Ul^dl sh*iic»» 3^T rqNld^, ^Tfl^^Ko, f^^l<My ...(^...A.ja^^ ^o 3<1^1 '4'l<b (<icti^c«^) 3TT^T^Tf^TT^ cCT'CT^T^TW ^RTT^H:^cT3TT^T APPELLANTS: (In Jaii) <=hl^fd41^ ^l^dT^te^t<Ri^l< ^3Tf^q'3TT^T 1. Anjorva Satnami, S/o Sufal Satnami, aged about 52 years. 2. Toran Satnami, S/o Anjorva Satnami, aged about 33 years. 3. Naresh Satnami, S/o Anjon/a Satnami, aged about 19years. 4. Sukiu Satnami, S/o Mangalu Satnami, aged about 55 years. 5. Prakash Satnami, S/o Balmukund Satnami, aged about 23 years. 6. Surji alias Surjit, S/o Balmukund Satnami, aged about 18 years. 7. Radhabai, W/o Balmukund Satnami, agedabout 45 years. 8. Nemkunwarbai, W/o Balmukund Satnami, aged about 50 years. 9. Mohanibai, W/o Prakash Satnami, aged about 20 years. 10. Kondibai, W/o Siyaram Satnami, . aged about 44 years. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^l+l^tl ffi+lich 3:5ET r^iqiol^l, ^Tfl<-lJI(o, f®f^11<r1^< ^ ..&>.-A..i%%9/^ ^^_ [^ ^T^5|cb 3TT^T^rR^i4) cTSTTCT^T^^ich ^TTW^rf^T^T^T <=hi^f^41ri Hi^^T^teT:^'<Ri<.^i< ^3Tf^'q'3TT^T RESPONDENT: {Criminal appeai under Sectior) -Division Benich: Hon'ble IVIr. L.C. Bhadoo and Hon'ble IVIr. Sunil Kumar Sinh<i 11. Shyamkunwar Bai, W/o Suklu Satnami, aged about 48 years. 12. Sukhnandan Satnami, S/o Suklu Satnami, aged abouf 26 years, 13. Balladas Satnami, S/o Anjon/a Satnami, aged about 20 years. 14. Balmukund Satnami, aged about 58 years, S/o Sufal Satnami. 15. Sukhcharan Satnami, S/o Anjon/a Satnami, aged about 30 years. Aii residents of Village Mogan/ah P.S. Sahatpur Lohara, District Rajnandgaon, M.P. (nowC.G.) - Versus - The State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) 374 (2) ofthe Criminal Procedure Code} _JJ. 14-8-2007 Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, coun^el for the appeilants. Mr. Vinay Harit, Deputy A<|vocate Genera! for the State/ respondent. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 *ll+ldl Sh+lich 'S^f ^ll^Krl^, ^tn^4l<o, fsKni^y .fo...ft;.l.5'^/ 2^e- 3ll^l ^^cb(^qi^<si^€T) 3TT^T^T^i4) cT8TT3TT^T5h^|cb ^RTTW;Rf?cT^T(^T Ghi^f<n41'i Hi^i^iT^te^^^K ^3Tf^T3TI^T Mr. Alok Pandey, counse! f4rthe objector. Oral judgment dictated on q> L.C. Bhadoo, J: - This appea! is directed agaij sentence dated 29-6-1999 pas| Khairagarh, in Sessions Triat h| Sessions Judge after holding that| 148 & 302 read with Section 1) accused namely, Anjorva Satnarr| Satnami, Prakash Satnami, Suil Mohani Bai, Kondi Bai, Shyamki| Satnami, Balmukund Satnami & three years and to undergo imprh ais. Rs.1,000/-, In default of payme months, respectiveiy. As per the communication \\st the judgment of conviction and order of »ed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 10.109/1997, whereby learned Additional accused/ appellants guilty under Sections 49 of the I.P.C., sentenced each of the |i, Toran Satnami, Naresh Satnami, Suklu Surjit, Radhabai, Nemkunwar Bai, |nwar Bai, Sukhnandan Satnami, Bailadas Sukhcharan Satnami, to undergo R.l. for |onment for iife (rigorous) and pay a fine of fine to further undergo R.i. for six ^t of pendency of this appeai. Death Registrar (Births & Deaths) show^ on 27-8-2004. Legal heirs ofl application for prosecution ofthis| appellant No.8 Nemkunwar Bai st^ dated 17-7-2007 sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, accus^d Nemkunwar Bai had expired during the Case of the prosecution, i|i brief, is that Dehati Naiishi Ex. P-70 was given by Gautam Bai to the \ certificate dated 10-7-2007 issued by the that accused Nemkunwar Bai had expired Nemkunwar Bai have not moved any appeal. Therefore, the appeal of accused/ inds abated. ^ub Inspector, !n-charge Poiice Station: P.T.O. 4 XI-HC-78 ^iT^T^lR^ich cPTT3TR?T5h^|cb e ^' *11+«11 ?h*1|ch 3^ET ^iqi^^, ^rft^FR', fs|^tl^^< ••••••••»•(•••••-•••••«., 3ii^i ^itt> (l{c'^ds*^) 5;Rrr^R:^rf?cf^n^T Sahaspur Lohara, Camp at Viil^ that on 17-2-1997 at about Balmukund along with other c^ disputed field where the crop standing, Gautam Bai (complainj <t)i^Foi41-< ^i^ciT^tel^'<Ri<-<-i< ^3Tf^1T3TT^T [ge: Gaurmati,at 5.30 p.m. with ailegation [O a.m. Gautam Bai saw that accused ^accused persons was going towards the bf Alsi (finseed) of Vishai & Sahdev was int), daughter of Vishai, also went towards that fieid on bicycle, she saw tfiat the accused persons were reaping the standing crop, she returned and i|iformed herfather on which herfatherwent to the Viliage Kotwar to request | the Police Station, however, Therefore, her father alone went i-each bus stand, the bus had a!| in the mean tiine, Sadhey, soil vjiiage Navuagaon, therefore, ^ accused .persons Baimukund &| crop of AIsi (iinseed). !t w^s ^ asked hls daughter Gautam Ba| after unioading Thivra at resid^j Mazgaon vAere the accus^ |him to accompany him for iodging report in |he KotwBf reftjsed to accompany him, to iodge the report, but by the time he could I'eady ieft, hence, he returned to his hous-e. of Vishai, also returned frorn his in-iaw's lishai-informed his son ' about the act of lothers that they are reaping the standing Ibout 12 noon, Vishai had taksn iunch and to go and bring Thivra from, Urayya field, ince, she shouid bring the bu!!ock cart to |d persons were reaping the crop, they are going to Mazgaon to stop Balrtiukund & others. Tiierefore, she went to Urayya field, brought the buljoclj; cart and unloaded Thivra, thereafter, she took the buliock cart towards IV|azgaon field. She saw quarrei in the fieid from a distance, therefore, she ^topped the buliock cart and went near the field hiding herself behind bush^ son Prakash, Surji, Radhabai, h| Libaru, Anjorva, Toran, Nareshj ts. She saw that accused Balmukund, his [emkunwar, Mohanibai, Moharbai, Santosh, SukhcSiaran, Ballu, Suklu, Shyamkunwar, P.T.O; XI-HC-78 3TT^T^T^i<=b c^TT3TT^T5h^l<=t) ^> *11*1<-11 »>+11<ft 7^[ ^ii^icn^, ^Tfl<i4i<o, fadHy _^^^,^,lSSo/ TTT^ --.-.*.-<^.-«/« ^l ^51^ (^Gfl ?^<TT^K^f?cT3TT^T h^nd. Sukhnandan & Kondi v^ere attacWi axe, whereas, iady accused per^< were holding club and Balmuku|id everyone v^is holding club in h^nd incident, they rushed towards hei| her, but some how she escaped the standing crop, thereafter, sh^ that time, the accused persons father & brother were lying. Th< Lathi, had murdered her father towards the viiiage, on the way came to the village and started Vimla, Mehtarin, Jagmohan, thereafter, the Kotwar was infortrjed said that the Inspector is alread|yr and lodge the report. Merg intinjiat and merg intimation Ex. P-72 recorded. The Investigating Officer intimations Exs.P-18& P-19 w^re information report Ex. P-20 was r^ Exs. P-58 & 59 inquest Ex. P-60 on the body ofVishatwere prep^red Vishal & Sadhey were sent to Priitriaty chi^f<n^lri ^i^dT^:tel<ft<^i^i< ^3Tf^TW^T png her brother & father. Toran was hoiding »ons were holding sickies, Prakash & Surji was also hoiding ciub. She saw that When she reached near the p!ace of t, therefore, she started running, they cased ^nd came near the pond. She hid herself in again went to the piace of occurrence, by ilready ran away. The dead bodies of her accused persons by attacking with axe & ^ brother. ThereafEer, she .started coming |er mother met her, she informed her, they v^eeping. In the mean time, Likhan, Saukhin, M^htar & others came, they informed them, By that time, it was 4 p.m. The Kotwar in Viliage: Gaurmati, therefore, let us go intirfiation Ex.P-71 regardingthedeathofVishal r^garding the death of Sadhey were also left for the scene of occurrence. Merg also recorded and based on that, first gistered on 18-2-1997. After giving notices n the body of Sadhey and inquest Ex.P-61 bythe Investigating Officer. Bodies of HeaEth Centre, Khamaria under Exs.P- P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3TT^T^rR^i4) cT^T3TI^Tsh^l<=b HWWl 9h^|cb 3^T ^ll^Krt^, ^Tfl<M4l(o, (c)diyl|< ,.&>...A;.(2.^?/ ^o^- ^l ^5<cb (1CI^f3^1^) ^<TT8rK^cT3TT^T 73 & P-74, respectively, vrfiere D| post-mortem. He prepared post-t and opined that cause of death resuit of coma. 1-1 e conducted po{ report Ex.P-3 and opined that cai| mode of cleath is coma. Durin^i instance of the accused personsj was seized at the instance of Surjit, Sukhnandan & Balladas. Sickles were seized at the instanl Kondibai & Shyamkunwar Bai. After compietion of investi| of Judicial Magistrate, First Classj to the Sessions Judge, Rajn^ Sessions Judge, Khairagarh recej The prosecution in order] persons examined 19 witnesses.] <=hi^I<n<41Ti ^i^^iT^teI^'<Ri<-4i< ^3Tf^T3T1^T |". Hriday Narayan Gupta (PW-2) conducted }nortem report Ex. P-2 on the body ofVishal |s shock due to head & chest injuries as a t<tm-mortem on the bodyofSadhey, prepared |se of death is head injury producing shock, investigation, weapons of offence at the were seized under seizure memos. Ciub ^njorva, Naresh, Sukiu, Prakash, Surji |Axe v^s seized at the instance of Toran. ^e of Radhabai, Nemkunv^arbai, Mohanibai, ^ation, charge sheet was fiied in the Court Kawardha, who in turn committed the case Indgaon, from where iearned Additional yed the case on transfer for trial. to establish charges against the accused Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 ofthje Cr.P.C., in which they denied the material appearing against them in the p| defence witnesses in thelr deferl have been faisely Impiicated in t| rosecution evidence, they examined seven ce and stated that they are innocent, they ie crime. Accused Balmukund stated that on the fatefui day he was not in tl|ie viiiage. Accused Anjor/a also stated that on the date of incident, he was n<^t in the village. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^n^T^T^Jch ^TT^TT^T^nN) 3ST •^l<41<rl'4, «>Tf1^41<o, fc<dl^l^< . (^ . A. ^ *41^dl sh^lcb .^'^..^*.^~.-<»~^.^. ^l 45|ch (l:t?rf3^^) sw^ ?^TTW^rf?cf^n^T We have heard Mr. Chattel Mr. Shukla, learned Additional fl respondent. At the outset, Mr. Chatterj ^N^41Ti wrat ^* te1^ <Ri^i< ^3Tf^1T3TT^T ^jee, learned counsel for the appellants and ^ublic Prosecutor on behalf of the State/ ^e has not disputed the homicidal death of Vishal & Sadhey. Moreover, Dr. ^riday Narayan Gupta (PW-2) has stated in his evidence that on 18-2-1997, |he was working as Assistant Surgeon, on that day he conducted post-mort^ wound in the size of 3 x 1 cms, occlpital region in the size of 12 v^as fractured, clotted biood was Injury Nos.1 to 3 were caused bj caused by hard & blunt object. C^ report is Ex. P-2. Dr. Hriday Narayan Gupta| day, he conducted post-mortem wound in the size of 10 x 4 cms.l occlpital region, bone of occipits|! present, the injury was caused Vf was head injury and coma. !n vi^w estabiished that the death ofVishi As far as involvement of tll Is concerned, there is only one| daughter of deceased Vishal & s| in her evidence that on the fatefull |m on the body ofVishal, there was incised 3 x T.5 cms. cn nose, incised wound on ^ 3 cms. x deep up to bone, occipital bone Ipresent, bruise in the size of 12 x 5 cms. ^ hard & sharp object and injury No.4 was |ause of death was head & chest injury and (PW-2) has also stated that on the same |on the body of Sadhey, there was incised |x deep up to bone on 10 cms. of right ear |1 region was fractured, clotted blood was |y hard and sharp object. Cause of death ofthe above evidence ofthe doctor, it is ?1 & Sadheywas homicidal in nature. eaccused persons in the crime in question eyewitness namely, Gautam Bai (PW-1), ister of deceased Sadhey. She has stated day at about 9-10 a.m. shewastaking bath P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3TI^T^rR4i<=b cT^TT3TT^?T5b^icb 3^T':^FTI^RT, ^T{1^JI(o, Rtdl^y Nl^dl sb^lcb -«•-«.*-«.-^--/^i 20^~ ^l ^^^h (^^^f) ^cTrw^TfN'^n^T at her residence, she saw that a| Ghl^f^1^1'1 Hl^^lT^te^^^K ^^rf^R'3TT^T ^cused persons Balmukund, Prakash, Surji, Radhabai, Mohanibai, Nemkunw^r, Moharbai, Toran, Anjorva, Sukhnandan, Sukhcharan, Naresh, Balla, Sa|ntosh, Libaru, Shantakunwar, Kondibai & Sukaiu were going towards Maz^aon for reaping their crop of A!si (linseed), When she sawthat they were gc|ing to^/^/ards their field, she followed them on a bicycle. She saw that al! t standing crop, she retumed an' |ie 18 accused persons were reaping the informed her father th&t 18 persons are reaping their standing crop. At t|iat time, her father vy^s reaping the crop of Thivra in Urayya field, after she had gone to the village Kotwar, father went towards Ranvirpur V| bus, as the bus had already le'ft,| mean time, at about 11-11.301 Nawagaon, his father-in-law's pl^ and ask the accused persons no| father and brother went to the fl field and bring the builock cart, nformed, her father came to the village. He 3Ut he declined to cooperate, therefore, her ilage Bus Stand, but he could not catch the hence, her father returned to house. In the a.m. her brother Sadhey returned from ce, on wtiich her father asked him let us go to reap their crop. At about 1-1.30 p.m. her eld. Her father asked her to go to Urayya :herefore, she went to Urayya field, brought the bullock cartalong with one ykhan, they unloaded Thivra from the bullock cart in the Kothar. She asked L|khan that let us go to the Mazgaon fieid, but he decfined to accompany her, field, where her father & brotherl that Bulmukund & others, in a| brother, she stopped the buliocl^ went towards the field and sav^l When she was hiding, she sav^ [herefore, she alone started for going to the had already gone. She sawfrom a distance 18 persons, were attacking her father & cart near the field of Surit, thereafter, she the incident hiding herself behind one fietd. ^ that accused Balmukund, Prakash, Surjit, P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3TT^ToFrRHi<=h cTSTTW^T^TTT^ c *11*1^tl »»+<|C|> 3^T^TFTT^RT, ^TTl^Ko, facrtwy ,.&?....A../2.5^7;l^ 311^1 ^l^cb (1c[^t3^^) ^<TTW;?rf?cT^n^T h^r accus^d finishled saNv Moharbai, Radhabai, Mohanitj Sukhcharan, Naresh, SukaluJ Shyamkunwar were attacking Genda. Her father & brother felll the otherfseid. When the saying she should also be pond and stopped there. The a| she returned to the fieid, she sa| away. Bodies of her father & viilage. Her mother rnet her on her mother about the incident. cries, the viltagers came, they i| Kotwar was calied and he was 4.30-5 p.m., the Kotwar inforr| already in Village: Gaurmati, Station House Officer at Village: family and family of the accu^ sncident took place. In this cas| deceaseci persons were closeiy ij inforrhed Learned counsel for the only one wtness namely, Gautai|n persons, therefore, she is int^rested cannot be piaced on her evidencje. chi^f<n41^ ^iH^T^:te^t'<Ri^i< ^3Tf^T3TT^T |>ai, Nemkunwar, Anjon/a, Toran, Balla, Sukhnandan, Kondi, Libaru, Santosh, father & brother with club, axe, Tabbal & jdown on the ground, she was watching from persons saw her, they rushed towards her They chased her, she ran tovrards the (^cused persons retumed to the field. When that the accused persons had aiready ran bijother were lying. She started coming to the |the way near the field ofSurit, she informed They returned to the house. Hearing their i^formed the viilagers, thereafter, the Village |also Enformed. By that timie it v^/as already her that the Station House Officer is thejrefore, the merg intimation was given to the |Gaurmati. There was a dispute between her i^ed persons regarding theland where the ^, other witnesses have turned hostile. The felated to the accused persons. appellants argued that in this case there is Bai (PW-1), she is related to the deceased witness, as such, explicit reliance P.T.O. 10 XI-HC-78 +11*1^1 St»*<|cb 3^T r^ll^l<ri^, ^Tfl^^Ko, fadl^^< ,.&>.:A.(S.5^ 20^ 31(^1 45|«*»(^rf^^) 3TT^T^)Tf^ri^ cT8Tr3TT^T9h^|cb L ?^Tratp:^f?cT3n^T On the other hand, learne<p Deputy Advocate General and learned counse! for the objector supported Law in respect of a relatec) chi<4tc>i<41Ti ^i^<nT^:tec^i'<Ri<-<ii< ^3Tf^T3TT^T he judgment ofthe trial Court. witness is well settled. Testimony of a reiated witness cannot be reject^d out rightly, solely on that ground, but when the evidence of a related \4fltness is not corroborated by any other ocuiar or circumstantial evidence, ^hen the Court is requiredto scrutinize the evidence of such a witness with care and circumspection in order to ascertain truthfulness ofthe eviderl of Gautam Bai (PW-1) is put to lce of such a witness. When the evidence |;!ose scrutiny, we are of the considered opinion that the evidence of this v^itness does not inspire confidence of the Court, expiicit reiiance cannot be reasons: - Gautam Bai (PW-1) has st placed on this witness for the following ^ted in her evidence that by the time her brother returned and her father tc^ok lunch, it was already 1-1.30 p.m., her father said that they are going to l|/lazgaon field in order to stop the accused persons from reaping the standin^ bring the bullock cart wtiich was| Urayya field, which was at a dista| crop, she should to go to Urayya field to standing there. Therefore, she left for nce of about 1-11/2 kms. from there. She along with Likhan brought the |buliock cart loaded with Thevra crop, thereafter, they unloaded Thevra requested Likhan to accompany ;rop at their residence in the viltage. She her, but he declined to accompany her, therefore, she alone took the b^illock cart to Mazgaon field where the accused persons were reaping tl(ie standing crop for which her father & brother had already left, the same|was also at a distance of 1-1 "'A kms. from P.T.O. 11 XI-HC-78 3TT^T°F)Tf§RW cTSTTW^T$hHI<=h c L +11+K11 »>+1|Ct» 3:ocT ;^rpTT^PT, ^Tn<111<o, [®tdl^^< . ...&.-A;.1.85?/?^ 2M- 311^1 M5|tt> (^C<I^S|<^T) ^cTTW^cTW^T the village. As per the prosecu about 2 p.m. Looking to the dist by Gautam Bai to go to Urayya was at a distance of 1"114 kms. vlage, Thevra v^s unioaded, Mazgaon, the disputed field, w}ii was not possible for her to reach Therefore, it is ciear froir Mazgaon fie!d, the piace of incid^ i.e. 1-114 kms. from their residen< from the village. Hence, by the 1 fo fetch the bullock cart, decea^ <=t)j^f<n41-< ^i^criT^te^iRi^K ^3Tf^T3TT^T pla^ tion version, the inddent already started at ^ince ofthe place of incident and time taken |1eld in order to bring the buliock cart which i, then the buliock cart was brought to the Ithereafter, she took the buliock casl to ch was also at a distance of 1-114 kms., it to the disputed field by 2 p.m. the evidence of Gautam Bai (PW-1) that &nt, and Urayya field were at equal distance ^e, both the fields were on opposite direction |ime Gautam Bai could reach to Urayya field te'd Vishal & Sadhey, her father & brother, had aiready reached to the pla<;e of incident, thereafter, only she started coming back to their residence fi of incident. i?i the circumstanc^ |om Urayya field, she unloaded TIievra crop from the buiiock cart at the resid|ence, thereafter, again she left for the place s, it is evident from the above evidence of Gautam Bai that her father & bt'other had already reached to the p!ace of incident at least one hour befor^ she couid reach to the place of incident, thereby the incident already stai'|ed one hour before she could reach to the disputed field. Even her evidenc|e is evasive in respect ofthe tiniie taken by her to go to Urayya fieid to fetch| the buliock cart, to come back and then to go to Mazgaon field. This attituc|e of Gautam Bai (PW-1) shows that in fact she had not witnessed the incideht. This shows that by the time Gautam Bai reached to the disputed fieid, th^ quarrei \,vas already over and the accused persons left the pEace. That is |vi/hy, she has given an omnibus statement P.T.O. 12 XI-HC-78 3n^T^Tf^Tt^" c^TTW^Tsh^lch 1- +11H^I 5b+1icb 3^T r^|Hld<LI, ^Tn<M4l<o, fs«nw^< ^:A-.IS5^ 341^1 M^cb (*ic<^<s«<^) ^RTTW^T^TT^T attac|king regarding the attack made by th|i the accused persons were js contrary to the Dehati Nalishi the incident, she ought to have persons that which accused attacked first and who attackedl wtness is shaky and does not ir\ wtness that when she was watt her, three persons chased her, 'aiso improbable for the reaso'n) persons chased her.lhey couid accused persons. She has stated that at! with Tabbal, axe, Lathi & sickles which [Ex.P-70) given by her. Had she witnessed Idefinitely stated about some of the accused >erson was holding which weapon, who |to wiiom. Therefore, the evidence ofthis irlspire confidence. Explanation given by this ;hing the attack, the accused persons saw she ran away and stopped In the pond, is that she being a !ady,.had the accused Sn|ave easily caught her and assaulted. Ijut Even Llkhan (PW-.9), ^tsd has stated in hls evidence that bullo.ck cart, and unioaded at th| already 2 p.m. M about 3 p.m. hlm to accompany her to the asked hlm to accornpany her. going, 'he heard the cries of q also, by the tlme the b[ p,m., by that time the quarre! ha< in the circumstanc'es, pre^ fseld at the time of incident cannol Second ground on vAich be beJieved and does not inspire| obl^f^l41rl ^l^clT^:f^t<(^^<-l< ^^rf^TW^T was ^mrking in the Ura^ya fieid of Vishai, |e along wlth Gai^tam Bai brousht Thevra & ie residence in Kothar, a6 that time, It 'A^.S ^hagobai, wfe ofVishai came and requested fte!d, but he decSlned. There-after, his wife When his wlfe, Bhagobal &.hlrnse!f v^ere Cpautam Bai. Therefore, according to this i|jj!ock cart v^as unloaded,. it was already 2 already started in the fseld of Mazgaon. |ence ofGautam Bai (PW-1) In the dlsputed i be beiieved. the evidence ofGautam Bai (PW-1) cannot lconfidence is that in Dehati Naiishi Ex.P-70, P.T.O. 13 XI-HC-78 ^TT^T^Tf^TW cT2[T3;TT^T5b^lch *11^<<<11 Sh*licr» 3^T'=qWT^(ZT^ ^^^(0, Rcnwy .&':A.(.85^/ ^iro^ 3i 1^1 ^^ch (yii^<si^er) ?^<TTW^rf5cT^n^T she has categoricatly stated that iady accused namely, Radhab^ Shyamkunwar were holding sickle|i were hoiding Lathis, alt were att^ she has stated that all the accusl Tabbal & Genda. tn cross-examiil not given report to the Police to th| particular weapon, if it is written has been written she does not information report v^iich pertain^ persons. She has made an were attacking. omniOus (accused Toran was carrying axe, whereas li, Nemkunwar, Mohanibai, Kondibai & i|s and Balmukund, Prakash & Surji @ Syrjit (cking. But in the Court evidence para 4, jed persons were attacking with club, axe, lation para 14 she has stated that she had i^ effect that particular accused was holding ^o in the report, then it is incorrect, how it She has denied that part ofthe Dehati to holding of weapons by the accused statement that all the accused persons knbw Evidence of Gautam Bai (tf the reason that she has stated persons were hoiding weapons, tl^ those weapons, \A(hereas, as per sustained only one injury i.e. inch be caused by sharp & hard objecj Vishal sustained four injuries ou\ nose, left ear & occipital region, the version of Gautam Bai (PW-1)|; deceased persons with ciub, ax^ must have been more number <i persons. <=hi^^4)Ti Hi^^T^:tec^'<Ri<-4i< ^3Tf^TT3TT^T W-1) also does not inspire confidence for in her evidence that all the 18 accused ey were attacking her father & brother with :he post-mortem report, deceased Sadhey ;ed wound on occipital region which has to t. As per the medica! evidence, deceased of which three were incised wounds on ind there was a bruise. Therefore, as per if all the 18 accused persons attacked the ^ Tabbal & Genda, then definitely, there •f Injuries on the bodies of the deceased P.T.O. 14 XI-HC-78 3Tl^T^T^icb cTSTT3TR?f$h^|cb - .<(-. v_. +<1*4<^1 sh^lich 3:^T^i^i<n^, ^TTl^4i<o, f^dHy ,.G?...A;l.s.5?/^ ^o^- Sll^l Ms<cb ('icl^c'<<£T) ?^T^H:^f?^3TT^T There is no other ocular testimony of Gautam Bai (PW-1 clubs & Lathis are concerned,| injuries found cn the bodies oft| chN^^-l ^ 1*4^1'^:teT:^'<Ri<'dl< ^3Tf^T3TI^T or circumstantial evidence to corroborate the ). Even though, weapons of offence are said to have been recovered at the ittistance ofthe accused persons, but asfaras the doctor has specifically stated that the ^ie deceased persons could not be caused by blunt object. Whereas, sharp ^bject is concemed, as perthe F.S.L. report, no blood was found cn any sickl^ or axe. Therefore, on the basis ofrecovery of sickles & axe, the accuse) recovered, cannot be connectec] For the foregoing reasor] d persons from whom those articles were with the crime in question. !S, the judgment of the trial Court convicting the accused persons under Se4tions 148 & 302 read wth Section 149 ofthe I.P.C. cannot be sustained. !n the result, the app^al filed by the accused/appeiiants namely, Anjorva Satnami., Toran Satnanfii, Naresh Satnami, Suklu Satnami, Prakash Satnami, Surji @ Surjit, Radhab|ai, Mohani Bai, Kondi Bai, Shyamkunwar Bai, Sukhnandan Satnami, BaIladas|Satnami, Balmukund Satnami & Sukhcharan Satnami succeeds, conviction |and sentences imposed upon them under Sections 148 & 302 read with ^ection 149 of the i.P.C. are set aside, they are acquitted ofthe said charge^ > Appeitants Toran Satn^mi, Prakash Satnami, Surji @ Surjst & Batmukund are in detenti^n since 19th February, 1997. > Other appeiiants namel^, Anjorva Satnami, Naresh Satnami, Suklu Satnami, Sukhnandan ^atnami, Balladas Satnami & Sukhcharan P.T.O. 1 XI-HC-78 wN'^rf^Tf^ (T^T3TT^Tst)*4lcb Soma 3^T "41*lld'4, «>Tf1^11<o, tsfdl^^< ^IHMI sh^lch <-^<>-«-«*—/^ ^- 200 311^1 ^5|<h (l:i^3^^) ^<n'w:^f?cT3:n^T Satnami were in detentidn detention since 31 Juiy, 2| > Lady accused namety, Shyamkunv^r Bai were in in detention since 31 Julyj > Ail the accused/appeilantsl fro be detained in