‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Division Bench: Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha &. Hon’ble Shri Radhe Shvam Shai-ma, J J ‘CriminalAppeal No. 882 of 1996 Jugdhar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) JUDGMENT For consideration Sdl— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHE SHYAM SHARMA 3 oxamm-e Hr, T’éil- ‘ w RS. Sharma Judge Post for Judgment :ié/ 07/2011 \ Sd/- » SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Judge z ~ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR D1v1s1on Bench Hon’ble Shn Suml Kumar Smha 85 Hon’ble Shn Radhe Sh am Sharma J J (1) This appeal is directed against the judgrien‘t dated lst of February, 1996 passed in Session Trial No. 175/93 by the First Additional Session Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. tax ' (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:— Appellant— Jugdhar and his wife Parvati Bai (PW—3) were residing in village Kowapara, P.S. Bacheli. Deceased— Criminal Anneal No. 882 of 1996 \ APPELLANT Jugdhar S/ o Aaytu Rawat, aged 22 J years, R/o Gangaloor, Present Address- Kowapara, RS. i Bacheli, District Bastar, M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh) Versus V - RESPONDENT The State of Madhya Pradesh t ‘ (Now State of Chhattisgarh) Through P.S. Bacheli, Bastar [Criminal Appeal under-Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) Appearance: Mr. R.K. Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Panel Lawyer for the State. JUDGMENT (26 .07.2011) Following judgment of the 'Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, i 2 Criminal Appeal No. 882 of 1996 Kunnu Rawat was their neighbour. The case of the prosecution is that on 3.5.92 at about 9.30 p.m., the ‘ appellant assaulted the deceased by a crow-bar on his head. j The deceased received serious injury on his headqand died i on the spot. Parvati Bai (PW—3) was the sole eye—Witness of l the incident. Parvati Bai narrated the story to her sister- Savitri Bai (PW—4). Savitri Bai lodged the First Information Report (Ex.—P/9). The F.I.R. contains the name of the 1 appellant with entire story of assault. The Investigation Officer reached to the place of occurrence, gave notice (Ex.— ‘P7 10) to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.—P/7) on the g dead body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem to Governrnent Hospital, Dantewada .vide requisition Ex.—P/11. The post-mortem examination ws conducted by Dr. S.K. Dhagamwar (PW—1). The post—mortem report is EX.—P/ 1. He noticed fracture over mandible, parietal 85 frontal regions. He also noticed fracture of 5th 8r, 6th right ribs and 6th left rib. l l (3) The case of the prosecution was basedupon the testimony of sol eyevwitness- Parvati Bai (PW—3). The learned Sessions Judge relied on her testimony and convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. § (4) Mr. R.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the f appellant, argued that the learned Session Judge erred in appreciating the‘evidence of Parvati Bai (PW—3), who clearly admitted in the cross—examination that she had not seen the T Hwy incident and she only saw the dead body of the deceased. l l ‘ a e 3 Criminal Appeal N0. 882 of 1996 (5) ‘ On the other hand, Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and? supported the judgment passed by the Session Court. ‘E (6) l We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the sessions case. i l l i (7) 3 Parvati Bai (PW—3) deposed that she witnessed that appella‘nt— Jugdhar and deceased— Kunnu Rawat were quarreling V near tendu tree. Appellant was holding a crow—bar. The appellant assaulted the deceased by crow-bar which hit »on his temporal region. The deceased died on the spot. The appellant ran away and went to the police station. This she had stated to her maternal uncle. In the cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that the deceased wanted to marry her. She also denied to give such statement in her 161 Cr.P.C. statements (EX.— D/ 1). However, she admitted that the appellant was doubting that she was entangled with deceased— Kunnu Rawat, but this was false. On the date of incident, she was suffering from fever and 8 therefore she was sleeping in her house. She clearly admitted in the cross—examination that she had not seen quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and she only saw that deceased— Kunnu Rawat was lying dead near the tree. The above admission i in the cross—examination.of Parvati Bai (PW—3) creates a doubt on her testimony that, in fact, she saw the incident as claimed by her in her examination—in-chief. It is on-this evidence of the sole eye— W Criminal Appeal No. 882 of 1996 Witness, the Session Judge has placed reliance and has convicted the appellant u/s 302 IPC. (8) l On due appreciation of the entire evidence avdilable on recoi‘d, we are unable to sustain the ccnviction of the appellant on l the above evidence of Parvati Bai (PW—3) who was the sole eye— l witn‘ess to the incident. (9) lFor the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The “a conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant u/s 302 IPC are set—aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. framed against him. The appellant was arrested on 7.5.92. He was throughout in jail and was released on bail on 12.4.2005. Presently, he is on bail in this matter. However. as reported by the jail authority on 22.7.2011, he is undergoing sentence in Session Trial No. 66/2006. His bail bonds in this matter (Cr.A. No. 882/96) are cancelled and surety stands discharged. vatti 4: / Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Sd/-V.:' Judge R.S. Sharma a Judge