|ior Post Chowki, P.S. Chhuria, District Rajn^ndgaon, Chhattisgarh. -Vlsrsus- Statefof Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Chhuria, Distritt Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. Present:- Shri B.R. Ghosh & pmt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for the appellant. Shri D.K. Gwalre, Dy. Qovt. Advocate for the State. DB: HON'BLESHRIL.C. HON'BLESHRI DHIRgNDRA QRALJ (Delivered or| L.C.Bhadoo.J The accused/appeljant has pr^f [of convictionand order of sentedi [Additional Sessions Judge, Ra.inan|dgaon |whereby he has been held guilty unc(er Iforcommitting murder of Kunwarii jimprisonment for life & to pay a fine| [fineto further undergo rigorous impri^ ^il^I^f^l-l ^I*f^y Tf.fs-*<ll <fa)-^.l< ^? srRiii 3ii^?r BIHADOO& >MISHRA,JJ. UDGMEMT 30"' April, 2007) ^ferred this appeal against the judgrnent jce dated 30-11-2000 passed by the i, in Sessions Trial No.126/2000 •Section 302 ofthe Indian Penal Code Bai and sentenced him to undergo |of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fconment for six months. ^ XI-HC—78 3;5^''^l^l^,WTfl<'<<IC, fsK'iiyy NIN^I sbNKh •V^ 200 an^r'ira^ (4<ii('|,«i<{ti) sti^f?ir R-fWi ^Sff 3TR?T sh^icft T: '^<IIWHl?g 311^1 Jhunluklal accitsed 2) The case of the prosecutio^ deceased) was the wife of Mohammed Yunish Qureshi (PW-3J) house.there are two houses ofthe 4' house of the accused. Vishwasa Bai of the accused. She died 8 - 10 y|s meeting was convened in the villag^ Vishwasa Bai died on account of K< witehcraft. The matter was got day, when Kunwaria Bai went to f^ came there carrying axe in his hand died spontaneously. Thereafter in his hand. He went to the Police incident, which was entered into th matter was registered. The Inves occurrence. Body of Kunwaria Bai vj the Primary Health Centre, Churis conducted the postmortem & opined that the cause of death was was homicidal in nature. Inquest (E) Officer on the bodv of Kunwaria Bai. which was produced by the accus| artieles were sent for examinationl iRaipur, from where the report (Ex.f combromised 3) After completion of investigatii ?f Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnand^aon 'hllfdl'l'l Mlldl' 'if.Issil <R>I<CK •^? aiRn aii^i i, in brief, is thatKunwaria Bai (since (R/V-1). There is one house of on the road and adjacent to the said lccused. There is one bore well near the was the wife of Sukhiram & sister-in-law sars back. When Vishwasa Bai died, a where brother of the accused said that inwaria Bai because she was practicing by the villagers. On the fateful ttch water from the bore well, accused |& attacked her. As a result of which she ran towards his house carrying axe (thowta' Chichola and informed about the |e rojnamcha (Ex.P/18). Thereafter the ^tigating OfRcer left for the place of ^as sent for post mortem examination to |, vide Ex.P/9 where Dr. S.K. Ahuja, the report vide Ex.P/10. Doctor ^lue to shock & hemorrhage. The death 4.P/5) was prepared by the Investigating Site plan (Ex.P/2) was prepared. Axe, »^d, was seized under Ex.P/8. Seized to the Forensic Science Laboratory, was received. prep^red PQ2) (>n, charge sheet was flled in the Court i, who in turn committed the case to XI-HC—78 3:sq'--i)l<l)l^<i|, ^Tfl'M'i^, fti'ii'yy ^Wv{\ sb^l* •WI, an^?r TRR; (ipf^gqir) 3il^iI?iT ft-li'* 'cf^H -3n^T *4|ch ^giwafea SII^T the Court of Sessions Judge, Rajn^ Sessions Judge, Rajnanflgaon, rece| 4) In order to establish the ch^i prosecution examined 14 witnesse^ was recorded under Seetion 313 of he denied the material appearing ag^ 5) Learned Additional Session^ respective parties, convicted & aforementioned. Judge after hearing counsel for the sentenced the accused/appellant as 6) We have heard leamed cdun^el for both the parties. 7) In this case, there is no ocul the accused with the crime in cireumstantial evidence. The prose against the accused on the following i) ii) iil) That the accused occurrence carrying ax Thatthe axe in from the custody of the questit?n That the clothes i.e. accused and same werte Motive :- That the accuse^l practicing witchcraft and Vishwasa Bai died on accouni *wlt<41-< *imvS fffwt <.fat<i< IT 3lRpT 31I^?r indgaon, from where learned Additional ved the same on transfer for trial. irge against the accused/appellant, the at the trial. Statement of the accused he Code of Criminal Procedure in which linst him in the prosecution evidence. l^ir or direct evidence in order to connect qijestion. The whple case rests on the ;ution had tried to establish the crime ]circumstances& motive: v^as seen running from the place of inhishand. i, theweapon of offence, was seized accused on 30-5-2000. riiii pant & gundi were seized from the found stained with blood. was doubting the deceased to be vj'as suspecting that his sister-in-taw of witehcraft practices by Kunwaria Bai. XI-PC—78 ^e? '^ww-'f, vnS\Vt\6, ^^>my. *11*<^1 **<1* •g^ 200 ant?r 'WSK (li«it-j«i<8T) 3]1^I ?R[ R-lii* "^aIT STf^T shliicti 'CTdlW ^tef Slltw sittitig 8) As far as first circumstance is] Mohammed Yunish Qureshi (PW-p) examined. Mohammed Yunish Qur^shi day at about 11 .00a.m. he wds the accused was running away >ye^i his hand, but nothing was enquirec| (R/V-13) has atsq stated that on the| that the accusedwas running away going she does not know. These the clothes of the accused or the also not stated that they saw the ac| where the body of Kuriwaria Baiwa^ seen the body of Kuriwaria Bai. evidence of these two witnesses th< crime in question, unless there was lying and from that place the accus^l his hand. 9) As far as second circumstar(ce report (Ex.P/18) on the feteful day Police Chowki Chichola, where Jhumuklal,t^'practicing witchcraft. | practicing witchcraft. His wife wa^ witchcraft. Therefore, today when fetehing water, he attacked her wittl ontheground. He is producingthe| cf>i<il^<lii ^i+i^l '^,1^^'^R^R '^aifw ail^t lconcerned, in ord'er to establish this fact & Gayatri Bai (PW-13) have been ^r^shi (PW-3) has stated that on the fatefu! at the door of his house. He saw that ^ring full pant & baniyan, carrying axe in by him from the accused. Gayatri Bai Ifeteful day at about 1 1.00 a.m. she saw ^arrying axe in his hand. Where he was ^ritaesses have not stated that they saw ^xe was stained with blood. They have ;(;used was running away from the place, lying. In fact, by that time, they had not T(ierefore, merety on the basis of above accused cannbt be connected with the ^vidence that the body Kunwaria Bai was was seen running away carrylng axe in the |ce is concerned, as per the rojnamcha accused himself appeared before the he stated that Kunwaria Bai, wife of |She had murdered his sister-in-law by also murdered by her by practicing tunwaria Bai came to the bore well for axe, as a result of which she fell down ^xe. The above Firet Information Report XI-HC—7S 3rcT";) I-M l<v><<, giTflu' is, Rl<r>wy NIN^I *MI<* "^ 200 3n^?r IRR; (Tpf^R?) 311^1 ?)T-ft-fi<tl (WT SIR^I a>*<lf 'TOITOt'dfta 3tA?I ^ra[c'l41''T 'RR^f ^'f^t' ^-^.K ^affipTsil^T made by the accused himself to the| not admissible. Only the fact that th^ is admissible. Beyond that, the res< the accused is not admissible in <f. rendered in the matter of Aghnoo 1966 SC 119. extent that he is cbmmitting the crime is axe was produced by him & his conduct of e First Information Report given by fnew of the decision of the Apex Court l\|agesia v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 10) As far as third circumstance found stained with blood is concerni is no reportthatthe blood found on that too of the blood group of th< cannot be connected with the crim report. •. |i.e. fult pant of the accused & axe were ^d, as per the FSL report (Ex.PC2), there t)oth the articles was of human blood and deceased, without which the accused ^ in question solely on the basis of FSL 11) As far as motive ttiat the| practicing witchcraft is concernec| deceased, has stated that Vishwa^ accused, was died 8-10 prior to th( was convened in which Sukhiram the death of Vishwasa Bai as committed the murder of Vishwasa that thereafter they were talkingwitll of each other. The matter was 8 settled the matter. The accused Therefore, it cannot be held that Kunwaria Bai. There is no other withthe crime in question. accused was doubting the deceased |, Jhumuklat (PW-1), husband of the i^a Bai, wife of Sukhiram i.e. brother of i^ date of incident, therefore, a panchayat taid that Kunwaria Bai is responsible for Kur(waria Bai, by practicing witchcraft, has pai. But in para 5, this witness has steted each other and were visiting the houses 1-10 years old. Thereafter, panchayat w|as visiting the house of the deceased. acdused had motive to commit the murder of evidence in ttis case to connect the accused XI-8C—78 g^q' ^itiw^ ®T<|y'i<s,K^i'yy J&5 41*<<"11 *Hleb sf^r ^RW (iyf^«it{iir) "^ 200 3i1^?T W I<(-<i'* ^TSIT 3n1?T'g^ra' Gowri TOIRR ^ite 3iii?r 12) For the foregoing Teasons, prosecution has utterly failed in evidence in order to connect U?e th^ Therefore, the conviction & sentenc cannot be sustained. 13) In the result, the appeal su upon the accused/appellant under set aside; he is acqu'rtted of the sai' notrequired in any other case. fxeeds. ConvicUon & sentence imposed ^ection 302ofthe Indian PenalCode are jl charge. Hetoesetat liberty forthwith, if <til14i^l-41Tl ^WvS^^St <TOR$K ^ 3ilg»fsn^r are of the considered opinion that the WduGing the legal clinching admissibte accused with the crime in question. |e imposed against the accused/appellant Sdl- i! DHIBENDRA MISHRA | Judge ||