^ G-A •^^% !X 189/(Jail) "C.J.P.R. 11/94/2,000 CF0000061290" APPEAL OF PRISONER ^ - !> ^s^:e^^s^^^^'-m -f^^sf- No...............,......^...............Y.....Name@.5S:^.;&^^/^.^o;^^/-^^.-.s^^ „,__, ^@ ^^ OT^^T^^^STC^^-^^A^^^^i -s name ...^^^...^^^.^..^,^^.^^^.^^ Residence ......-•<^<:..—...................c.Age .. IL '9nW;'' i%"°"/"'^e^'^"^ Sentenced to/.<?.^..^^^^^^..,,,...On......jt.^.J..^.^............ .4.. Under section ^^.^^.^-.^^..^ ^ .....^^..^^..^^.^^^y., It is explained to the prisoner that ifhe states or wishes to be represented byjlegal , practitioner the Appellate Court will not proceed with the base for seven days unless ^:.1ie legal practitioner appears . If the legal practitioner does not appear within seven ^Mys he may not heard at all . Ifihe prisoeer states that he does not wish to be iepre- sented by legal practitioner the court may proceed at once with.the case/and \vill njot be obliged to give a hearing to any legal practitioner vvho should appear . ^W-^^r •^^) I Date of Applicationfor copy ofJudgement 2 Date on which copy received 3 Date on which Appeal seot............. ..... -.1. 4 Whether the prisoner wishes to be represented or not - Yes / No ~TD sS^B '^^w y<s ^sf No.... ....................................... ...,.. Name@^5^^^.^yz^^%..g^^5?:..... (^y^SQ r^rr^n^e^r^'^-^- CODfined^r:n --;•-••••--':^^bl"Jail -—^y^r^- No. ^;/9T. ........ » Dated............... .^.J19^ fe^ •st; ^ gather which a copy of judgement or'order passed in the cas'e for favour of 'jtrais- Forwarded to the-CIIIEF J4J£tf€IAI^MA©tSTRA3:£-<S^H^^..^^OH^^ -^\ ^ ^bF 'SSST. a^pif^p^ -?F^~^^ mission to the proper Appellate Court, ^7^- S>TAJB 2^?/5^^T^8/^ A— ^ <^f^^^^ \^^ti-pennteln;d^^') lii::'; ^9 Date of receipt ia<.. .. ... -. ................... oflfice Date of receipt record to accompaQy the Memo of Appeal to the Appellate court No ...... Forwarded to the Date ofreceipt in Appellate Court Dated ....................199 K L.<' ^;/.- "3^^?P^-^, ^Tit^T^. f^^ra^; 1W?W^N^""""CT"'^"""1^'^/^^ S0©~- Di^isiosa Bei&oh: < Hon'ble SIu'l L.C. Bhadoo aad HoB'ble Shri Daiireadra Mishraj 13.1.200& Shri Abti^ Tiwaii, coansel Shri PratiiU Bharat, Pcmel The acciised/appeUants Sec-tion 374 (2) of tlie C.r.P.C. t) Jai, Raipur, beiiig aggneved by bv the 1st Additioual vSessioxis <J Nos,221/94 6& 228/94, whereb^ Judge aiter hotdmg the of offeuce uuder Secuons 394 witii Section 34 of the I.P.C. audcrgo RJ, for teii ycai's luidcr tlie I,P.C, and to undergo read witli Section 34 ofthe I.P.d to niu concun'eutlv. Brief facts leadiag to fQw^ (PW-4) gavc merg iiitiiiiation Balraoipiir tliat lie is resident o| monimg at about 6,45 wheu Chowkidar ofVillsge: Bhaisaniii^ that two dcad bodies are lyiag u^ ai^a aiid biood was oozing out tliis mforQiatiou, he along witli tlie accused/jappeliants i^ad mipr|so ^Pfe^ ^FI^ ^ fe^ ^N^R 1 "^'^to'OTt^i JJ. &>r die appeUaiite. |^w\rer for the State/respoiid|i |iave preferred .tMs appea| |irough tlie Supemitendent] IJie judginent dated 19,5,199^ judgc, Am.bikapur, iia Sessi^ns the leamed 1st Additional $ guiKy forthe with Section 397 aad Isentenced each of flie acckise Bectiau 394 rcad with Sectioii |sonmenr fbr life iinder Sect^on Both tlie seuteuces were ?nts, under Central passed Trial ^essions commissiou Raia ^ of this appeal are that on 6.3.1994 to Poli.cc Village: Bhms^ffiiunda, tha)l le was at residence Baiiaitisi, tda caine to his house ajacl iiifoi'med ar Rainnagar PIaiitation ia pf thosc dcad bodies. On r^ceivHig IRaiiinai'esh Yadav, Rameshl, Dalvir Gt, PRJ—.FS/350—12/2000—.50,0.00. ?^02 read ctused to 397 of 3Q2 yirectecl Sakal [Statiou; ah ni the r^isi, tlie i^foi'med ie forest /..• ^ ~5-S[ t^WT? ...&...A...J ) X-. ^Rfe^ "HP^ ^ "fe^- iN^K Raijadhaiii ainoijLut Yadav aiid Ramjatan xvent t<| persons, who used to sell the stoinach aad chest, and receiviiig tliis report, mvestiganon. Duriug the itivestigatio4, Officer, reached the site aiid for prepariiig Paiichaiiamas, 19 of tlie dead bodies of bodies were sent to the li Ceilaio. utensils, cash possession by tlie Investigati^ig iato possessiou under Ex.P-3| body of Ramdhaiii, aiid under Ex, P-36, Plaiii soil aii(ft possession. Duriiig the taken iiito police custody aii^ Section 27 of the Evidencc recoverecl tlie knite under also gave mfoi'matiou Ex,P|- ourrency notes of Rs,116/- ^ 27 , Dui-mg tlie police iafomiation Ex, P-23, aiid ia possession under Ex,P-24. taken mto possessiou undeij clot|ies, were tyiiig, injuries ojae kiule was also lyiag 011 f4< Policj^ registered the case a^id started the spot and ^aw the bbdies of two t, B.N. Singh (PW-12), the Jgave notices Ex, P-16 & 18 dnd thcreafter, Pan.chaaain.a^ Eujadhaiii & Surendra were prt j.ospital tbr postmortem e^ aad clotlies werc slso Officer. Oue Lungi was p, One kuite, whicli was lyt^ were also taken mto blood stained soil were alsd r^e of iavestigation, accused R^ he gave itieinoraaduia (ExJ |Act, and ia pursuaace to sl.emoraoLdum Ex, P-22, Acci Pl-26 aad based on that ^ 7ei^e teleen in.to possessiou cfastody, accused Shiv t3ursuance to th.at chiscl was| pne cuiTencY note of Ks,50, Ex. P-28 from accused Shi^ Iitivestigatiag to Paiichas EX.P-17& 'pared a-ad Eamuiation, Itaken -iiito lalso taken Gaibcha present on spot On .g near the Ipossession taken into larkus was f-21) uuder ^hat hc got ilised Adhii' ibformation ulnder Ex,P- gave I takcn into I- was aiso ^ Shanker, Sh4iiker Gi;PRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000. :0 ) -s^ "tomy ...&.;..A..-....(.6..S..^.2 ^ 'i^IRK ^^1 ^li^T -^ Oue shawl and LuixgiwFere take4 iiito possession frQBi accused Adliir uuder Ex, P-25, The recovered the Forensic Scicnce Laboratorv-1 '^RfeplN ^FI^f ^ fe^" if^T^K . j bLrticles were sent for exainiiiatioii to The post inorfein was coucliicted by Dr. N.K, DuUa (PWnl) aad tlip iT.covered Lungi of accused Shiv Shanker was got identified uiide After conipletion of tlie |iivestigation, charge sheet comLixiission of ixiurder of Raiud|iaiii and Siirendra wes-e filefi agaiiist ^racd Ist Additional Sessio4s Jzidge, thc accused/appellgiiits, Thc lc{ Ambikapui\ received tlie sessioj Judge, Ambikapur, who after fr4mmg the charges, and rcco^lmg the prosecution evideuce aiid sta under Section 313 of tlie Cr,P.(p- o^d heaiing tlic arguiiients of the Additional PubMc Prosccutor ^nd the counsel for the a^peUants convicted and sentenced tlie ad mentiotied above, We have heaid leanied c^ Tiwari and Mr. Prafiill Bharat, l^ & Surendra are bemg coucem^d as homicidal, learned co tlie appeUaiits has aot disputed | N, K, Dutta has stated that on 7J exaQitQ.atioa oii the dead bodv d wound was present on ttie ueck| chest, ajtid other stab mjuiy wa^ also present o?i the right s [ Ex.P-20 by one Raiiiesh Baldhai lis cases for tilal from tfae LeBieute of the accused/a^pellsio.ts ^cused/appetlaiits m tlie m|^nner as ^uusel for the appellaiits K^i\ Abhay samed Paiiel Lawver 011 behjalf of the State/ respoudcnt. As tar as thc question of i^ature of deatli of deceased R[amdhajLii the same, Eveii othenvise, 3,1994 he conducted the po^tiaorteiii f Surendra aad found that one otlier uijunr was prcsetit on ffae Gt.PRJ—.FS/350~-12/2.000—50,000. for fhe Sesslons tiinsel for~ PW-1 Dr. one stab de of the ^, IT' "S^ t^TiWK ^.......<5>..A...J.4e>^t2.. W^T^TK^W ^ tieck in fbe size of 1 x l4 inr'hj iniiuies were uiflicted witltm 3 shock aad coiTima as a rc^ extenial carotid veiiis were f^ ^^RR^i^i His postjQ.orte.sii report is Ex.P-1. The 14-36 hours aad the cause of death was »ult of excessive bleedmg. Bofh the )und cut aad tiie iiaftire of death was homicidal. The doctor furttier stated that 011 the sanie day he couducted thje postaiortena on the body of Ranidhao.x aad four icjuries were found on his b^dy out of which injury Nos,j2 & 3 were stab wozuids on chest aiid nepr coUar boue, aiid the causq of dcatli of Ramdhaiii was due to exce death was homicidal m natii|^. His rcport is Ex.P-2. Thereft)re, in view of the above evidence 4^ tlle doctor it stands proved fhat the cleaths ofboth Ramdhaiii & Sjiii'endra were hoiaicidal io. nature, Now conimg to the i4volvem.ent of the accused persons ta committiiig tlie murders of R^indhaiii & Sm'endra, tlierc |is ao dircct evidence aiid eyewimesses ctrcuBistaiitial exddence. The Afamed vs. State of Bihar belbre tlie Couil caii recorci cu'cumstaaces from which ajSi mfercnce of guilt coi-ild be been established by uumipe^.chable evideiice led by the aiid tliat all the circumst4tic€s piit together are no conchisive uatxu'e but als4 uueiTmgly poiiit oiily to tlie ^ of aiiy explan.ation which is i|ot consistent with the hypo sive bleedmg aiid Iiaemonjhage, Tlie iii this case, Whole ca< Hon'ble Apex Court iii tlie c^se ofNesa^ reported in AIR'2001 Bupijeme Court 2416 has held fhat, ta a 4asc based on circimistaiiu^l evidence, conviction, it must satisfl coixiplete the chaui so aiilt of tlie accused aiid ai'e Gt; PRL-FS/350-12/2000-50,000. e rests cn itsell' ftiat Idi-awn have Iprosecution only of a IfaUv as to |noi capable thesis of the ^) ^UHHUf" ^.' ^^ ...<52..,..6.,..(&..3.g^- ^ I. guilt of thfi'a.ccuse^iT5~^]SF'E^is~3T~tiiese pnncipi^s iiow we shall examine the circumst4itial evidence relied upoli by the prosecution in tih.is case. We have to see a.s to whelher based ou the settied pri^iciple, the pmsecution has been able to ilstablish that the accused pi the oaly persoas who comijiitted the murder of Raihdhaai & Siirendra, The whole case res1 of Rs.50/ - froni the possessionj 28; chisel, the weapon ofofie.nc offence ti'om accused Mai'kiisl accused Adliir under Ex,P-2^ under Ex, P-27. As far as the r| it is stated that blood was prfj aiidalso on the kntfe, In tliis rclevant. As per the F.S.L. t-ejport Ex. P-40, blood was fo laufe, but no blood was pres^ found on the ciuTencv note o| tlie blood was hzunan blood deceased persons. TIierefoi| accused/appeUants cannot Ramdhani & Sm'endx'a, Th^ support to tiie prosecutiorj^ appcUarite wifh the niurder o^ recoveiy of Limgi of Shiv Slijaiiker trom the place of o^ concemed, the Police got it i<? TSOHS are s onlv ou recoverv ofa ciutency note of accuscd Shiv Shanker u^idcr Ex.P- |e, under E-x.P-24; knile, tlie mider Ex.P-22; Lungi & I; and Rs<116/- from acci ^covery ofcuiTencv notes is l.seat ou the ctin'encv note 'ounection, the F.S.L. reporl} kl was also [report that m.d that foo of thc same g^ozip of the int 011 fhe chisel, and bloq Rs,50/-, But there is no merelv on tliis F.S.L. be couuected with the re is no other evidence, ^ case in connecting tli^ Ramdhaai & Surcndra, 4 .entified under Ex.P-20 by Gi-. PRJ-.FS/350-12/2000-50,000. jweapon of ihawl tix)m ksed Adliir boncemed, |ofRs.50/- Ex,P-40is iind on the report tiic mmxler of ^hich lends accused/ s far as the currence is ^ne witness ; \ ^7 •s^i • i^S^ Y." iiaiaely, Ramesh Badhai in tii^ was the persoii who stated tli^ Shaaker, but Rainesh has no| prove tfae fact that the recov^red Lungi betongs to accused Shiv |imply stated that the Luii^i was got |it about 11 a,m., iii die m.omio.g/ at Sliaiiker. PW-8 Suresh has s| identmed beliiad the hospital tliat tiiae he was goiiig on tlie ^^y o^d Police got it identififed, There is no legal evidencc fhat the saip. Lungi was sealcd at the s^?ot aad at ttie time of iclentification it ^as opened. On accoun pTOductioii of Ramesh wlio ide^ fhat flie said Lungi was of accu^ed Shiv Shanker, ^uid that Luugi which was recovered frc^ Shaaker. Tliere is no other evidlence to coiinect tlie accuset wifh the criiae. in view of tfae above, ftie ciime again.st the accused p€ evideuce in. view of setfled law tlie circuiEistantial evidence, In the ctrcunistances, we of conviction aiid sentence pas accused/appellaiits aad senteis ^ ,i pi^sence ofFW-8 Suresli,! Raisiesh t the Liuigi belongs to accused Shiv beeu produced before the| Court to imied fhe Lungi, therc is nd ot non- evidence tlie Luiigi was kept in sealecl cover, and 47i^h was opeiied only in p^esence of Suresh, then it was got idenl|ified from Rame%h, thercfoJ£e, zinder tliese circumstaiices, we ai'e usjiable to agree witli tlie imd^iig of the trial Court that tlie proseciitioiji has been able to estabUsl^ that the 221 tlie spot belongs to accijised Shiv 1 persons t)rosecution has tailecl to est^bMsii tlie Ireons based cn the cii'c^mstaiitial for convicting the accused are of the opiaiou that the |sed by the trial Court coiivjictiiig tlie |cmg them tor the aforesaid Ibased 011 Ijudgiaeiit offeiices Gt; PRJ—FS/350— 12/20!00—50,000. 4- ^^- ^i^r^T^t^ ^T^iI^T^qw "^^, yoma 1 ^ • i <i ^.. ^W€ctl^NI^ -3-55f -^TqT^p?^ ^ftWTS, r®l<ni'H,li< _.......:&,A:.!^^?_ -1311^?T TR^ (^i^^T) ^fl^R lift^ ^lit^l -4 ^Pifepft^'HPT^ff ^f fe^ T^gK ^'3fR?H3?T^T caiiiiot be su^taiiie-d, The pros^cution. lias not been able t6 prove the crime agaiast the accused/appepaiits beyoiid reasonable doubt. lu the result, thc appcal) succeeds and the same is|allowed. tlie charges iinder Sectlons 894 read with Section 34 ofthe I.P.C. I Thev be uiiied iii aiiv ofher case, The appellaats are acquitted of| with Section 397 aiid 302 read set at Ubei-n' foitliwiUi, if not re4 In view ofthis order.I.A.J^os,4651/2004 aud 4652/20 clisposed of Cenified copy as per Rule^ Sd/- » L.C. Bhadoo Judge p4 stand Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Gt:PRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000. •,.^