C—TS S^f ^wW^, SRfiWre, [i|<?)W^< WW(T WWVR .&.-..Q.:.%'^/0:^..(G.&34-^^/ 2003, 3iii?r'w% C3?f^EW) !3n^T°ST^TOT ^psiT 3H^?T'gr*^?' / Tsnwgfe aii^i Cfimindl Atib6dl N6.908 Of 2002 APPELLANT: (In Jail) RESPONDENT: Shrawan Kumar, S/o Bhuwan Das Sahu, Aged about 20 years, ,? R/o Before Mukti Dham, .'•'• 6aya Nagar, Durg, Tph. <& Distt. Durg (C.6.) h Versus - State of Chhattisgarh. Criminal Apdeal No.1003 of 2002 APPELLANT: (In Jail) RESPONDENT: c()ptfeT4h in^R'ff '^,'f^t^ <fr»f^l< ^? siRlH W^T Jitu © Jeevan Nishad, S/o Babur'am Nishad, Aged 20 years, R/o Village: Sandadeeh, Police Station: Dhamdha, Present Address: Muktidham, (Sayanagar, Durg (C.6.) h Versus- State of Chhattisgar-h Through Station House Officer, Kotwali Police Station, District &urg (C.6.) AN& •sa M ^'^a-HC-78 saa^f ~S^ '^W^^,Q-^\W\6, ^Wy, W^v\\ *M|cb Wt. 200 sn^yr 'vsw (.''^ty^w) sf^a ?n K-ti*'.. '(TSTT 3TT^?T ^IW '^nwdfCT sn^i cnin(n<ji APPELLANT/: (Accused) RESPONDENTS: b.'Versus - i. 2: (Appeals under Section 374 <<>lli<'f'il-f tlltit ^tS^ <!»|«;K ^r aifiw •3?i^r eul No, 100 of 2003 Jani Yadav, aged about 20 years, S/o Baiga Yadav, Mukti Dham, 6aya Nagar, Durg (C.6.) Stata of Chhattisgar^ Through P.S. Durg. Jeet alias Jeevan Nisad, Aged about 20 years, S/o Baburam Nisad, R/o Village Sadadih, Thana Dhamda, Present address Muktidham Gayanagar, tiurg, Distt. Durg (C.6.) Shrawan Kumar, Aged about 20 years, S/o Bhubandas Sahu, R/o Village; Makhul, Thana: Churiya, bistt. Rajnandgaon, Present address MuktidhT Gayanagar, bistt.Durg (C.6.) |C2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure) 3. ^-Et^—* IftFttTSt^tra -HC—78 3rcT r^|^ic)<<, y-dly'KS, {s|<?Mti^< 'WT?iT W^ 37T^?T ^T fs^Tt^" 'cT^T 37^j spt^i^ 1. 2. •V^ 200 an^T TISR; (4c<f'l'K<ili) TCiTW^ifOTsn^i blylslon Bench: Hon ble Mr. l, Hon'ble Mr. $unil Kumar Sinha, JJ. 12-11-2007 Mr. N.S. Dhurandhar, <1, No.908/2002. .-' Mr. V.C. Ottalwar, counsel Mr. Anand Kumar Tiwai] No.100/2003. Mrs. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Oral judgment dictated on Sbvt L.C. BHADOO. J. Cr.A.No.908/2002 filed by Jitu © Jeevan Nishad and Cr.A.I disposedof by this common judgf out of the sdme incident and sa the 1 Additional Sessions Judge By these appeals, the appellants] of the judgment of conviction passed by the 1 Additional No.62/2000 whereby <& wherei^nder <bl*lfyl41*1 iTRcff ^fe^ <P>)<$|< ^SJfOTSII^if .(-. Bhadoo and counsel for the appellant in Cr.A. :oPthe appellant in Cr.A.No.1003/2002. i, counsel for the appellant inCr.A. ^. Advocate for the State/ respondent. Dais. Sh4wan Kumar, Cr.A.No.1003/2002 filed by .h|lo.l00/2003 filed by Jani Yadav are being judgtfient, as all these three appeals are arising [ne judgment dated 31-7-2002 passed by Durg in Sessions Trial No.62/2000. have questioned legality and correctness bnd order of sentence dated 31-7-2002 ^essions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial learned Additional Sessions Judge II [-HC—78 s»5e' TEST ^|<)|<>1A|, 8>Tfl<H'l(S, RlcM^f^ WWTT -g^R? 'V^ 200 an^?r 'VRK (tpfgs^i) sn^i °BI Rs-ii'ti TT2TT 3TT^T?ft^F^> murder of one Radheyshyam ^ , undergo imprisonmeriT for life ^ payment of fine to further, uncfp] *t»i<it<n<iliffft^ ^S^^ <f<q<$K ^3ifilH3II^[ bllanta quilty for commisaion of offence under Section 302 read with S4ction 34 of the I.P.C., for committing the Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11-9-1999 Nakul Sin^byg^fc^ came to the house. of Toran S Radheyshyam (since deceased) ufere consuming their meals, after mealwas over, all the three left for Gor\ Sutkha. Near &ora square, ac<] Nirmalkar (juvenile) & Shrawan <& knife and on account of old ani with the weapons they were car\ which Jeetu Nishad, the appella^ 'ingh, sentenced each of the 'accused to nd pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in Sefault of 'go RJ. for six months. ingh where Toran along uvith his brother |a square of Gaya Nagar in order to chew :used Jani Yadav, Jeetu Nishad, Udayram <umar Sahu met them holding sword, Gupti mosity, all the four" attacked Radheyshyam ^ying. Toran <& Nakul tried to intervene, on ^t herein, rushed towards them, therefore, they ran away in the nearby str4et. All the four accused persons attacked the deceased with the weapons ^hey were carrying and they fledsway from the sce.ne of occurrence. Theijeafter, Toran & Nakul again cam6^^""""lie scene of occurrence and saw inj^ired Radheyshyam, blood was oozing his injuries and he was already ijlead. After hearing the commotion, Mobin Khan & RajaShukla reached on 1^he spot. ifiti^iSl ^i-SI -HC—78 7^1 ^wKft^, w^w'w, ^wwy. •wwn- wvsf; •W^ 200 an^yr'^sR; (iyf-i'K<tf) 3fl^I •asf R;-|i<h '?r%n *i(^i 9p*if4) 'RgiWHfw 3ii^i c <I<n<il'1 •tfl*i<'ff^f,'fe[3t <f^i^i< iTsiRn sii^i The matter was reponed by Torlan Slngh (PW-3) under E^.P-8 on the same day at about 8.30 p.m. 'm Police ^ preparing the site map; In't-he tation; Durg. He oilso gave merg intimation Ex.P-9. R.P. Shukla (PW-8) afteit recording merg intimation and registering the case under Ex.P-8, requ^sted the Tahsildar under Ex.P-22 for lean time, M.D. Tiwari (PW-9), Inspector, received message onwireless sef that four boys have attacked one person with knife, sword & Churi, ther4fore, he reached on the spot immediatelY and saw the body lying in fr6|iT of the house of Vinod Agrawal. He prepared inquest Ex.P-10 on th4 body of Radheyshyam and also prepared the site plan Ex.b-1. He seizeijl bloodstained soil, plain soil, black colour torn shirt stained with blood co broken piece of wood of the hai with blood and one iron piece o While in police custody, piece o-f sword was seized from accused Shrawan Kumar under Ex.P-12, one sworc under Ex.P-13 and one sword & Yadav under Ex.P-14. Clothes were seized under Exs.P-18, 19 from accused Udayram Nirmalk Durg, where post-mortem was c itaining two rupees note in its pocket, one idle of sword covered with plasticstained F handle of the sword stained with blood. was seized from accused Jeevan Nishad lone knife were seized from accused Jani [>f jaccused Jani Yadav, Jeetu & Shrawan pi 20, respectively. One sword was Seized ar (juvenile) under Ex.P-15. Body of the deceased was sent for post-moij'tem examination to Sovernment Hospital, onducted by Dr. A.P. Sawant (PW-2). He •4tfEFJ--",^ .•--..; . ^ tfrr-- 75? •^WKfl'ii, 'a-^ww, Rioi'yy /T>, (^) 3D^[?F ^WSii^T 5. 6. 7. 'Vt, 200 an^OT fra? (ijoifga^r) WiIWdf^I SII^I prepured injury re.pui 1 Cx.P''2 A.r-c. uf noTice'0 Q5 mony os // injuridS sharp edged weapons-on almost| were sent to Forensic Scienc^ where report Ex.P-29 was receiv After completion of investigatic|n Judicial Magistrate, First Class. the Sessions Judge, Durg •f.ro(n Judge, Durg received the caSe oi^- The prosecution in order to est4blish examined nine witiiesses. Stjtements recorded under Section 313 of either denied or pleaded innoc^nce them in the prosecution eviden^e been falsely implicated in the c[ defence witnesses namely, bines^i (DW-2). Earlier, Mr. N.S. bhurandhar Shrawan Kumar.A Jitu © Jeevanl of the accused persons have tal^ sent to the accused persons for| <*l<lt<rt1i<ll *ll*ldf ^f^'fe^ <raf^i< iTSTfinsii^r every part of the body. Seized articles Laboratory, Raipur under Ex.P-28 from :d. i, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Dyrg, who in turn committed the case to where learned 1 Additional Sessions transfer for trial. charges against the accused persons of each of the accused were the Cr.P.C. in which each of the accused about the material appearing against and stated that he is innocent and has •ime. The accused persons examined two Belchandan (DW-1) <& Pawan Kumar Sinha Mr. V.C. Ottalwar, learned counsel for Nishad, respectively, stated that relatives en file from them. Therefore, notice was making arrangement for representation on 'a •] ; r iiinr ^.;;•;'•»—. Xi-HG—78 T5? '<)i<ii0<<, »Tn+f'is,isioi+fy •B^ 200 3(i^i ?ii tei'R' TWISI^TWqW ggsiiga'SSSB 8. 3n^?r''isra (ij<ii(-t«i?sf) ^«)|<;Rtifsa sn^r Their behair and Tor arguing The it was further directed that i| persons, Mr. N.S. bhurandhar <5j the appeals, as the accused •/!. communications to the acc'dsed 10-2007, but no response has be| Dhurandhar & Mr. V.C. Ottalwai arguments were heard. We h| learned counsel on behalf of a| Deputy (Sovt. Advocate on behalf] So far as homicidal death of Rad disputed by learned counsel for (PW-2) has stated in his evidei| Medical Officer in District post-mortem on the body of 77 incised <& cut wounds we.re. every part of the body. As p| trachea was also cut, interna! of mandible bone at three places fractured, 3r rib of left side clavicle was fractured and ct»l^(I<!l<i1l ^WClf 'if,f^T^ <f^«^I< ^aifinsn^i jappeais. l hirty days' Time was allowed and |f no counsel is engaged by the accused Mr. V.C. Ottalwar will be asked to argue per^ons are in jail since 1999. Registry sent F|ersons which we.re. served upon them on 4- ,^n received till today. Therefore, Mr. N.5. were asked to argue the appeals. Their tive also heard Mr. Anand Kumar Tiwari, ^cused Jani Yadav and Mrs. Anju Ahuja, of the State/respondent. heyshyam is concerned,same has not been |the appellants. Moreover, Dr. A.P. Sawant 4ce that on 12-9-1999 he was working as Hos|)ital, Durg, and on that day, he conducted Racjheyshyam. He has stated that as many as fo^ind on the body of Radheyshyam almost on p^r his evidence, windpipe was found cut, of neck were cut, there was fracture |, right side 2"d, 3rd, 4th, 7th <& 9th ribs were fractured, sternum was fractured, right thr^e fingers of n'ght hand were separated. p<|irts W<|IS -HC—7S 3:5? '^l-MI<7i<f, ®Tfl^'IS,(sltrtiuy 'v- •mwn- *^icb "^ 200 MI^?T'tRH; (Ijqf^p^;) sn^t w h-uv '?TSTT '3tTT^?T ?t)lfl^t C & left lung. Right <& left par( ruptured at three places. Small| places. Ther-e we.re. cut injuries 4 were ante-mortem in patui^e and as a result of cumulative-effted nature. In view of the above midical is established that the death of eyewitnesses namely, Toran Sind deceased Radheyshyam, Nakul i^ street at about 7.45 p.m., there '^Ti)icl<fl'1 'WRi[f 'if,f^1^ <f<qt^l< ^aifinaii^t ity. Tliere was inciscd wound onright lung of heart was Tuptured. Stomach was & large intestines were ruptured at three n liver <& spleen. Kidney was paier Injuries cause of death was shock <& haemorrhage of cut injuries. Death was ho.imi^tdal in evidence and post-mortem rep! %adheyshyam was homicidal in nature. As far as complicity of the ac^used persons in the crime in question.is concerned, Mr.Anand Kumar Tiij/ari argued that in this case all the three h Rajput (PW-3), Nakul Singh (PW-4) and Mobin Khan (PW-5) are interest^d witnesses, because, Toran is brother of friend of Toran and Mobin Khan happens to be tenant of Toran <& Radh^yshyam. The incident took place in the ^uas movement of public on the roadand np independent witness has been e|xamined. Therefore, no expli^t reliance can be placed on the evidence o^ these eyewitnesses. He further argueeg -18 ^arly stated as to which accused as; |ias been given, therefore, based on suel|j that these witnesses have not cl which injury, omnibus evidence weak evidence, the accused pers|ons have been wrongly convicted. Mr. V.^ 3.:1- Ottalwar argued that as per l|he evidence of Nakul Singh (PW-4) thei » ,XI-HC—7S ^v ^ .s^ ^cST ^l^l^^, ^Ttiyi^, (s|<rtl'M^< liTOOT- -gTCfW "WI. 200 SIT^T yf [<•)!+ '?raT STT^T'gFETI^T 3tl^?r fRR (iy(^«j^y) 10 11 '^ITWHfOT 3II^[ accused persons were already inj lodged, how these accused per-sj from the prosecution evidence. has failed to prove that the firs) <i, Judicial Magistrate, Durg. In vi^w are entitled to the benefft ofl evidence that deceased Radhe)); therefore, possibility cannot be antecedents, he might have bee^i the accused persons have be^ Dhurandhar', learned counsel ai Kumar, adopted the arguments Ottalwar. On the other hand, Mrs. Anju| supported the judgment of the ti It is admitted position that coi Singh Rajput (PW-3),.Nakul S\ng\\ as recovery of sword is concernetl, sword was already present in tl^e recovery of sword has been mad( admitted position that Toran 'iii^Iciil-i 'wiaf ^i.fe^t <Faitii< ^sjfinaii^i the Police Station before the report was >ns were arrested in advance is not clear He further argued that the prosecution information report was sent to the Chief of the above facts, the accused persons •'doubt particular'ly, when it has come in shyam was a person of criminal record, ruled out that on account of his criminal attacked by some unknown persons and ;n implicated in the crime. Mr. N.S. ipearing on behalf of accused Shrawan of Mr. Anand Kumar Tiwari & Mr. V.C. Ahuja, leacned Deputy Sovt. Advocate, lial Court. viction rests on the testimony of Toran (PW-4) and Mobin Khan (PW-5). As far I, both the eyewitnesses have stated that Police Station. It is not a case where at the instance of the accused. It is also is brother of deceased Radheyshyam, l-!lil r .M-HC—7S •^a 3rcT ^|A||ci<), i?Tfl+l'l<o, R|01«^< ,10 •WTCT •anrw "Wt 200 an^ 'VRK ('yiiy^K) sn^v w [<-iioi TTSTT 3?T^?T sFqT^ l^ l^ S^irar ^rfsa an^i whercas Nakul is fricnd of Tordn and Mobin Khan happena to bc tenant of Toran prior to the incident. Now, the law is well settled that| merely on the ground thatithe same has to be scrutinized with Rizan and another vs. Stat^ Secretary, 6ovt. of Chhatl'isg^irh, relationship is not a factor to often than not a relation allegations against an innocent p| false imptication is made. In approach and analyze evidence^ credible. Similar view has beenl Namdeo vs. State of Maharashtra uvoilild su<th As far as the evidence of Mobl (PW-3) in para 2 of his evideij attacked his brpther and his Vinod Agrawal, in the mean time| Singh (PW-4) in para 19 of his e^ 1 AIR 2003 SC 976 22007AIRSCW1835 tt>T6i[ti<n'i *ii*i^ii* ^'fe<^ <f^i^.f< ^?3iRn3)i^i testimony of a witness cannot bs rejected Iwitness is relative of the victim, but the jcare and circumspection. In the matter of of Chhattis9arh, throu9h the' i, Raipur the Apex Court held that the cfffect credibility of a witness. It is more not conceal actual culprit and make ^rson. Foundation has to be laid if plea of a case, the Court has to adopt a car'eful to find out whether it is cogent and |taken by the Apex Court in the matter of |n Khan (PW-5) is concerned, Toran Singh \c& has stated that the accused,persons bil'other fell down in front of the h< Mobin & Raja reached on the spot. Nakul 'idense has stated that it is correct to say 1::!;:! l"ff 'tl -I if(??im@ iififfilw y^ ' •• XI-FIC—7S 3^ "4i^i0<<, ^Tfl'y'ie, Ricii^y 11 •RTKW %W% 'V^ 200 3ii^i ?nfnw 'CfSH <HT^^| ^•ifctf^ 14 an^?r ^rag? (1j?f^?ti) waiw ^fei aii^i thct Mobin <& Raia came on the s wno tlte Moreover, Mobin Khan (PW-5), Radheyshyam, in para 2 of his 4< uvhen he was refurning to Girdl^ari four persons we.re. attacking bne) came to know the name of the when this witness vuas already t^ he came to know the name of this witness has denied the sugc incorrect to say that he reachecj over and the accused persons fl evidence of Toran Singh (PW-; referred above, makes it clear 1|( after the incident was already o| on the evidence of this witnesj attack made by the accused per^ to scrutinize the evidence of Torbn Toran Singh (PW-3) has stated about 7.30 p.m. he along with meals at their residence, at after consuming meals they le <*l*lld-ift*1 'WRff ^jfS^ <T<q-^l< ^aifinaii^r ot after the Police alreadv reached there. is once said to be the-tenant of Toran & ^idence has stated that at about 7-8 p.m. ari Nagar, he saw that near Gora square p'erson with sword, after the incident he I'ietim gs Radheyshyam. Once upon a time snant of Toran, then how he has said that victim after the incident. Even though kestion in the cross-examination that it is on the spot after the attack was already ^d from the scene of occurrence, but the |) <& Nakul Singh (PW-4) which has been |hat this witness in fact reached the spof ^er. Therefore, reliance cannot be placed ^ (PW-5) that in fact, he witnessed the |ons on victim Radheyshyam that leaves us Singh CPW-3) & Nakul Singh (PW-4). |n his evidence that on the fateful day at piis brother Radheyshyam uvas consuming jhat time, Nakul Singh came there and ft for 6ora square for chewing Gutkha. !./" K B(?! ^^ '^'•s -o'^ ••?•( 12 -~ XI-HC—78 3Sqr •^ll^lrt'y, t?Tflu'l<o, RloilUy •WtR'ff WSR 'V^ 200 at^OT 1RW (1pf^!tT) sii^i sa (<-ii+ 'cTS'TT d^i^ ?fi*<W (S; ^ <k- 151 TOnw^itersn^r AT Thar Time, accusea jeeTu, Ji and attacked his Urother, wheh Jeetu Nishad r'ushed towards trt< he will kill them, therefore, the^ :1. the street. He has fur'ther stat< deceased on neck, chest, stoma| head, as a result of which hjs fc|t Vinod Agrawal. He saw that his| already dead, in the mean time,| body of his brother to the hos^ital He went to the Police Station an^ Nakul Singh (PW-4) has corrobo occurrfcnce in material particulars. The mat 45 minutes of the incident and tl i- kms. from the place of In cross-examination of these tu elicit any circumstance on any of these witnesses. These two potice case diary statements, bu' been found in their testimony. immediately lodged FJ.R. Ex.P-£ <<>l<<id<!]-1 *<l'<<'ii ^.ft^ <r"i<$K ^sifinaii^T ini, 5hrawan and one boy came with sword he along with Nakul tried to intervene, em holding sword in his hand and said that started crying 'save save' and ran towards ed that the accused persons attacked the :h and other par-ts of the body,jas also on rother fell down in front of the house of 'brother's body was movement-less, he was the Police came on the spot and took the where he was declared brought dead. lodged report Ex.P-8. i^ated the evidence of Toran Singh (PW-3) ter was reported at about 8.30 p.m. within ke Police Station is at a distance of about 1 rr^nce. The matter was reported promptly. ^o witnesses, defence has not been able to • . m^iterial point which discredits the ewdence d/itnesses have been confronted with Tn^rr' no material contradiction or omission has Their evidence is corroborated by the in which names of all the assailants and XI-HC—78 75ST •<ll''<lrt<<, tSiTfl'y'ltS, RlC'iK-iy 13 •mwiT -gwre; "m^ 200 sn^i^fe^ WIT sn^i'g^rigr an^yr TR^ (4*lIl«<<T) 16 TCiiwafn 3iA?i wBupuriii uyyd by Them ars (.w^Ofl^olly menTioned. NaTure or injuries mentioned in the post-mortem (PW-2) establish that as many] incised or cut wounds have been i.i. other parts of the body. Ril)s| heart, spleen, lungs, intestines veins & muscles of neck were alsil ar-r-ested along with the weapc|ns patrolling police party and the|/ Station where sword and every) circumstances corroborate the Singh (PW-4). Coming to the argument of Mr. (PW-3 <& PW-4) have not stated in fact as per their evidence attacking the deceased mercilej tried to intervene, accused Jeel will kill them, therefore, they rai|i four accused persons with dead) that in sucha situation, it is difff notice with precision as to whicl^ <hlll<ri<h-< MIHirif 'if.is'St <[»I«SK ^isifinaii^i r^port and the evidenceof Dr. A.P. Sawant |as 77 external injuries in the nature of ound on vital organs of the body as well as were fractured, sternum was fractured, ^vere cut, even windpipe and most of the cut. Moreover, the accused persons were immediately after the incident by a were immediately taken to the Police 1'hing were seized. All these factors and ^estimony of Toran Singh (PW-3) <& Nakul k\nand Kumar Tiwari that these witnesses (is to which accused inflicted which injury, all the four accused persons started ^sly with deadly weapons and when they |'u rushed towards them and said that he into the street. The attack made by the |y weapons like sword etc. was so sudden |cult for any one to memorize or distinctly accused attacked the deceased on which i XI-HC—7S ^ 3^ST •*||i||<4.q, »Tf1y'l<o, Rlrtl+fy •14 •qrow •awra; 'V^ 200 an^r •q^ra; (ij<»f^g) 311^1 qiT^iRi' TOTsntnwite 171 Id part of the body. On this co^int, we do not find any infirmity on the evidence of these witnesses. As regards the argument of Mr. stated in his evidence th,$t whei|i persons were already sit-ting 01(1 brought on record that how Inspector, in para 19 of his were taken into custody by paf brought them to Police Station; received messags on wireless persons and he reached the spo| the Police received message regc^ the message to all the police Pulgaon caught the accused the Police Station. Therefore, not find any substance in this thelse evidence abtiut perspns was not sent to the Chief (Ex.P-8) shows that there is an F.I.R. was sent to the C.J.M. N <M<lt<n<ill H)*1<*ff '^^'fe'St' <^>1+^1< ^; aifiw SII^T V.C. Ottalwar that Nakul Singh (PW-4) has they reached Police Station, the accused t-side the lockup, the prosecuti^n^^a se persons arrested. M.b. Tiwari (PW-9), has stated that the accused per-sons ^rolling police party of Pulgaon and they Durg. He has also stated that he himself the attack made on one person by four From his evidence it is clear that when rding the attack, they immediately flashed ^atrolling parties, the patrolling party of with The weapons and brought them to ;hey were in Police Station, as sych, we do ardument. Now coming to the other point r|aised by Mr. V.C. Ottalwar that the fs"^? Judicfal Magistrate, Durg, perusal of the F.I.R. (ndorsement that on the same day,copy of (oreover, this point was not raised before Sr lit "^ • . 'A • ^ ,: ^'"^ XI-fiC—78 3^^ •^ww'f, Q^\WI«,[fiftwy. 15 l.«S!S»>' tfTWTT Wqra; W1, 200 an^yr 'CRR;\ (ly«[y«i«i) 3^I??1^IW '^\ 5TT^?T ^fl^; Soma l^ 20 21 a 'S^IIW ^lfel SD^I The tr*ial courT. copy or Tliet-.l| of the trial Court. PW 8 whol examined on this aspsct that t^ has not been given any oppgj^ ,(. Receipt to show that the F.I.R. v( of the trial Court. Therefore, i1| not sent to the C.J.M. No other points were raised by In view of the above evidence of Belchandan (DW-l) <& Pauvan accused/appellants. Moreover', argued on this aspect of matter". For the foregoing reasons, we d< judgment of the trial Court conv] of offence under Section 302 rec In the result, the appeals are dismissed and are hereby dismiss Sti/- L.C.Bhailoo ,)udge •kllld'il-l ^IHdf'if.lS^ <l«i<4n ^r ^nfiffl <HI^<< i. sent by the Police is available on record recorded the F.I.R. has not been cross- F.I.R. was not sent to the C.J.M. and he ^unity to explain by cross-examination. a^ sent to the C.J.M. is available on 'B' file cannot be said that copy of the F.I.R. was arned counsel for the appellants. prosecution witnesses, evidence of Dinesh K.dfnar Sinha (&W-2) is of no help to the earned counsel for appellants has not not find any illegality or infirmity in the [cting the accused persons for commission ld with Section 34 of the I.P.C. » devoid of merit, they are liable to be bd. sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge