f 1 1 tt. a cyd- cs sO vO £&sS w.^ .;&>-;,. Ai, '%8l "" (B' !-o,. a w,..<s 01 ff- - % r" 'o 33 '-n 2' LL- iL '.-/• r:: ^ .-:- ,. (+ 1-" y fD Q. T' 3 10 l-1 to Q 3 - Q) rt> o co o a n> <-'- . .. ? ^* <+ /?<f\ cy o o y-.1' a ^35i % «j '^ iy ci- :o ^ ,<r"e •O O" K ;u -o B) rl- 'O h-^ c+ <D O ftl H' (TI QJ ch'-O QJ>£i rh Cfl hl P' hf i-im:r c+ o * Q. (D rt g .H. O ^r H. o fD rt-0 0) rl. 3 (D O O rh;Trt> O. C P' K • U3'hl V3 ^- ri- <B (n (U P' "O <-1- (63 Q. 10 -0 3" QJ O < (D &>h< (D 0) (D ri- ll> 3 H tT (O su r>- 4 3- a (O (O M Q. P o ai ni r^- cf- 10 <B EUO O QJ (T>0 hf o <-+h< cu cu 1-" ro tn ti tti 3 (D S 1-<B iQ a H- y H- (ft (D fD *-b c+ SU 3" O ri- 3 ri- 01 3 o o-<; (9 -<; 3 '. i-i ro Q O- 3 K)< n> (O o (6 'n> • <-)- c ua S i-i EU H* fD h-> rh "O (T> £U 3- 1-1 [U |^-<; V (D K (D (n 4 rt- Co CL^Q B) 3" n; ai c O <D ^3 QJ [—13 c+ ri- r1- H* 00 '0 rt> r+- £U Q.CU h! Co H-07 CT 1—'&J 'O 00) H" O 3 ^ ' rf-rl- ro a> H- ^- 3- hi 3 )-< i-+t rt- CD Q.m i-" S lQ ri- O 3"S U] 3-3 |-^ o H. )—irt> n; <D i^ t-s ia v> (--•r) 'rf a> 3' 1-! 4 G.r^ .^"*, ?:^. 4 ri'1 Sl>! 1,.Ji^ 'l 1 (<i <$T & -*,' i! S| lg> -^ o. s rj,\ ^ ^-€ (D 's. r?< m •i"'t A 2; U7 l ~1 <: 1 •'^ O 3 GJ. h' e oo (n n> h-* rf- c<- O <0 Q. ' 1-'- 3 i3' ri- (B 3 (O H- h( O 'a o •a 3 Xf-HC-78 an^r ?)T f^iNi tWT3TI^T**<i* Hl^dTSbHlch TS? -^WM^, W-^WW, fa|diy^< ..G?...d:.7< ^ 200o 3ll^l ^acn (<icl(31s«<<T) ^aTWtrfscfsn^r uwisioa Bench: - Hoa'Me Mt. L.C. Bhadoo. Ate.C.J. and Hon'ble Bfa. SuaU Kumar Sinha, J. Additlonal 8-1-2007 Mr. Ram. Kumar Tiwa4, Mr. U.N.S. Deo, respondent. Oraljudgment dictate4 on Dais. PCT L,C, Bhadoo, Att.C.J.: - This appeal is directctl and order of sentence datefl Sessions Judge, Amibikapur| leamed Sessions Judge afte^ for commission of offence) senteneed him to undergo i^n Rs.500/-, m default of six inoiiths. paya|tent prose<|:ution (fl'w The case of the 12.30 p.m. Madwari Ram Station: Lakhanpur to fh^ supervisiug the plastering daughter Kavita and oue Mst. Jugeshwari (F"W-3), wi^ tliat Mahajaa has inurder^d wifepfrTnpRif fffei^ (Rftzrc ^;srf^1T3n^T , counsel for fhe appellant. PubUc I^osecutor for fhe State/ against thc jiidgment of conviction 31" Januaiy. 2000, p^sed by the |in Sessions Trial No.375/98, whereby holding the accused/appellaat guilty under Section 302 of the I.P.C.. i^nprisonm.ent for life and pay a fine of of fine to fiu-ther viaderyo S.I. for fa tfaat on 24-10-1998 at about W-2) lodged a report Ex.P-3 ia Police effect that on that day he was of his graiaeiy, at fhat tiine, his were wifh hiin. At that tane, ; of Kameshwar, camc (Sying and said Gortahiu (Mrs. Dinoba^ aad she Kataeshwar i:it XI-HC-78 an^TqirR^i* ;raT3Ti^Tg>qra> 3^ ?iFn?pr, ®TfteIre,Ricii^y . _ (s .A. •70^; *n*i^ii sb+iiw ^ 200 D 3TT^?r'Tgq7 (yit^si^tT) CTaraiBf^a'w^T ^l ^rafepft-r wncff ^ tecit (RITZK ^)3I^IT3TI^T ayked them to aiierffene on fiwtucti ttiey ran towards thc house of Mahajaa and saw that Dui(|>bai was lyiag outside fhe house of Mahajan, fhere was blood on the face of Diaobai, blood was oozang out of the head, she v?aa bre^thing, but uacoascious, Thereafter, villagers Andhu, Sandhu & j|holaram were caHed, they ha^iteken Dinobai to the hospital ia a tijactor aad she died oa tfae way. Recewiag this report, |the Invest^atiag Offieer teft for the scene ofoccurrence. After gKttag notice Ex.P-13 to the Paachas, he prepared the iaquest Ex.P-1^ on fhe body of Dmobal. Site plan Ex.P-16 was prepared. The|body of Dinobai was sent for post- mortein examiaation to Prim^uy Health Centre, Lakbaupiir under Ex. P-1 whcre Dr. R.N. Gupta) (PW-1) conducted post-inortem and prepared the post-mortem. rejport Ex.P-2 ia wlri.ch he opiaed fhat fhe cause of death is head inj No.2 & 3 and the nature of ifteath is homicidal. Merg mtimation Ex.P-4 was given by Madwar^ F.I.R. Ex. P-3 was registered. uiy due to trauaia caused by iajuiy Ram (PW-2) and based on tfaat, the The Investigatiag Oflfcet- seized plaia soB and blood stained soU under Ex.P-5. Stonc, the|weapon ofoffencc, was seteed under Ex.P-6 based on tbe memordndum Ex.P-8 of &c accused. The recovered articles were scnll for cheinical examiaation to the Forensic Science Laboratoiy, was received. sar, from whefe the report Ex.P-19 —..Ja^..-. Xl-HC-78 sn^r^iTfq^N) craT3TI^Ti.b>l SB (n) HIHC'n St»*<lch 3'ST.^I<<lcl<l, BT(1y'l<», Rl<-lltfy .C?...A;2°^/ / ^ 200 <? 31T^?TCragi'(^fg^ST) STaRffgfsg'sn^T Aiier coinpJeUon ot ^aiast fhe accused ia thc Ainbikapur, who in tum c<|> Judge, Ambikapur, where witaesses to estabUsh charg^ the accused was recorded it which he denied the prosecution cvidence and is innocent. Leamed respective parties convicted| aforementioned. iqvestigation, ctiarge sheet was fifed |Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, ^nunitted the case to thc Sessions fhe prosecution exaauned eight against fhe accused. Stateiuent of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in appeariag against him in the that the witacsscs are Ifers aad hc Judge after hearfng couasel for and sentenced the accused as itnder inatel-ial statisd Sessidns We have heard Mr. fhe appeBaat aad Mr. U.N Prosecutor on behalfoffhe In this casc, aU the Madwari Ram (PW-2), who gave mei^; intunation Ex.P-4 not saw the accused, and h4 case. Mst Jugeshwari (FW-^ saw tfae accused assaulting ty her husbaud about the asss deceased Dinobai,has also case of the prosecution. She| did not saw the accused ass ^rat^frT WRrf ff te^ rf^K ^sri^iTsn^r Raila Kiunar Tiwari. leamed coiuised for .S. Deo, leamed Addittonal PubUc St^ite/respondent. Iwitnesscs have turaed Iiostae i.e. lo^lged fhe first informatioa report and kas stated in his evidence that he did has not supported the prosecution ^), about whoru it is stated that she Ue deceased aad she infomed PW-2 & liilt being made by the accused on ttimed hostfle and not su^orted the has stated iu her ewdence that she i^aultmg the deceased. There is no XI-HC-78 sn^T^rf^fNi t^TT3TT^T5h^| i3i \"t i Hi*w stimqi T5? •^HW'ii, W^WW, ^viW^. ^..&>:.rl-..7€^.WT 2000 3)1^1 4a<*> ('i^li^^) ?¥aiWBf?tT3n^r 1,7- chl14l<'li|1ri HTt(^: ^ fe^ ifst'Wii ^3l1^T3lI^T ouier ocuiar enctence coain^ctmfi ttie accused wittt (be crime in Question. As far as fhe recovei"^ of stone is concemed, fhe recoveiy witness has stated ia his evi4ence that fhe stone was not recovered at the instance of the accus' based on the ineinoiandiun. bd. Moreover. J.P. Gupta (PW-7), thc Invest^atmg OfGcer, has st^ited in para 15 of his evidence fhat the stone was seized by TIJBI, tse has not stated what kind of inlbrtiiation was givcn by fhe accused, whether the stone was p^oduccd by the accuscd, and tfae prosecution witness has not: supported the recoveiy. Therefcac, based on this evidence of fh^ Investigating Officer, thc prosecution has faUed to establish that tn fact the accused gavc inforiaation and based on that informatton, the stone was seized. WtoieowcT, there is no serologist report |o show that hittaan blood waa fouad on the stone and that too Isame was of the blood gioup of thc deceased. Therefore, even if[recoveiy of tfae stonc is believed, even then, tbe recoveiy of stone d criiae in questlon. oes not connect ttie a(x;used wifh the The only evidcnce o|a which learaed Additioiial Public Prosecutor made eiuphasis ^s the evidcnee of Mohan (PW-6) who has stated in his evidencd account ofinassage done by that one day befoaie the iacidCTtt, Paachayatwas convened at ^be instauce ofMahajan, fhe accuscd/ appeUant herein, and ia tha^ Peaacbsyat the accused sakl that on Diaobai, his dise^e has increased, on XI-HC-78 3I1^T^iT)^ira? BSITSII^Tsbtiro Soma HTI-I^II sti+iich 3^ "i)l'i<lc1'!<, »Tfl*f'16,Rltfiyy ^.^.:&:.^. l wr 200^ 3TI^?T tra^? (y(^<s|<^<T) ??arw Bf^tf SII^T -s wtucn ttie Fanctiayat asked tUi this evidence, the accused Ttus cireiunstance can bel corroborative piece ofevidenc^ evidence connectiag fhe Tberefore, merely on the basis| accused/appeUant cannot t( qiiestlon. In the circumstances. wt the finding of fhe trial Court| connecting fhe accuscd with ofthe trial Court convictmg under Sectiou 302 ofthe I.P.CJ In the result, the appei trial Court couvicting and sen Section 302 of the I.P.C. is under Section 302 offhe I.P.C required iu any other case. Stl/- Acting Chief Justice wstfcr'frT iiracif ff te^ ^isrf^iTsn^r iaa not to quan-el. Merely, based on c^nnot be connected with the crime. taken into coiiside«ation as a that tbere is no substaative piece of ac(jused with thc craae in question. of the evidence of Mohan (PW-6) the connected with the cruac iu are of fhe considered opinioii fhat |is not based oa aay legal ewdence tfie crune in question. The ji.ulgment ai|id sentencing the accused/appellant caaaot be sustained. ^l is allowed. The judgpient of the ^ncing fhe accused/appeUaat under it aside. He u acciuitted of charge He be set at Uberty ferttawitb, ifnot Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge P.T.O.