~^<rffxr-HC—78 ^:.- 3:^T •^1-^10'4, t$Tfl^jl^, ?s<<?'>l^^<' C^.^.^o. \^<?^ |^^3 C^-{\^t>. 1^-^/^002- w^r ^^•••^•^•^^^••^•"•^ 200 3TT^?T XHW (4C<^<^) 3?ff^T ^?T f^it^" ^B ^t^l 5b*i}c^ F^ciTW^Fri^'cT 3TF^T APPELLANT AnandRaml years, residejtit Distt. Raigaxjh (C sdn of Usat Ram Rawat, aged about 45 ofvmage Saramdega, P.S. Lailunga, h(C.G.) RESPONDENT StateofChhli Distt. Raigai(i CREMENAL AItPEAT. N0. 1296/1ftftl APPELLANTS 1 AinritlalRav^at, 26 years 2 LohersaiRav^ 30years 3 RamsaiRaw<j AU residents Distt. Raigarl|i RESPONDENT StateofChh^ Distt. Raigarli APPELLAiVT ChintaMani Kedamath R^vat, RESPONDENT State Distt. Raigari^ cbHid^l'1 "RTR^f 1St\'fel:3t <P^^l< ^r ^rRw-STT^I 34/2003 Versus attisgarh, throu^i Police Station Lailunga, l(C.G.) son of Anandram Rawat, aged about rat, son ofDhaniram Rawat, aged about it, son ofDhaniram Rawat, aged 26 years fvillage Saramdega, P.S. Lailunga, (C.G.) ersus |ttisgarh, fhrougti PoUce Stati<m Lailunga, KC.G.) ^o. 804/2003 ^cawat, aged about 32 years, Son of R/o. villag^ Sannadega, P.S. Lailunga, Disft. Raigarh (C.G.) ersus ofChha^risgarh, through Police Station Lailunga, ij(C.G.) D.B. : Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhakion and Hon'ble Shri Dhirendila Mishra. JJ. iSS^^ Vi.^ £@?^'; ai; B®?.^. SiW^ SKw •-HC—78 3^£]'^ii^i^, ?$T{i-y'i<s, isi<?'>i-y^<: W^v\\ WRTSR W^ 200 S^r^T^TW '^% ^A^^J S^*^sfc 3H^?T X^TSF (^f^SR^T) ^HWHf^T^T^T 4-4-2007 Shri Ramkumar Tiwari, Adv^cate for appellant Anandram. Sushri Usha Chandrakar, Ad^ocate for appellant Chintaxnani Rawat. Smt. Indira Tripathi, Advoc] Rawat and Ramsai Rawat. Shri Sudhir Bajpai, Dy. Govt Arguments heard. Oraljudgment dictated on Dc ORAI Per L.C,Bhadoo. J. : Cmninal Appeal No. 1284/; No. 804/2003 filed by Chintainani by this common judgment as all the| sentence dated 4-12-2002 passed by 18/2001 whereby leamed Special offence under Section 148 of I.P.C. offence under Section 147 of LP.C. undergo imprisonment for Ufe and t< payment of fine, to further undergo Section 302 read with Section 149 cbl^lid^rl 'RWTf ^,fe^ <^i^« iF'3q^m'3ffSST \ie for appellants Amritlal Rawat, Lohersai Advocate, for fhe respondent/State. fs. JUDGMENT 003 filed by Anand Ram, Crmunal Appeal ^swst and Criminal Appeal No. 1296/2002 filed by Amritlal Rawat, Lohersai R^jwat and Ramsai Rawat are being disposed of ^e appeals are arising out of same judgment daied 4-12-2002 passed by Special J^dge, Raigarh m Special Case No. 18/2001. These appeals are directed ag^inst fhejudgment ofconviction and order of Special Judge, Raigarh in Speciai Case No. |udge after holding tfae accused appellants guilty for commissicm of offence u(ider Section 302 read wifh Section 149 of I.P.C and accused Anandram, Chinta(ram, Amritlal Rawat and Lohersai guilty for ^vhereas accused-appellant Ramsai guUty for sentenced each of die accused-appellant to pay a fine ofRs. 2,000/- and in default of ijnprisonment for 6 months for offence under |ofLP.C., accused Anandram, Chintamani, Amritlal and Lohersai have been qentenced to undergo one year's R.I. under K 3:?5[ ^ll^ll^, ^Tf|<-)^|^, [sf<r'>|-y^< 3?n^I?RT f^lich 'TOT 3?Tc[?T sb^l°li ^l^dl sh^llcb •V^ 200 3^?T ^RW (Ijctf^^) ^?TOT ^Tf^T 3?T^f Section 148 ofLP.C. and accused t year's RJ. under Section 147 ofl.y Case of fhe prosecution, ]jn brief, is Aat P.W. 1 Membai lodged First Infonnation Report Ex. P-1 in Police Station Lailunga with fhe allegation fhat on Friday 16-7-1999 at about 2.00 p.4i. on coming to know that fheir crop standing in Pakdhoda forest is being damag^ Bh^wano left for ihe agricultur<|i reached to the filed, they saw fha^ her husband. brother-in-law and s^ie were retuming to fheir house. By the time ihey reached to the last comer of^ie field, all of a sudden Anaxidrain, Chintaram, Lohersai, Ramsai and Amrit came Chmtamam and Anandram startedl injuries spontaneously. Recehdn^ for the scene of occurrence. Site on the body ofDhirau Ex. P-4 was deafh was coma due to extradura <=bi<ti<n<tiTi 'W^ff '^i,ttT^ <F3i^i< '^>3F[^IH^[T^I ^amsai has also been sentenced to undergo one .C. respectively. ?d by animals, her husband Dhiraii, Anamo and 1 field. She also followed fhem. When they fhere were no aiumals in the field. Therefore canying club, spear, axe wifh common object to miu-der her husband. Loharsai, I^amsai and Amrit threw fhe weapons they were canying and caught hold of h^r husband and threw him on the ground. assaulting her husband with axe. She tded to inter^ene but they did not stop. He(r husband could not rise and succumbed to the fhis report, Station Home Officer, Police Station Lailunga registered offencejunder Sections 147, 148 and 302 ofLP.C., left t)lan Ex. P-2 of the place of occurrence was prepared by Head Constable Bansi^har Sidar. After grving notice Ex. P-3, inquest prepared by the Investigating Qfficer. Body of Dhirau was sent for post monem e^amination to Primary Health Centre, Lailunga where Dr. S. Upadhyay (P.W. 9) c<j)nducted post mortem and opined that cause of haemorrhage and injury of head, death was homicidal. Post mortem report is Ejx. P-23. Based on memorandum Ex. P-5 given by Ramsai, Ex. P-6 given by Anajndram, Ex. P-7 given by Chmtamani, Ex.P-8 given by Anuit LaL Ex. P-9 givqn by Lohersai, under Ex. P-10 one axe was ^^i^—'.- -HC—78 T^T "4i<4io9^, t$T{1'yli<o, icf^i'y^' <41^dl ^b^lch ^ 200 37I^r'^Tf^TW ^QI <W^t S^^S$5 3^?T 'TOcF ( 4c<f^<?T ) ^myH'nf^T ^Tr^i aild Ra^nsai seized at the instance of Lohei'saL seized. under Ex. P-12 plain soil P-13 one club at ftie instance of seized under Ex. P-14. one axe wafe Anandrain, one Dhoti of Aiiandraml seized under Ex. P-17 at the instancel Ex. P-18, bow and arrow was seize^ one towel under Ex. P-20 was seizedl for opinion of Assistant Surgeon und^ in wirich he mentioned that injury question. Articles were sent for Laboratory, Raipur from where repor^ mvestigation, charge sheet was file^ Raigarh against accused appellant as case to the Sessions Judge who was a| The prosecution exainined 1: charges against fhe accused persons. under Section 313 ofCr.P.C. in whic] diem and siated that they have been animosity between fhe parties for agri{ Leamed Special Judge after acquined accused Daitari and Itwar aforementioned. We have heard Shri Lidira Tripathi on behatf of Amritlal s4stained chetmical <bM(<r1^1T1 ^Hdf 'if,fe^t <fa^l< '^'^tRw'^n^T mder Ex. P-11 one Lungi of Lohersai was blood stained soil was seized, under Ex. Ra^nsai was seized, one Lungi of Ramsai was seized under Ex. P-15 at the instance of i was seized under Ex. P-16; one spear was of ChintamaiiL one Lungi was seized imder at the instance of Amritlal under Ex. P-19, tat fhe mstance of Amritlal. Tlie axe was sent ^r Ex. P-24-A. Doctor gave opinion Ex. P-24 by Dhirau can be caused by axe in exainination to tihie Forensic Science Ex. P-27 was received. After completion of in fhe Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, also Itwar and Daitari, who concimined the |so empowered as Special Judge. wimesses at the trial m order to establish iptatement of accused persons were recorded ^. fhey denied fhe inatenal appearing agaiast ^ilsely implicated in the crime on account of ;ultural land. [hearing counsel for the respective parties. ^hereas convicted tfae accused appeUanis as Ramkuliiar Tiwari on behalf of AnandraiiL Smt. IRawat, Lohersai Rawat and Raimai Rawat, T^f ^l^lcr''^, rc$Tti^41(S, fcf(rl>l^^< s^ ^l^dl ch^lcb' •R^ 200 3^?r TT5(iF ( 4C<^<?T ) STT^I^Ff fc^fch WT3T7^T ^H\^ T^Trw^f^T 3:n^?r G:. ^ushd Usha Chandrakar on behatf of l^ehalfoftheState. Homicidal death of Dhirau has ^ppellants. Moreover from the eviden^ ^onducted post mortem on the body Membai, P.W. 2 Anamo, it is establishe<| tiature. As far as involvement of accu^ boncemed, leamed counsel for the acj< ^Qprovemem in the evidence of witaess Knamo. Their evidence before the Courf Bection 161 of Cr.P.C. as also to ifae F| |niey also argued that in fhis case, th^ Iniervened at the time of commission ^ brother of the deceased, has not been pncident is said to have happened at 3.0^) ^odged on 17-7-1999 at 3.00 p.m. On the other hand Shri Bajpai su^] Haviag heard counsel for the ^ levidence ofP.W. 1 Membai, P.W. 2 tcase diary statement of these wimesses $ |Rq)ort Ex. P-1 lodged by P.W. 1 jaccused persons namely Amritlal, Loi| jweapons, they caught hold ofDharau, ^ Anandram and Chintamani attacked it has been mentioned fhat only Anajti )Q. CM^k-l4lt1 "RR^if ^ t^zt '(f^R5H ^stRm^T^i phintamani Rawat, and Shri Bajpai on |not been disputed by counsel for fhe ^e of P.W. 9 Dr. S. Upadhyay who Dhirau as also evidence of P.W. 1 ihat death of Dhirau was homicidal in |ed appeilants in crime m question is acjcused appellants argued that there is 38 namely P.W. 1 Membai and P.W. 2 is contradictorv to fhe statement under 1I.R. Ex. P-1 given by P.W. 1 Membai. material witness who is said to have crime iiamely Bhagwano amd who is sxamined. They further argued that the p.m. on 16-7-1999 whereas rq)ort was su^ported ihe judgment offhe trial court. ?spective parties, we have pemsed the Aiia|mo, First Infomiation Rq>ort Ex. P-1 and Bx. D-1 and D-2. In the First Information Mejmbai, it has been mentioned that three ^ersai and Ramsai after throwing their rew him on the ground whereas accused with axe and in case diary statement, idram attacked fhe deceased with axe Aiialrno. ifcx. Dhi-au XI-HC—78 3'wT ^1^1<^^, ^T{l<rtjlco, [^<Y1)1<H11< Ul^dl ^h^ict) -^ 200 3?7t?f ^FT ^Jch 'TO? ^^l ^hHl^ ^ 33(1^1 XR^ ( 4c<?l<t<<i?T) F^TTW^tcT^i?I whereas in the Court evidence. fact Chintamani attacked Ihe decea4< Chintamani. It is categorically men^ Therefore. above are the serious diary statements and first infonnatl been ofiTered by these witoesses of( that Aiiandram and Chintamani prosecution, Chintamani was caiTy4ig body of Dhirau and at fhe time instance of Chintamani. ThereforeJ consistent m respect of fhe manner| attacked. Thei'efore, non-examinaty deceased and was real brother of th| attacked deceased. creates doubt a1 above discussion is tfaat the prosecu^ fhe light of the above contrad^ Bhagwano. The delay in lodgmg FJ distance of police station from the rfa< on record tiiat there was lcnig aiiimc party about agricultural land. There^ prosecution has failed to adduce le^< ofibnce agaixist the accused persons 5 Manbodh has also been declared entitled for benefit of doubt. For the foregoing reasons, accused persons cannot be sustain^d. chl^fd^l'1 'RFT^f '^.fe^ <F3t<^l< ^ ^rRw'sn^r Mefmbai (P.W. 1) and Anamo have stated fhat in ed with axe which was given by Anandram to ioned fhat attack was not made by Anandram. cdntradictions between fhe court evidence, case \on Tcport and no explanation whatsoever has he prosecution. In the F.I.R. it has been stated both attacked with axe whereas as per spear and there is no injury of spear on the of[investigation spear has been recovered at the the evidence of these two witnesses is not lin which fhe incident started andDhirau was |>n of Bhagwano. who was accompanying the deceased and who intervened when accused |>out the prosecution case. Conclusion of the iccu^ion has suppressed the genesis offhe crime in ;tor^ statements and non-examination of IR. is about 24 hours whereas as per F.I.R. the riace ofoccurrence is 35 km. It has also come ^sity between the deceased party and accused fore, we are offhe considered opimon that fhe le^al consistent evidence in order to prove the Recovery wimess ofthe seizure memo P.W. hostile. Therefore, the accused persons are jconviction and sentence imposed upon the tain^d. Appeal of the accused-appellants succeed efi< -HC—78 _,/ 3^C[ r^ll^l^, ^Tfl<-IJI^, (^<^l<-t^< ^l^ldl *^l<h^..c-.4..^t.^).^"^ 200 3Ti^T WSR (rt«<IST) ^nw^'fe^ WT 3H^"?I ^RT^ '^nw^T^n^T and they are acquitted of all the charg^s. It is stated fhat accused Chintamani is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. V^G need not surrender. Accused Anandram- Amritlal Rawat. Lohersai Rawat and not required in any other case. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge cf.Wid^'l -W^Tf^^t ffss^R. ^3ffim<ffT^i ^amsai Rawat be set at liberty forfhwith if Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^-