Xl-HC-78 aT^TiRrfew BT^ans'jTgiiTR; e- ^^ ^I^<^1 Shtllch 73T ^i^ifiii, ®T(IM'I(O,fsii'titiy IT- A. r~* o. ^'5 ^ ^ooo . f,r.fl..)4B. 3-S37/«too» ^FT 200 Sii^i yach (yfi^ai^q') ?FaT8:ri;fli??r3n^T CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.49/2000 APPELLANT Sumariabsi ^vidow ofLate Ishwardm, aged 55 yeais, R/o. Pasaurj. P.S. KeBiari, Distt. Koria (C.G.) IVereus RESPON'DENT State of Chltattisgarii, dirou^i PoUce Statiwt, KeBiari, Distt. Koria j;C.G.) CRIMINAL AfPEAL N0.2537/2000 .4PPELLAP4T Ranmareah. Pasam,P.S json ofLate Ishwardin, aged 3$ yeara, R/o. I KeBiari, Eftitt. Koria (C.G.) IVereus RESPONDENT State of ca4atttsgath, dirou^t PoKce Stati<m, Kelhari, DisttKoriaKC.G.) D-B^ Hon'bte Shri L.C. Bkadoo and Hon'ble Shri DhirenAra Mtebra. JJ. Panel Lawfyer; 3-4-2007 Shri Rajesh Jain, Advocate fdf fte Shri Akhfl Mishra, Arguments heard. Oraljudgment dictated on D^is. ORALl, PerL.C.Bbadoo.J. : Since Criminal Appeal No. are arising out ofthe same judgmen( being disposed ofby ihis conunonju^gment These appeals are directed sentence dated 30-8-2000 passed by 'iwRTt'tr'te^ttRrRK ^iSff^IfW^T ^tpeBants. ', for flie tespondent?State. JUDGMENT 9/2000 and Crimmal Appeal No. 2537/2000 and sarae crune number, therefore Aey are ag^nnst Ae judgment ofconvicuon and order of Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarit in '\._: ^S^£.S .s^gli asv--.'m-3w--» •^je^ XI-HC-78 3^T •:2TPT1?PT, ^TIWI^, C-^-Pi. t46.4^/2-t»& . C-TT- ft • <^0. 3-5 3.7/aoo°_ HW^\l ShHlch •••••••••••••••••.••• ^q- 200 311^1 Mach (yii^o^y) :.T'^!T cRT f^TR;. ^SiT 3n^ST gOTcl; ?RfTWHf?;T3TT^T ERrafi-T^ WRTt'i)-'fe^ rf^RR ^3T|^IT3T^T .aifRMffi !Nft!lfe S.T. No. 117/2000. whereby the leam|ed Additkmal Sessions Judge afler holding accused/^ipellants guUty for commis^i(m of offence under Secdai 302 of I.P.C., semenced each of Aem to undergo nn|prisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in defauft ofpayment offine, t|o furAer undergo 3 monAs' R.L Accused Ramnaresh has also been convicted fbr (ffence under Sectimi 201 ofLP.C. and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. It Sinnariabai he used to reside witfi his is fiuAer directed Aa boA fte sentences shall mnconcurrently. Prosecution case, in brief, is piat accused Ramnaresh beiag step-son of father iswardui, step-brother Jagat Bahadur and step-mother Sumariabai. Deceaa^id Ishwadin was doubting fidelity of his wife ihat Ramnaresh and Somariabai|are having illicit relations. fa die.nyit of 26-10-1999, Ighwardin (since decease^) was sitting widi <me Sukhnandan till 8.00 p.m. and Ihereafter he went to his hoa^e. He after taking dinnw went for sleep. In tfie same house, accused Ramnaresh atri his 8tq>-t»oflierJagat Bahadur aiso went fcnr sleep after takmg dteir diimer. In midnight, Ishwardin started abusing Ramnaresh, on which, Ramnareah an|d Somariabai attacked deceaged Ishwardin with a wooden PeeSho. as a result of which he became unc<mscious. Thereafter Ramnesh pressed neck of Ishwardin, ^s a result nf which he died. On account of pressing of heck, he passed stool a^id vonuting also, which was cleaned by Somariabai in flie ntoma^. Ramnatesh to^ed report in Ae Police Station, KeBiari that his fadier has died on ac(bount of vomiting and dygentery, on ntech Investigating OfBcer left for scene oftxscurrence, prepared inquest Ex. P-1 ai the body of Ishwardin. During police cus^ody, Ramnaresh gave memorandum Ex. P- 2, pureuant to diat, wooden Peetha w(is seized uader Ex. P-3. StatemetU of Jagat Bahadur was got recorded before th^ Magistrate under Secrion 164 of Cr.P.C. Site plan Ex. P-6 was prqiared. First Infonnation Report Ex. P-8 was r^istered. P.T.O. ;1 • i. t""1 Xi-HC-78 :;.7'i;T=Hr?: ;-7r;-i'??i •t l|! s%. ••-l-^,^ 1 .aJ;4'*>1 'sa\ 3rcT •^W\V\^, ^Tfly'lti, fafTll^y i-^.^^e. ^j>/^i-t-E' . r^.p,No-^537/-7^£ m-q?n- gwrar • •L<T-"-n.'.^- •••^.• •'• ^- 200 Sll^l yach (yii^si^ig') ^Trw^fNan^T Bodv of Ishwardin was sent far Hospital, KeBtari under Ex. P-9 w^iaje mortem. He gave report Ex. P-11 and to strangulation and it was homicidal charge sheet was ffled in Ihe C<» Manendr^aih who in tnm cotnnuttie^ leamed Addtti<Mial Sessions Judge, fortrial. Prosecuticm in order to exanuned 8 witnesses at Ae trial. under Section 313 ofCr-P.C. in nliicli them in prosecution evidence. They falsely implicated in die crime as Leamed Additional Sesskms Jiu^e panies, convicted and seittenced the ac|< We have heard Sliri Jain on Mishra on behatfofthe Sttte. Shri Jaia has not disputed S.R. Paraste (P.W. 8) has gtated diat lahwardin. there were bnrises on flie fliat cause of dealh was asphyxia du^ nature. Therefofe, it ia established nature. As far as invDh'ement of concemed. star wimess in thig case is accused Sumariabai. Accused tfost- Ranmarfcsh cRTsrfi-PfrT IffTOf ff fS^t ^TRTt ^sri^trsn^r f mcwtem exammation to Uovemmeiu Dr. S.R. Paragte (P.W. 8) conducted post t>pned fliat cause cf^ath waa asphyxia dne |n nanire.^'After conq>lerion of investigation, ^urt of Judicial Magistrate First Class, die ease to the Sessiong Judge fipom w4iere ^((anendFagarii received the case on transfer establ^sh ffie charge against Ihe accused persons, Sta^ement of accused-appellants were recociled tfaey denied die material appearing against tated that thev are imiocent and have been J^gftt Bahadur wants to pab tfie property. [after hearing eounsel 6» Ae respective jcused-appellants as aforementkmed. [behalf of Ae accnsed-^ipeUaits and Shri hotucidal death of Ishwardin. Moreover. Dr. f»c<mducted post mortem on the body af ^ieck, tongue was between teedi, he opined to strangulatimt, death was homicidal in l)iat deadi of fahwardin was homicidal in adcuse ;used-^peBants in aime in question is P.W. 5 Jaeat Bahadw who is real son of is step-son ofSumariabaL P.W. 5 Jagat P.T.O. \ <--• ;^fi^' XI-HC-78 ^II^MI aim^ 3^ '^WW'f, »Tfl'M'l<S, Gr. PrHO.'^J/.lt.'oO C'y--f\ 'f^v. l 9 3 7 A000 ?R 200 311^1 <4a»('^cil.^ig^ST) W^^iT^icti B??T3[roTshM i|'r!"!j|!»IIS"i .sr'llfl ?RTTW ^f?? W^T »bi<<In41-itiiKi-iT ^' fWt rfsRzn: ^i 3Tf^t[ STT^T Bahadur has tunwd hostile and has bden crogs-examined by Ihe Additi<mal Pubiic Prosecutor. fa para 2 of Ms CTaden<fe he has stated ftat Us nwAer and step- brotfaer accused persons made extraj^idicial confesgion before han diat they have committed minder of his fiidier and fliey fliteatened him Aat if he wiB disclose this fact to anybody else, Ihen <hey wfll comnut his murder also. But ihis wiaiess is not wordi reliance for Ae Teascm frat statenent of dus witeess was recwdea under Sectitm 164 of Cr.P.C. in whiith he never disctosed lius fact that accused peraons made extrajudicial confessfoti before hnn regardit^ causing (hatfi ofhis father Khwardin. As far as question o|f witnessing Ae crime by lum is concemed, on cross-exanuaatKm by AdditMnal]Public Prosecutw, he stated Aat he gave statement befwe Mi^istrate Ex. P-4 d^at he woke iqiai heam^ »iesofUs fedier and saw Aat his motfaer and step-ln^ther Ramnaredi wae assailting his falher with Peedha, his brother Rannuaeah iwessed neck of his father, he fiKdier stated fliat he foigot to tdl flus &mg Iheref^ire, he did not tell dris befwe Ae Coun. In para 8, he has stated that in Ifae rn^fi, he wbke up and in the nKmm^ he saw vamit and stool ofhis father. fii Ae n^ht, he had no talk with accnsed peraoui. In the fatefal ni^d, diere was electric fajlure, ifaerefore, ttt Ae ni^it he could not see injuriesonlhebodyafhisfather, iBl^em<xmngatabout5to6 a.m., he wc*e up, by fliat time his father was already d^ad. In croas-examination, he has stated that he did not disclose every fact befote the poUce, but dtsctoaed before, **"• M^isu-ate. In para 13 of evidence, l(e haa stated that Aere are 4 nxnns a ii>c«r house, in ooe loom, he went for sleeri, ia one twan, his fadier wait for sleep and in ane room the accused peraons wei(t fw sleep. He has fiufter stated that when his mother called him Aat his faflier ^s vonutmg and has passed stool, he went to that room and saw that vomitii^ an4 stool were \ymg, there. In para 14, he has stated that he did not disclose Ae ^ct af cnmnittu^ murder of falher to his P.T.O. Xl-HC-78 3TT^T?ffR-fi+ cTS)T3T^TaiW?; tnHfTT Sb^TT<h 3^ -^WW^, »Tfl<Hll<o, RdKHy C-r. f\ .NsO- ^31 -2.0'60 ^.c<-.-ft.-.,^S^/.^ ^ 3ll^l ^ach (yi(.jisi^q') STtfTW (TftcT 3TT^?T onlv attacfking his Coub Sunuuttbai eviSpace matemal uncle and he did not knowl his father, he went to matenwl uncW told Ihem ftat his father Ishwardin hafe He has further stated fliat because he this fact to anybody. H^ is Ae wavering. At one place he has gtated diat he saw the accused persons of Iris fadier whereas before the he saw Ramnaresh pressing neck Ramnaresh aiid his moAer moming he saw stool and vomffing accused persons. Therefiwe, has Coun and there is no oAer evidencel Therefore, it is not aafe to place fat| order to hold guilty flie accused-^pp^ remains that Ishwardin died on accouti his bodv also and that has not been pereons were not Ihe onty persons i4 residing in the sanw house and Ae flie accused persons, Aerefore, it is persons have failed to e^)lain how| perscms responsible to cause For tfie fwegoing reasmis, available on record based on which canmitted murder oflshwardin. wife'frT wra!r t> te^; ^3Tf^q'3TT^T |the reason ofnot disctosing. Afier death of to call ham. Tbeie he and accused peraans died on acconnt rfdysentery and vomiting. tvas fii^itened. Aerefoi-e he did not discloge wittess aad evidence. of tiris witness is jn his statement under Section 164 ofCr.P.C. «|kinghis faflier and Ramnareah pressed neck he has not eategoricalty stated ihat in fect |of his father and assault being made by i^bai. ]h para 8, he haa stated that in Ae ctflus father, in the'iught he had no talk wiA does not inspire full c<nifidence of the to corrobarate the ewdence of Ais witness. reliance on the evidence of ftis witness in Wmts Rannureah and Sumariabai. The fact jttt ofstrai^ulfltion and there WCTC injuries on |e;q>lained by the accased persons. Accused flie house. P.W. 5 laa/st Bahadur was also was not in Ihe exchisive possessiwi of 4ifi5cult to raise an inference that Ae accused deceased sustamed injuries. They are flie Nouse deadi ofllshwardin. t^ere is no clear cogent and legal evidence the accused perawis can be held to have silefore. Aey are entitled for benefit ofdoubt. Thalefore P.T.O. n ~, II I, XI-HC-78 T5? •^l'Mld'i), »T{lti'l(S,f»fdlti^< Cr- A'Mo. 49 IJLOOO . r^^ fl 1^0. 2.^? 37 lyxs tTnmTg^t^ c'>--^"'"''"';7'-7'-'-<^^7 200 3ii^i yach (^ciI^d^.T) sn^rqiTR-fi-ti ?TSTT 3TT^T gPTT^ BTaret ;Hf??r W^T «b|i<tc(-'fl-tWRTt' ^' fei^t' rfS ^sif^iTsn^r acciised appe^ants In ihe resuh. appesSs succeed sentence imposed upon 201 afLP.C. are set aside. They are liberty forihwith ifnotTequired in Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge Imd flw same are allowed. Conviction and under Secti<m 302 as weB as Section acjquitted ofthe above charges. They be set at anvloAer cage. ^__•—— Sd/- DfflRENDRA MISHRA Judge •T"———... P.T.O. ..^J. ^,^v'