ail^r W [c;-< wi sn^i **<i* UIM! 3:CTT •<ll<<l<rt<<, eiTn^'Ko, fa<?iwy ^IM^ll *MI* Wl, 200 3n^?r iiaw C^f^5*T) TRIIW(lfCT5ffl^I APPELLANT Vexbus RESPONDENT CR. APPEAL (JNDE< DB ; HON'BLESHRI L.C.SHADOO.J. 8s HON'BLE 8HRI T Present: Mr. V.C.Otttatwar, Mr. U.N.S.Deo, ( This appeal is dire^ aad order of sentence d< Third Additional Sessionsl No. 167/2000, whereby, after holdiug the accusedji offence punisbable undeij <ft(^I<n<ili ,W^ ^^tSt ^R^R ^aifiltt ati^i CR.A. N0. 1054/2004 Ghuran Rain, Son of Dholaram Kenwat, aged about 40 years, resident of Kantlii, P.S. Darima, Distt. Surguja State of Chhattisgarh, fhiough Police Station Darima, Distt. Sui^uja 8E<?nON 374(21 OF THE CR.P.C. '.SHARMA.J. c|ouusel for fhe appeUant. AddiltioiLal PubUc Prosecutor for fhe State. OlRAL JUDGMBNT |ll AprU2008) ;ted ^ainst the judgment of conviction rted 6th November 2004 passed by tfae Judge, (FTC) Ambikapur, Sarguja in S.T. fhe leamed Additional Sessions Jud.ge, /appeUaats guilly for coinmtesion of the Section 302 of fhe IPC, for committmg sy^l w Ri-ti.'* ^snaii^ra^qNi' w 7SB! "ill-41^, ^Tfly'IS, IsfWWy ^INrtl (hlieb •Wi. 200 an^?r ^apa; (^?f^?w) ^dIW:'flfTO 311^1 •r2-- tfa.e murder of Ram imprisonment for life and payment of fine to furtt]|er leamed Additional Sessiofas aamely Baiga @ Heera .'^{ Rajwar @ Naaa. proseci^Uoa 2. Case of ffae about 10.00 p.m., in the) persons way ]aid Ram 4. aschanging fhe party aud| elections aad threatenedl attacked him with the latbli which, durmg the treatme^ inatter was reported by uader Ex.P-5. Crime was 506-B/34 of the IPC. succumbed to the iajurie^ notice Ex.P-6 to flie pauch^s of Rain Vriksh. Site p]aa prepared by IIJTTI. Lathis persons. FIR registered was sent to Police Station registered. Mei^ intimatioi^ odv of Raia Vriksh was <tiWlfl<ll-1 'WIHt" 'if.ft%t <Ri|t$l< i?.SfffOT 3)1^1 Vriksh sentenced him to uuidergo »pay a fiae of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of undergo RI for one year. However, Judge, acquitted fhe ofher persons ai, SIuvram, Hari Prasad & Ram Sai t, m brief, is that, on 14.4.2000, at night, in Viltage Kanthi, five accused \friksh, abused him saying that he is helping ofher group ia the pauchayat Rain Vriksh to conunit his miirder, and caused fatal injuries as a result of (it, Rain Vriksh died in the hospital. The A^nrit Siagh in police station Ambikapur |registered under Sectious 341,294,323, I^owever, on 21.04.2000, Ram Vriksh ^. The Investigatmg OfBcer, after givins i, prepared inquest Ex.P-7 on the body ix.P-10 of thc place ofoccurrence was ^feie seized at the iastance of accused uijider zero nuinber in the police statioa pariina where regxilar FIR Ex.P.-ll was Ex. P-16 was sent Post mortein on the c^nducted by Dr. Saajay Kumar Dadu ia m ^;,,4"'%''i, il'aiiSe,-?! '-^ ^ J' / ^" ^vSf ^mvW, ^v'w, ^<ftwy. WVv{[ shtllsb "g^ 200 31K?I W K(-ii<tl ^iT ^^f ?h^icft sn^r Tiaq; (ipfg^iT) t^iTWdfsa 311^1 -a- Mekahara Hospital. He p^-c opiued that deafh was dii^ of head iajuiy and its co^np bluat aad heavy object anjd accused Ghuran was tfalat namely Ktinj Bihari, Amrif FIR Ex.D-2 aad he was m|e injury report Ex.D.-l vpas over occipital region of sldn deep, clotted blood After coinpletion of inve^tig Court of Chief Judicial coininitted fhe case to thel the leamed Third Additioital transfer for trial, spared post inortein report Ex.P-20 and to cardio respiratory failure as a result ^nplications. Injuiy was caused by hard, boinicidal ia nature. The defence offhe ^h.e was attacked by three persons aad Jaiaafh Kanwar aad he lodged the idically examiaed ia Aiubikapur and the Iprepared iu which one lacerated wound vertical, in the size of 4cm.. x 0.5 cin. |was present. AiW- he tydB ^nfffnm^Mf,. sc^lp 3. The prosecution ia accused persons examin^ Statem.ent of fhe accused ofthe Cr.P.C. iawhich th^y have been falsely impUcat^ persons also examined D. J.K.Jain and D.W.-4 S.C. ^iNwN'WRff ^fe^ tfire;R •^; 3TRl*f 31T^iT igation, charge sheet was fUed in fhe Magistrate, Ambikapur who, ia tum Sessions Judge, Ambikapur fix>in where Sessious Judge, received the case on j>rder to establish fhe char^e ^ainst the ^d as inaay as tmenly one witaesses. bersons was recorded undcr Section 313 have stated that they are ionocent and ^d in the crime ia question. The accused .IA/.-I Maajhi, D.W.-2 Umesh, D.W.-3 Dr. ghukla. ^ :-f ^- !i'i"A~" %-;>a-fIG—78 3^?anqTcWr, dixfly1!^, Ri^iuy MINc^l *KI«b "^ 200 3]Ii^[[?iTl?iti?? iTqi 3)1^1 gFHW sn^CT WSK (^S^^a) •reiTWSfel-BI^I •s 4. Leamed Additional for the parties, convicte^ acquitted the ofher accus|e P.W.-4 SakU Bai, F.W.-6 observiag that their evicle) evidence and is contr^dictoiy Dhanesbwar and other iudli 5. We have heard Mr. and Mr. U.N.S.Deo, Additi<| perused ftie record. 6. Leamed counsel for of the prosecution wita( therefore, explicit reliaace fhese witaesses. Even P. beUeved by the trial Court case diaiy stateiaent becs Ex.P-7 be stated that aU Vriksh whereas before fhi attacked the deceased. Tl cannot be beUeved. Moreoi prosecution also. <*llfd<il-f niIRff i[_fSISt <[«I«(K •^sifimsii^i :ssions Judge, afterhearing the couasel and senteuced accused Ghuraa and d persons disbelieviag the evidence of ugniau Bai, & P.W.-5 Amrit Siagh aad ice is not corToborated by ffcie inedical to fhe evidence of P.W.-8 ;pendent witaesses. V.C.Ottatwar, counsel for the appeUant >nal PubUc Prosecutor for fhe State and fhe appeUaut submits that fhe evidence jsses is contradictoiy to each other cannot be placed ou the evidence on (A/.-8 DIianewshar, whose evidence is |ias given evidence contraiy to his poUce i|Lise in the poUce case diaiy stateiuent tjhe five accused persons attacked Rani Court, he only stated that Ghuraa terefore, fhe evidence of such witness fer, he has been declared hostile by ftie . XIiHe—78 '^ 6: S^T^FTIW, yiTfl'M'Ko, istrti'yy 7^ Vt, 200 sn^[ ?T k-< wnsii^TSi'qw an^yr irag; (i^il-i«i<v) «|)|<|!<-|4-1 tllHdf if_1s<A <htsi< '^i'sfRFT 3n^5T evldence 7. P.W.-9 Surat whose Court has also been declared onlv Ghuran attacked Ram stateinent he stated that all ttie deceased. The evidence of tli4i ,..i no expUcit reUauce can be pl4.< sustaiaed iiijuiy (lacerated explained by the prosecu^ suppressed fhe genesis of tt(t wifh clean haads. Particular|y, P.W.-4 SaJkli Bai 3s P.W.-6 Ju^man Dhaneshwar aad P.W.9 Suratl to each other. Therefore, ba^ especiaUy when the trial Coi^rt acquitted four accused perso^is, for benefit ofdoubt 8. On the other hand, the judgaient of the trial arguinents advaaced by the perused the evidence availabli the deceased has categorica persons attacked her iucident fi-ora a distance of 1( husband and Itfted him, her ;onca4y husbsbid has been beUeved by the trial hostile and he has also stated that rriksh whereas ia police case diary five accused persons attacked fhe ie witnesses caunot be believed aud ;ed on the ground that Ghuraa also wound) and fhat has not been [on. Thus, the prosecution has s crune aad has not come forward r, when the prosecution \¥itaesses Bai on fhe one haad and P.W.-8 on fhe other hand are contradictoiy ed on fhis weak lype of evidence, disbelieved alt fhe wituesses and i, accused Ghurati is also entitied leai|aed counsel for fhe State supported (pourt. In order to appreciate the ;ounsel for the appeUaut, we have on record. P.W.-4 SakU Bai, wife of stated that aU fhe five accused wifh. lathis aad she saw the |-15 yards. When she went near her hbsband stated that the accused Sbiv lxAHe—78 755t ^tww^, w<S\w'w, (sioi'yy 76 "Q^ 200 3n^?r'wrar (4cit-^^ff) s^yys (({•iidi •(TOSIt^tWllNi' ISiBW e«nwttfeo sfli^r has pressed his neck aad accu^ After reaching on the ^pot, accx^ occurrence. Therefore, the e^ contradictory, Ou'fhe one faaa^ accused persons attacked J^er has stated that her husbaad pressed tus neck whereas acd Tberefore, this evidence cre^te| iacident. \ jed Hari Prasad had attacked hi-m- jsed persons fled frona fhe scene of tidence of Sakti Bai herself is [, she has stated that all the five 9usband and on the contrary, she Idisclosed that accused Shw has lased Hari Prasad attacked him. ^ doubt about her watcliiag fhe 9. P.W.-6 Jugman Bai has persons were standing ia frout o( Prasad was abusing and all fhls Hari Prasad wassayiag that fherefore Ram. Vriksh be fiiusli< accused Naan, Ghuian Ram, boldiug lathis aad attacked Raabi Hari Sai attacked with kicks Vriksh raised fhe cries upon wt|ich reached the spot aad intervened away froin tbe place of occurren<|:e. of the deceased whereas SakU H tiiey are relatives of the decea) Dhaueshwar aud P.W.-9 Surat bave totally given contradictoiyj witnesses and stated thaf onlt +t'l<t?l'<l1'1 'RTO^ ^fe^ <fa'^R ^; aJfilT sil^l stated that all the five accused fthe house ofNaaa. Accused Hari five accused persous encircled, today we have got fhe chaace pd. Thereafter, from fhe house of 1ari Prasad and Naanraoi caoie Vriksh whereas Shiv Ram aad aud fists. WIule attackuag, Ram Amrit, Paras, Surat and Sakli ^in.which the accused persons ran ;e. Jugiuan Bai is the sister in ]aw W. is the wife of fhe deceased and ^ed. On the other hand, P.W.-8 are independent witnesses. Thcy evidence to fhe evidence of two •f accused Ghurau attacked the .HG—78 .^t/ 3^r "i)i<<i<?»<<, ©Tfly'is,(sj<»iiy^< @ "Wt. 200 3n^?r'qsra (ij»t(-i«<^) CT^iSH'teR? •(raisn^tmte liW" Suguna warar ^ife! 3ii^i ct)i<il<n<ili 'qFRTf ^fe[^ <f<i+$,i< ^ sfRiH 3n^?T n<t)t deceased Ram Vriksh and fhevi havc also stated that tfaey did attackiag the deceased whereas they have stated fhat atl the fii| Vriksh, which shows that Ae ., ..-..- .-^. with clean haads aud suppress^ background, the iujiiries becoines relevaat and fhat prosecution. Lookiag to the caUed eye witaesses, wbich itijuries sustained by accused G( reMance cannot be placed on aud ia the circuuistances, doubt. accusled have been declared bostile. They saw aU the five accused persoas ]in the police case diary statem.ent ^e accused persons attacked Ram ^rosecution has not coine forward s^d the genesis of the crune. In this by GIiuran on his head not beeu explained by the evidence of the foiir so been discussed above axid fhe Gpiurau, are taken togefh.er, explicit evidence of prosecution witness Ghurau is entitled for benefit of suslatned tlas c64tradictoiy haj/e tlie 10. Therefore, fhe conviction under Section 302 of ftie IPC icaposed upon him are set aside. detention. siace 2000 fherefore, requjired ig^a.iivother case. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge / bf accused Ghuran uader Section 302 of ftie IPC for coiamitting tl^einurder of Ram Vriksh caanot be sustained aad the saiae is Uabl|e to be set aside, Accordiugly, the appeal ofaccused Ghuraa succ^eds. He is acquitted ofthe chal^e laud the conviction and sentence It is stated that fhe appeUant is ia |ie be set at Uberty forthwifh if not Sd/- T.P. Shanna Judge