(x (A No \1%L{‘!2b03 (Y A MD ‘1)Q/2wz_ m m (YRNDgMk/QOOJW 200 mm (13W) APPELLANTS t, son of Anandram Rawat, aged abom Lohcrsai Rawat, son of Dhaniram Rawat, aged about 3O years 3 Ramsai Rawat, son ofDham'ram Rawat, aged 26 years All residents . pw / bv>_’*_ u‘m‘ _/ RESPONDENT APPELLANT RESPONDENT ‘ofvillage Saramdega, P.S:‘La'ilonga, Disu. Raigarn (ca) Jersus State of Chha (C.G.) CRJJVIINAL Q Chinta Mani 1‘ Kcdamath Ra Lailunga, Dis ‘$ "ersus Stats of Chha Distt. Raigarh; ‘ I‘ion’ble Shri L.C. Bhg Hon’ble Shri Dhirendr ‘ Disn. Raigark, ttisgarh, through Police Station Lailunga, IPEAL No. gowms iawaL aged about 32 years, Son of war, R/o. village Sarmadcga, P.S. I. Raigarh (C.G.) niagarh, through Police Station Lailunga, (C.G.) M a Mishrg, JJ‘ a mmm ' ‘4 “WWW“ émmam a APPELLANT Anand Ram n of Usat Ram Rawat, aged about 45 h g yaars resxd tofvulagc Saramdcga, P S Lallunga, Dlsit Ra! (Cu) emus §ESPONDENT State of C msgarh, mmugl Pohce Stauon Lallunga, Dxstt Raxg (C G) mm (13W) WWW mmm WWW§fzékm %3?mw%¥1 4-4-2007 Shri Ramkumar Tiwari, Advocate for appellant Anandram. Sushri Usha Chandrakar, Advocate for appellant Chintamam' Rawat. Smt. Indira Tripathi, Advoc ate for appellants Amritlal Rawat, Lohersai Rawat and Ramsai Rawat. Shli Sudhir Bajpai, Dy. Govt Advocate, for Ihc tespondcnt/State. Arguments heaxd. Oral judgnem dictated on Dais. Per LCBhadom J. : Criminal Appeal No. 284 filed by Anand Ram, Criminal Appeal No. 804/2003 nled by Chintamani wat and Criminal Appeal No. 1296/2002 nled by Amritlal Rawat, Lohersai t and Ramsai Rawat ate b6ing disposed of by this conmibn judgncnt as all the e appeals are arising out of same judgnent dated 4-12-2002 passed by Special , Raigarh in Special Case No. 18/2001. These appeals are directed t the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4-12-2002 passed by Special Judge, Raigarh in Special Case No. 18/2001 whereby leamed Special udge after holding the accused appellants guilty for commission of odence I.P.C and accused Anandram, Chi oEence under Section 148 of I.P.C. offence under Section 147 of I.P.C er Section 302 read with Section 149 of m, Amritlal Rawat and Lohersai guilty for ereas accused-appellant Ramsai guilty for sentenced each of the accused-appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and t pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo risonment for 6 months for odence under l ' Section 302 read with Section 149 of I.P.C., accused Anandram, Chintamani, Amritlal and Lohersai’ have been 'entenced to undergo one year’s R.I. under 1/“ 3 a J e a ' s n . d a h ' p H—7 8 t ~C WW (W) mam mmm WWW Section 148 of I.P.C. and accusedj veafs R1. under Section 147 ofl.I EC. respectively. Caso of the prosecution, 1 n brief, is that P.W. 1 Membai lodged First Information Report EX. P-l in Poh Fxiday 16-7-1999 at about 2.00 p.1n. in Pakdhoda forest is being damag Bhagwano left for the agieultu WM W®€R éwifmkném her husband, brother-in-law and thev reached to the last comer of e field, all of a sudden Anandram, Chintaram, Lohexsai, Ramsai and Amrit came canying club, spear, axe with common object to murder her husband. Loharsai, ai and Amrit threw the weapons they were carrying and caught hold of h r husband and threw him on the ground. Chintamani and Anandram started intervene but they did not stop. He injuries spontaneously. Receiving Station Lailunga registered odence for the scene of occurrence. Site ‘ prepmed by Head Constable Bansit on the bodv of Dhirau Ex. P-4 was Dhirau was sent for post mortem e: where Dr. S. Upadhyay (RW. 9) cc‘ death was coma due to extradural homicidal. Post mortem report is E by Ramsai, Ex. P-6 given by Ana given by Amn't Lal, Ex. P-9 give Wm wt 200 Ramsai has also been sentenced to undergo one ce Station Lailunga with the allegation that on on coming to know that their crop standing :d by animals, her husband Dhirau, Anamo and field. She also followed them. When they reached to the filed, they saw tha there were no animals in the held. Therefore Were returning to their house. By the time assaulting her husband with axe. She uied to r husband could not rise and succumbed to the ' this report, Station. House Oifrcer, Police under Sections 147: 148 and 302 of I.P.C., left plan Ex. P-‘Z of the place of occurrence was that Sidar. After giving notice Ex. P-3, inquest prepared by the investigating OEtcer. Body of ramination to Primary Health Centre, Lailunga inducted post mortem and opined that cause of haemorrhage and injury of head, death was x. P—‘23. Based on memorandum Ex. P—S given ndram, Ex. P-7 given by Chintamani, EXP-8 m bv Lohersai under Ex. P-lO one axe was r l e s seized at the instance of Lohersat ‘mdar Ex. P-ll one Lung of Inhersai was seized, under Ex. P—l‘Z plain soil and P-13 one club at the instance of seized under Ex. P-14.. one axe w bland siained soil was seized, under Ex. ai was seized, one Lung of Ramsai was seized under Ex. P-15 at the instance of Anandxam, one Dhoti of Anandram was seized under Ex. P—16, one spear was seized under Ex. P—17 at the instanc of Chjmamani, one Lungi was seized under Ex. P-18, how and arrow was seize at Ihe instance of Amn'tlal under Ex. P-19, one towel under Ex. P-ZO was seize for opinion of Assistant Surgeon und al examination to the Forensic Science Ex. P-‘Z7 was received. After completion of in the Court of Chief-Judicial Magistrate, also ltwar and Daiuu’i, who committed the case to the Sessions iudge who was aiso empowered as Special Judge. The prosecution examined 1‘3 t the instance of Amritlal. The axe was sent Ex. P-24-A. Doctor gave opinion Ex. P-‘24 in which he mentioned that injury s stained by Dhiran can be caused by axe in question. Articles were sent for c Laboratory, Raipur nom where repori investigationi eharge sheet was med Raigarh against accused appellant as witnesses at the nial in order to establish charges against the accused persons. Statement of accused persons were recorded n they denied the material appearing against alsely implicated in the crime on account of under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in Whic them and stated that they have beeni animosity between the parties for agi acquitted accused Daitari and Itwar whereas convicted the accused appellants as aforementioned. Indira Tripathi l on behalf of Amritlal awat, Lohersai Rawat and Ramsai Rawat, cultural land. Learned Special Judge after hearing counsel for the respective parties, Tiwari on behalf of Anmdrmt, Smt. We have heard Shri Ramku R d a h ‘c s m m m stream (W) ‘ lmwm fiushri Usha Chandrakar on behaif of Clhimamani Rawag and Shri Bajpai on t‘rehalf of the State. Homicidal death of Dhirau has not bcen disputed by counsel for the appellants. Morcover from the evidence of P.W. ‘9 Dr. S. Upadhyay who wonducted post mortcm on tho body cf Dhirau as also evidence of P.W. 1 Membai. P.W. 2 Anamo, it is established that death of Dhirau was homicidal in naturc. As far as involvement of accused appellants in crime in question is ;oncemed, leamed counsel for' the accused appellants argued that there is mprovement in me evidence of witnesses namely P.W. l Membai and P.W. 2 Anamo. Their evidence before the Cour: is contradictory to the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as also to the FIR. Ex. P-l g'ven by P.W. l Membai. They also argued that in this case, the material witness who is said to have 1 intervened at the time of commission of crime namely Bhagwano amd who is brother of the deceased, has not been examined. They further argued that the incident is said to have happened at 3.01) p.m. on 16-7-1999 whereas report was lodged on 17—7-1999 at 3.00 pm. s On the other hand Shn' Bajpai Having heard counsel for the , First Information Report EX. P-l and case diarv statement of these Witnesses x. D-l and D—‘Z. In the First Information Report Ex. P-l lodged by P.W. l M bai, it has been mentioned that three accused persons namely Amritlal, Lo ersai and Ramsai after throwing their evidence ofP.W. l Membai, P.W. 2 w him on the ground whereas accused Anandram and Chintamani attacked D an with axe and in case diary statement, it has been mentioned that only An dram attacked the deceased with axe weapons, they caught hold of Dharau, ‘ o e WT W v1 200 mm (11mm) WWW mmm WW WW %af&maném 3W Wei; Wm, mg? mm wt 200 mm (W) WMiwm “WWW *Wm e of occurrence is 35 km. It has also come on record that there was long anim sity between the deceased party and accused party about agicultural land. There ore, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to adduce le l consistent evidence in order to prove the oEence against the accused person Recovery witness of the seizure memo P.W. 5 Manbodh has also been declare hostile. Therefore, the accused persons are entitled for benefit of doubt. i For the foregoing reasons, conviction and sentence imposed upon the - accused persons cannot be sustai \\ .\\ whereas in the Coun evidence, ai (RW. l) and Anamo have stated that in fact Chintamani attacked the dece ed with axe which was given by Anandram to Chintamani. It is categorically oned that attack was not made by Anandram. Therefore, above are the seiious c ntradictions between the court evidence. case diary statements and first informal on report and no explanation whatsoever has been odered by these witnesses of e prosecution. In the F.I.R. it has been stated that Anandram and Chintamam' both attacked with axe whereas as per prosecution, Chintamani was carry' g spear and there is no injurv of spear on the body of Dhirau and at the time of ' vestigation spear has been recovered at the instance of Chimamam Therefore the evidence of these two wimesses is not consistent in respect of the manner in which the incident started and Dhirau was attacked. Therefore, non-examinati n of Bhagwano, who was accompanying the deceased and was real brother of deceased and who intervened when accused attacked deceased creates doubt a out the prosecution case. Conclusion of the above discussion is that the prosecu 'on has suppressed the genesis of the crime in the light of the above contr ory statements and non-examination of Bhagwano. The delay in lodging F.I R. is about ‘24 hours whereas as per F.I.R. the distance of police station h‘om the Appeal of the accused-appellants succeed Q9 n M b m i a t c s . mmm and they are acquitted of all thc charge bail. His bail bonds axe discharged. } Amritlal Rawat, Lohersai Rawat and 1 ' not required in any other case. ‘ édf“ iL.C.BHADoo \' V Judge r v.» ‘E‘ s. It is stated that accused Chintamani is on [e need not surrender. Accused Anandrarm lamsai Rawat be set a1 libeny foxthwim if Sd/j Dhirendra Mishra Judge