-l-:>':''"\::"<i- .^^.s^: t''h. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH^BILASPU^ PETITIONER/: (Complainant) Acauittal A&peaLNo.46 of 2011 Lata Devi Salame, Widow of late Shri Ravindra Kumar Salame, aged about 23 years, R/o Devarsur, Tahsil & Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (CG). RESPONDENTS: (Accused) 1. 2. Versus State of Chhattisgarl-i, thrqugh Magistrate, Rajnandgaon (CG). District (Accused) 3. (Accused) 4. Chgin Singh; S/o Sama&J Gond, aged about 55 years, R/o village Gotulpunda, Dharni, Police Station' Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (CG). . : Dain Singh.-S/o Samaru Gond, aged about 45 years, R/d village GotulpUnda;Dharni, Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (CG). Rain Singh, S/o Samaru Gond, aged about 40 years, R/o village GQtulpunda, Dharni, Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (CG). {Appeal under Section 372 of the Code bf Criminal Procedure} .'•• -^' • • •. • • ' ' •"• Present: rf Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, counsel for the appellant. Mr. J.A. Lohani, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondent No.1. Division Bench: - Hon'ble hflr. T.P. Sharmaafld Hon'ble Mr. R.L. Jhanwar,_JJ ORAL JUDGMENT (12-5-2011) T.P. Sharma, J: - 1. This is appeal against the judgment of acquittal datetf" 24-12-2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No.38/2010, whereby tearned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted respondents No.2 to 4 herein ofthe charge under Sections 302 or 302 read with Section 34 and 201 or 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC after giving benefit ofdoubt to them. ^sS^ '< s!SSssS"-^ "<, 2. We have heardlearned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment of acquittal and record of the trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that evidence of Sukaluram (PW-11) is sufficient for drawing definite conclusion that only respondents No.2 to 4 herein have committed culpable homicide amounting to murder of Ravindra Salame (since deceased) and have concealed the evidence of criminal case, but the trial Court has » disbelieved the evidence of Sukaluram (PW-11). 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State/respondent No.1 opposed the appeal. 5. As per evidence of hostile witness Sukaluram (PW-11), at about 12 mid night when he had gone for toilet, he saw in the moon light from a distance of 50 meters that respondents No.2 to 4 herein were taking the dead body of the deceased, he frightened and rushed to his house, he did not inform the incident to any person and thereafter, he stated the incident to the police after 20-25 days (as per his statement under Section 161 of the CrPC after 13 days) of the incident. In the statement recorded under Section 161 ofthe CrPC as ExD-3, this witness has not mentioned the name of the deceased, he has specifically stated that three persons were taking one person, but in his evidence, he has named the deceased. In para 9 of his cross-examination he has deposed that he has seen the incident from a distance of 50 meters and respondents No.2 to 4 herein were takisg the deceased with the help of a long heavy wooden piece (genda),fand the deceased was wearing baniyan & jeans. This fact does not find support in his statement recorded ynderSection 161 ofthe CrPCas Ex. D-3. ^' ,iS.a> _ '^ Soma 6. Normally it was not possible for Sukaluram (PW-11) to see persons and identify them from a distanceof 50 meters at 12 O' clock mid night, especially the clothes and colour ofthe clothes which the deceased was wearing. Evidence of this witness may be corroborative piece of evidence to corroborate the substantial evidence, but it cannot be considered as a substantive evidence against respondents No.2 to 4 herein for proving the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder and concealing the evidence of criminal case. The trial Court has t . acquitted respondents No.2 to 4 herein after giving the benefit 6f doubt. On close scrutiny, we do not find any other view or any perversity in the finding ofthe trial Court. 7. Consequently, the appeal is devoid of merit, same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge^ Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge »?