^ 3n^?r ?n few 'tTSIT 3TT^T ?FRT^ TE^ '<ll'i<10'!<, ®Tfl+l'l<o,!s|<?ll+f*l< HIMrtl skMlcB Wi, 200 3»i^?r VRK (^f^g^r) ^snwdtei sii^t CrtmiaalJA)DcalNo.343/2001 APPELLANT Rajkumar Pandey, S/o Late Shj~i Brijiaj Paadey, Aged about Vl! Vi (M RESPOMDENT DB: HON'BLE SHRI L.C. BHAlDOO & HON'BLB SHRISUmL KtHMAR SIBHA, J-J. Appearance: Shri V.K. Pandey, Coiin Shri U.K.S. Chandel, Pa ORAt (1 (1) Followiug judgment off|ie ti.C.Bhadoo.^J. Heard. Tbis appeal is directed order of sentence dateO Sessions Judgc, ,No.259/92, whereby, after holding the accu^( the offence under Sectfe Suraipiir tfal <!i>i<<f<'i<<li yn^ ^r'fe^t TfsR^R ^37fOT3]I^r years, hraiapur, Student, P.0. PoUce Station .hrampur, Distnct Suiyya P.) now at Chhattisgarh. Versus tate ofClLhattisgarh, iel for the appeUant. i|ael Lawyer for the State. juDennENT .01.2008) Court was delivered by agamst fhe judgincnt of oonviction and 19.3.2001 passed by the Additional Distnct Saiguja (C.G.), in S.T. leamed Additional Sesskns Judge, led/appcUaat guilty for conumssion of m 302 offhe IPC, for coamutting ttoe •wi.i ^ M s^ 3f^s w R-1J+ ^^ STT^T^-IN) 3^ET"i||<ll<?i<'<, ^iTfly'Ko, !sf<rtl^y ^1*4^1 *^1* •WI. 200 an^v •VR5 ('ipfy^i) 's^nwHi^f aii^i ^ furfher Hlgh. murder of Raghav iinprisoiuncnt for Ufe an<| of peyment offine to (2) Case of fhe prosecution,| deceased) aad accused| together ia fhe Govt. In the year 1991, Ragh^' Captain and accused/aj 22.11.91, atabout 1:1$ teaching Physics to studying in that Class. Madhurendrakumar S|u they were sittiag by fhe| accused caine there. He| Raghav Kuxaar out of Kuinar fhat wheflier he| go. Raghav Kumar rep|a Rajkumar after fhe peri^ K.R. Gupta (PW-1) appri|s< ineet him after the busy wifh teachiag. In| entered the classroona, his neck and chest, PSifl- Madhurendrakumar -tan. towards the stafiF: Ktuaar, fbe ;p|icd ippri|sed perijid Sic|gh room <ni<<[ci4t liH<n( ^f.fest <1<<<^1< ^'sifim SII^T Ctlass- S|mgh scntenced Wm to undex^o [|l to pay a fine ofRs.5000/-, in default ,; uadei^o R.I. for 5 months. |ia brief, is ttiat Raghav Kuiaar (siace — Rajkumar Paadey were studying 4gher Secondary School, Visfarafftpur. i^v Kumar was elected as the School )peUaa.t was studying in Class-X. On p.m., Shri K.R. Gupta (PW-1) was ^lass-XII, Raghay Kumar was also PW-4- Praveen Kumar Sseah aad PW-5 were also present iu the cl^s, side ofRaghav Kumar.At that time, |requested K.R. Gupta (FW-1) to rieud class, on which, he asked Raghav |wants to go out of fhe class, he can fhat he wffl meet the accused- )d of Physics is over. Thercafter, Shri Rajkumar that Raghav Kuinar wffl of Physfcs is oyer aad he becamc fhe meaiitmie, accuscd - Rajkum.ar rttacked Raghav Kumar with kntfe on 1-4- Ptaveen Kunaar Saah and PW-5 - tried to iutervene, R^hav Kuma^ Raghav KUDMT sustaiaed iajuries :l;'i.l an^rw h-v* 'cT!iTT 3TT^T sft+liq) g^^rqpn^sq', »Tny'16,(s|0iy^< NWc^l **11* WI, 200 sn^?r ^TO (1pf^5<f) •RtIIWdfOT 3)1^1 3 (3) Kuular CUowki, fllie infonfaation aad accused/appeUant the Central Hospital, iajured - R^hav Prakash Singh (PW-7) (Ex.P/5) to the PoBce has been admitted ia 1:40 p.m. At about 3:3{ fhose injttries, the infon^ by Dr. Rain Prakash Station, Vishiampur, b^ Infonxiation Report (Ex| PoUce Station - Jaina^i under Ex.P/6-A and up the invest^atioa. Vislirainpur, prepared deceased-R^hav Kuma|r, Hospital, Vishrainpur, (PW-11) conducted report (Ex.-P/S). He due to aitenial aad No.l, 2 & 3, mode of dt was seized at the iasts clothes were also seized After coinpletion of fhe the Court of Judicial Mj <*IAlTd'4l*l TTF^ ^f,'fet^ <(^t^R i?3fRnaii^r ^aa siway. Ambitlance was caBed fiwin Vi^hrana.piu-, students aud teachers toote. to fhe hospital, where Dr. Raoi was on diity. He sent iaiformatian C^owki, Vishramptur that Ragfaav Kmaar hospital with stab iajuries at about P p.in., Raghav Kumar suecunibed to (Ex.-P/2) to this efifectwas sent pingh (PW-7) tb the Inchat^e PoVce (sed on fhat, thc PoUce regfetered First I-P/6) under Section 302 of the IPC. ua^ar registered the Crimc No.292/91 Das Vaishnav, Sub-Inspector took He wcnt to the Central Hosptel, linquest (Ex.-P/l8) oa the body of na|r. Body was sent to the Govcrumen.t frhere Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Taaarakar and prepared postniortem thatfhe cause ofdeath-was shock haemoirhagc causcd by inji.mes ^ath was homicidal. Knifc la questfon asfance of fhe accused, blood stained lat lus instaace. i|avestigation, chaxige sheet was filed vo. ^istrate First Class, Siu-ajpur, who in DBh-uv po^tinortem op^aed exttnial .,«S«Sfi—78 ^•jis3^< \ S»i £ "^^ : • ^.y"s .f ss^w w R-fi'* '?TSTT 3TI^T?h*ff<^ ^ 3^r riii<<irt<<, yiTn'M'ie, Ric'ii'yy 'qiWIT **<!* 'V^ 200 an^r'iRra! ('i^'l'i'f) TCiTW^lto 3Ilt?T tf tura committed the casil where, fhe teamed case on transfer. (4) The prosecution ia oxd^ accused examined 15 was recorded under Procediire, iawhich, hc| him in the prosecution have deposed ^aiast been falsely implicated| doubt. He examiaed 5 (5) The learaed AddltiDns counsel for fhe parties, | as aforein&ntloned. (6) We have heard Mr. V.K.| Shri U.K.S. Chandd, (7) At the veiy outset, Mr. f; death of Raghav Kzunarj and PW-5 - stated that on fhe classrooin, sitting by fh( fhat tune, accused cam^ as a result of which, neck and chest. Thel corroborated by the CM<lI<rt41Tl ^{Ttf^iy Tf,^E3t' <Pq-t$l< ^; 3lR|IT 311^1 to thc Sessions Judge, Saiguja, Sxas. 1 Sessions Judge received fbe Adtlitional ^r to estebUsh the cfaarge ag.sds.st fhe kntoaesses. Stateiaeat of the accused S^ction 313 of the Code of Crimmal [deiiied the laaterial appearing agaiast fcvidence aad stated that the witnesses 1|iim on account: af aiumosity, he has ia the case laeiely on fhe basis of intitnesses in hls defence. Sessions Judge aflber hearing thc lcdnvicted and senteneed the accuscd Palacl Madhurentlrakumar fatfcful ttc Pandey, counsel for thc appellant aad Lawyer for the State. 'andey has not disputed fhe hoaaicidal Moreover, PW-4 Pravwa Kumar Saah Siagh (eye-witnesses) have day, fhey were studying ia fhe ; side ofdeceased - Raghav Kuinar. At with a kaife, attacked the dcceased, deceased sustained injuries on the above ociilar evidence has bcea evidence of Dr. Kamlcsh Kzixaar inekiical jr -55' 3II^?f W h-\M 'WT sqrr^T sh+iiqi ^Svef ^|i)|<^<<, (STfl+f'KS, fs|ciiy^< ffWvW *HI+ "^ 200 an^?r 'wv (.^S'j^'^i) ^giw ^if^i CT^I r (8) bo|dy uyun|es Tamrakar (PW-11), wh(( as aa Assistaat Suige( Vishraiapur, on 23.11.! postaiortein on the there were 3 stab uyuri|E the clevical regiou, lefit stefa iajuries. He has| iacised woimds ou fhel was one abrasion on stated that uyuries No| died on account said injuries. Deafh wi above ocular aad deafh. ofRaghav As far as coiupUcily of| question is concemed,] testimony of PW-1 -!{:. Kuniar Saah and PW-g K.R. Guptahas stated Physics to C]ass-XII Rajkumar caine fhere, of the classroom., on he waats to go out of wiU go after the period Theieafter, accused hiBJi <:hi*f[(n'li1i *ii*icif ^f,1^1^ ^f^f^k ^'aifinan^r bss stated that when he was working ;(>n in the Comim.uu.ly Hcalth Ceritre, ,^1, at about 11:00 a.in., he conducl^d of Raghav Kuxnar, He stated that on the vltel parts i.e. neck aad ncar [tung was punctured as a result of tfae fiu-ther stated that fhere wcre two glutial reglon and right haad. There right scapular region, He has also 1 to 3 were dangerous aad deceased :^norrh^e aiid shock, as a result of the 1s homicidal ia iiatare. In vicw of the evidence,,it is established that fhe hoinicidal ia nature. |fhe accused/appellant ia fhe crime in fhe conviction pnmarily rests on the If:.R. Gupte, Teacher, PW-4- Praveen - Madhurendrakuiaar Singti. PW-1 - 1|hat on the fateful day, he was teaching Istudents, at tbat tuac, accused ^sked him to send R^hav Kumar out 'tuch, he asked R^Uav Kiunar whetjhcr classrooui, then, he replied ttiat he ^if Physics is over and started studymg. ajiself cntered fhe classroom, as a result tbe of hae^norrh^i medifcal Kufflaifwas wtuch, fltie 1 XI-HC—78 sn^T ?;T R-fi'* '?Tsn SfTT^T sn+iiq) '^3 3SET ^||4||ci<|, »Tflti'l<»,fioi^y UWcfl **11* "fl^ 200 sntyr Tisra? (4<iit'i«i<ii!T) TRiIWHfOT 3)I^f ^ •f>llli-fj)-f t|14d( 'if.fe^t <(»lt<l< •^sifipTsn^r ofwliich, fhere w^-ste4ipcde ia fhe class. He Icft the room tp iafonn the Prmcipal of^he School. By thc tiiae he carnc ak>ag with fhe Prmcipal, the ^tudents were out of fhe classrooia, he<. saw accused - Rajkm^ar aad deceased - R^hav Kiuaiar quaTreUmg, number oJ caught Rajkumar. (9) PW-4 -- Praveen Kumar studcrits were prescnt there, who paah hasstated fhat in the year 1991, he •waa studying in Clsjss-XII ia fhe Govt. Higher Secondary School, Vishrampur. R^ghav Kuniar was his classmate. At about 1.30 p.in., he wa^ in thc class rooin, sitting by the side of Raghav Kumar. At t)iat time, Teacher K.R. Gupta (PW-1) was teachiag Physics. study, he wiU nieet him heads. AU of a sudden saw that accused attacl Tiim with the kaife on started oozang out of tt Accused -Rajkumar canae aad askcd (he teacher to send R^faav Kumar out of the classTooni, on whlch, he repMed that I^e is busy in study, therefore, R^hav Kumar wUl meet him afi|:er fhe period of Physics is over. In the meantime, accused ^ls^d Raghav Kumar to conie out of the classrooni, on which, B|^hav Kumar said that he is busy ia afterwanls. Accused was staading at fhje door, he and Ragh^v Kumar were studying bowiug their accused came near their bench, he |:ed Raghav Kuinar on his neck. AU of a sudden, Raghav Kui4ar stood up, accused again attacked (he chest, as a result of which, blood e injuries, seeiag this, he caught fhe wristof the accused. Th|ereafter, R^hav Kumar held thc knife c-78 •^. •»«s«as' CT^I ?I (6;-<i'=b ^n 3TT^?T'sPlf^ /^\ /G) 3:55T -^l<41<?'i<<, giTTly'16, fs|<<ilU^< HIHCTI (hKleh •WI, 200 3n^?r ^aq? (i^t-jaf^a) ?^IIWnfTO3lA?I ^ Sin|gh by hJs haad. The studei out of fhe classrooin.. In| (PW-1) came fhere, he on which, he said that y< tunied his face and lool accused were reddish, became fi-ightened, left| house. (10) This evidence has been Madhurendrakuinar studyiag ia Class-XII in classniate. At about 1:3(] Teacher -K.R. Gupta [FVj also present iu the fttere and asked the classrooin, on which, T4. on, fherefore, he -will ca^ over. Rajkumar was were busy in study, classroom. holding a neck of Raghav Kumar.l attacked the deceased. accused. Praveen Kuinsti the accused. ThereafterJ jts present there pushed the accused [the lueaatime, teacher - K.R. Gupta ed the teacher to hold fhe accused,, (u keep hi'm holdiag. Then, Rajkumar ):ed towards hnn. He saw that eyes of laccused was fanous; fhcrefore, he the accused aad rau towards his ch(<(f^t<ft'T *ll*icflf ^f^st irol^K ^siRnan^r clslss Teafcher au jorroborated by fhe evidcnce of FW-5 - i, who has also stated fhat he was |Ehe year 1991, Raghav Kuniarw^ his p.m., perfod ofPhysics was goiug on, r-1) was teaclung. Raghav Kiunarwas i. In fhe meaatiiae, accused came to send Ragbav Kumarout ofthe |acher replied fhat fhe period is goiag ;et hirn after the period of Pliysics is at the door ItseU. When they of a sudden, accused entered the m his hand aad attacked on fhc He could not see how maay tunes he Raghav Kutaar stood up aad hold fhe Saah (PW-4) also stood up aad hbld they went outside the clasMciom. | st^ndiug kilife svi^wf^n^; '^sff 3TT^T 'Stiil|+ <!^ ^1^)1^, ^ftg^, f^sray ^Wf{\ %*<[* w^r ^sra? (• ^giWdfer sii^r /? (11) Lcaraed counsel for the ^ fhese witaesses does no| WI, 200 -<>|t|fd<n-f WWi ^fyS Tf^R ^afOTCT^I Ippellant aiyied that the evidencc of t infer coiifidencc, because the two ; students i.e. PW-4 Prfcveen Kumar Saah aad PW-5 - Madhurendrakumar Siajgh are interested witaesses, being fiiends of Raghav Kuia^r. Moreover, fheir poUce case diary stateinents were recorde^ 4 days afler fhe incident, delay has not been explamed. PW^4 -Praveen Kumar Saah has stated that the accused attaclced ou fhe chest of fhe dece^ed, whereas, titie iajuries we^-e on the neck. (12) As far as argument of M)-. Paudey that fUe above two students are interested witnesse^, te contraiy to fhe record for the reasons fhat Raghav Ku|mar was a student of Class-XII, PW-4 Praveen Kiunar Saah a+d PW-5 - Madhurendrakumar Smgh were lus classmates an4 at the tune ofthe iacident, fhey.were sittuig by fhe side of R^ghav Kuinar ia fh.e classroom. In the cross-examinatiou, not]iing has been elicited to show fhat these witnesses have ^dduced the evidence merety because they were classraates of the deceased or they were not present- ia the classroom aad |had not witnessed fhe crime. Merely, their evidence cannot|be rejected by this Court uatil and iinless in the cross-^xainination of these two witnesses, defence has been ab)e to eUclt any circumstence, which estabUshes that they | have said soinetbiag wUch did not happen or fhey had n)3t witnessed fhe crime m. question. In fact, fhey have catego^icalty stated that they were present in 3 ^ XI-HG—78 '^^ ant^I ^T l^-ti'* '^STT sn^T ^iN? 'sv^ "iii<<i0<<, »Tfly'i<o,Rfrii'yy *11Mrtl *MI<*) Wl, 200 an^?r 'ra% ('pf^5!??) 'Rgiw^fCT aii^r 5 (P^y ac^nised accbsed the classrooia; attack Pravin Kumar Saah hold of the accused, saw that eyes of fherefore, he could not| Moreover, PW-1- K.R. day, he was teacliiag Pl Kumar was present in aud asked hun to sendl on which, he replied (tie period of Physics i^ entered the rooin, on scuffle started aad process, Raghav Kum^r ftie evidence of K.R. Gri) estabUshed that when accused/appeUant Kumar out of fhe clasi accused entered iato Wm. The above evident by the evidence of Madhitrendrakumar classroom bemg cannot be rejected. T^ evidence of K.R. Gupt^, cadie tbe PW|4 S^ngh classdiates <bt<lI^I<flTljRlH^T 'Ff^fs^ <f^)-^l< ^sifgHsn^i |was made in ttieir presencc. Even f-4) has stated fhat when he caught.i tumed his fa.ee towards h+m, he were reddish, he was fiulous; |face hiin aad ran away to his house. pupta bas stated that on the fateful ^ysics to CIass-XtI m the noon. Raghav |the class. At that tune, accused came Ragbav Kumar out of the classroom, Raghav Kumar wffl meet him after over. Th.ereafier, the accused himself ']hich, Ifaere was stampede in the class, attacbed Raghav Kumar. In that sustained iajliries. Therefoic, 'fiioxn ^pta, Teacher- PW-1 (eye-wftaess), it is |tie was teachiag Physics to CIass XII, aad asked hiTn to send R^hav ^room. When Raghav Kumar refiised, classrooia with. kaife and attacked ;e ofK.R. Gupte (PW-1) is conoborated - Praveen Kumar Saah and PW-5 - Therefore, their prescnce in the is but natural and their evidenCe 1 ic sanie is also corroboralEd by fhie Teacher (FW-l). Looking to fhe tmlfr ttlat wtrich acctised ^ 311^1 ?iT R-fi.°b W 311^1 sbli+ 3'E? -><l'4l<?i-'<, isiTfly'is, Ri^i'yy ^W<f\l **11* "^ 200 an^?T 'qsiw (4<iif'l«t<ti) wab of incident, nature of their evidence iaspires ^i (13) Now comiug to fhe 161 of Cr.P.C. were nt. therefore, their evidenct examiaation of fhe becomes fatal when fh4 ^alust the accused. Ii iadependent wltnessesj concoct the case again^ when the accused studyiag in Cl^s X. T^ Das Vaishnav (PW-15) defence that why fhe de| two witaesses occurred cozild have explained statements but, no defence. Even the as to why their staterat recorded by delay of| advanced by Mr. Pan^ stateineuts uader fhe above reasons. (14) Now comiag to fhe Praveen Kuraar Saah hi wlltnesses Sectioln •=bl^td41-< 1W<:ff lf.fs'<l ^tSK ^aiRn aii^i svidence of all these fhrce wituesses, [uB confidence of fhis Court. ' fhat their stateinents undcr Sectioa :corded afler 4 days of tfae incidcitt, shoiild not be beUeved, the dday in uader Section 1G1 of Cr.P.C. delay is caused to concoct the case this case, all the 3 witnesses are thc fherefore, fhere was ao reason to it fhe accused/appeUaat, particidarly fhe student of fhe same School, ic Investigating Officer nam.ety- Dtu-uv |has not been cross-examined by tfae fay in reGording fhe stateinent of fhese Had he beeu CTOss-exaxiiiaed, he 1|he delay of 4 days in recordiag fhei oijportuaily was given to htm by fhe| have not bcen cross-Nramiacd, ;nts uader Secdon 161 Cr.P.C. were 4 days, therefore, the aa^uinents |cy regarding delay in recordtog the 161 Cr.P.C. is ofno coiisequeace fbr| witdesses ai^uinent of Mr. Pandey fhat PW-4 - t^s stated that the accused -RajlEmBar s^^^?^s^^?^^^ —78 STI^T JEV ft-fi'* ^SfT 3TI^T sb^iq) 3^er '<4i<)i<rt<i, yiTn'y'is, Rio'iiyy ^ *41N^I *KI* WI. 200 aii^?r ^ra? (^pfy??) TOI1W ^lfet SD^t wt ofElr fhattthere oflncck vthich thdse Molreover, attacked on the chest 0:1 were on fhe neck. If weU as fhe evidence it beconies cvident lung and pierced near was also at the bone was also stab wouud, joiiit, as a result of stab| Therefore, in view of fh< fhat fhe evidence of laedical evidence. attacks aay person wifh) place, where he attack^d neck, near the chest not find aay substaac^ Paudey. Mr. Pandey ^i principal of fhe school deceased has stated fhalt incident, they have examiaation of any material eye-witaesses quallty of fhe evidence case, the Teacher, who| the incident, has been| Ragbay Kiunar haVe al^ add q»l*)T<'1<Hl *11+1?ff Tf^'fS'^ ^FfK-^K i73TRn3|I^[ Raghav Kumar, whereas, fhc injuries c|e look iato the postmortem report as ~\i. Kamlesh Kum.ar Tamrakar (PW-11), wcre stab tnjuri.es up to ttic left pie clevical bone. The second iujury and near clevfcal region. There was on fhe leflt stemo clevicular I injiuy. The left huig was punctured. nature of injuries, it cannot be said witnesses is totaUy contrary to the )|Feover, when a person |krufe, it is difificult to exactly podmt fhe t. Ahuost all the iajuries are on.the scapular region. Therefore, we do ia tfals ai^ument advanced by Mr. |urther argued fhat ia this case, the bas not been examined. Patlter of fhe dt two students informed liim about fhe felso aot been examlaed. Non- beconies fatal onty whea sonie |have not been examined. Moreover, to be seen not fhc quaudty. In this | |was teachiag the class at the time ofi examiaed; two studeats sittH^ witfa| so been examiaed. AU fhe 3 materiall witaess sn^f ?ff R4+ WIT sfn^i *ii'* s^r'^l^i^, »TflyJi6,(qrti'My *11*1MI *HI* "^ 200 Sn^V TRW ( 4<Nl-l«l<IST) ^araT'dfOT 3ii^i /z- ai^ied witnesses have becn e^i been left out, fhat is evidence available on (15) Mr. Pandey furfher FIR was not sent to provisicai of Section 15T[ the Investigatmg Office4 FIR was sent to fhe Cr.P.C. bas been iasertt and to cnsure fhat fUi Investigatiag Agency is evidence to impUcate prescut case are Dhruv Das Vaishnav (P\4 this aspect by the to explam whefher copy| or not. If at all, it was occurred. Therefore, at| objection is not suslaiij opposite party inust be the FIR was sent or no| though it is doubtful, case, the evidence of aU There was quarrel fhat the accused attaj amined aad if any other person tuas 1 to the prosecution looking to the" noti fatal re<tonl. teida' as betwefeu 'tiwici'fl-i 'wraf ti.feA <,l<iit(i< ^i'sffiPT 311^1 that ia this case, the copy of the [the Judicial Magisteate as per the Cr.P.C. It is true that in fhis case, has not stated tfaat the copy of fhe ;. The provisions of Section 157 |ed to check the Invest^atmg Officer iuvestigatipn is fair, so that the able to fi-ustrate or manipulatc the person. As far as facts of the 1, again Invest^ating Officer - r-15) has not bcen cross-cssamiaed on nor he has been given (q)portunity |of the FIR was sent to fhe M^istrate ^ent after somctune, thcn, why delay tfais appeUate stage, raising suoh |able. If any objection is raised, fhe jgiven opportunlly to explain whether i|t and if sent, by whom it was sent, has beea nientioned earUer ia this (iie eye-witnesses te cogent and clear. ftie studente. The teaehcr has saal ;ked fhe deceased, even the two Mag|istrate iaserfled dot slny concfcraed -^' ^S'.I.S. .:""%„ 'fx! 'ff' 'ss^g 3]1^I JKf K.-U'h ^TSTT STT^T sh+iw '^€ ~F5Si ^i^irt-ij, yTfly'ifS, [sfril'y^ MW^I *HI«b •ff^ 200 an^yr Ti;ra7 ('^fy?'?) ^aiw^ifer sii^i }S Uas beefa studente, who are the stated about thc said manipulation in view witnesses. (16) Mr. Pandey also aigue4 iiame of the accused becoines doubtftd. Infil Doctor to fhe Incharte Raghav Kumar has account of stab uijurie^ the iacident, he iD&m|e( Raghav Kumar ia the fhe same day, as per Vaishnav, the school on that, Balveer Singh|, accused was not Doctor, fherefore, fhe Iiiformation (Ex.-P/S) -^ fhat, Ex.P/6-A was iejp the name of accused iili fatal to fhe prosecution.l (17) Mr. Paadey also ai^uc4 his cross-exanunation tfae stateinent, which basis of fhat, he is (tlassmates of ftie deceased, have also ; aljtack. Therefore, there is no chance of •• [?f the evidence of these three eyc- inentkined ali cr»i<iTfi<i)i ^W^fl* '^^^ <^i<^i< ^affipTan^i fhat ia the first information report, not been laentioned, therefore, it ^rmation (Ex.-P/S) was sent by fhe Police Chtnrtd, Vtehrampur that admitted ia the Central Hospital oa As Doctor was not aa eye-witaess to ^ed fhe poBce reganling admission of hfispital on account of fhe iajuries. On Ifhe evidence of PW-15 - Dhruv.Das ait.fhorities also sent information, bascd registercd the Crune. The naxae of at that tiine ia fhe hospital to fhe i|iaane is not inentioned -in the icport. ras sent finm the hospital, based on ^istered, therefore, nou-mentioiung of the PIR for the above reasoa is not tt.as vlaa giymg that PW-4 - Praveen Kzimar Saati ia stated that today he saw and read given by him to fhe Police, on thc fhe statenaent. Rctytag upon fhe SivvKWS9W XI-HC—78 s^s w R;-ti+ '?PTT 3TT^?T ^*i|cti 3^^ "41<(1<>1<4, »Tf1y'l<o, Rlrtlti^ tfW^I *NI* "V^ 200 sn^?T 'fsv (.'yiy^vi) decision of the M.P. Hfgh RanaMtis RamMn <udd arg4ed stateriient tode^ fhtt K.PJ.J. 492.., he bccomes valueless, as statement under Scctioxt and present casc are saw his previous came and dcposed. Ia| simply stated fhat statement, based on siraply seen his previoi^s stated by him, therefor^, his evidence. Moreove4, during fhe day and it i^ his evidcnce only, fhei^ very categoricaUy prove^l above arguinent advaucf (18) Mr. Pandey furth.er Rajkumar, whereas PW-)' diaiy statenient has whereas, accused name| of no value. In the croi stated fhat he did Ramkumar to fhe PoUcfc. accused as Ramkumarl n4t ct)|al(<TI<i1T1 ^l+l^lf "if FS^ <Rq^l< ^TsiRpTaii^r Court rendered ia the matter of offiera vs. !Sttite_ ofSS.Pt 1984 that the evidence of this witness ^ie gave fhe evidcnce after seeang the 161 of Cr.P.C. The facts offhat case <lis|tinguishable. In that case, the witness outside the Court and fhrai, he fhe present case, fhis wttaess has ide^, he has scen his poUce case diary fh^t, he is giving fhe stateinent. He has statement, nothiag niore has been :, ttus aspect onty, does not discTcdit ve4, he ia fact, witnessed fhe ofife&ce not Uke tiiat thc whole case rests on are two othcr witnfisses, who havc fhe prosecution case-.-Therefore, the ;d toy Mr. Pandey has no sutostaaee. that name of fhe accused is (4- Praveea Kumar Saah in policc case fhc name ofaccused as Ramltumar, |is Rajkuinar, therefoic, his evidencc is is-exammation of 1lus wltness, he has disclose the sjasa.e of accused as :. He haa further stated ttiat naHte of has wrongty been written. Moreover, aifeued toolk aii^i ^ef R(-fi<t ?T8n ^FTT^T stiHI<=h 3:5?"41<11rt'M,aiTfltf'l<o, Rfrtiyy W^'rit **11eb "V^ 200 sn^?r 'wra; (ij<iF-j,«i<yiT) TCITW ^ite STI^T i<r this witness is a personj Kumar, when the accus^< the day of the incident fherefore, there is no case. Apart fiom. the estabUshed by the (PW-l) and PW-5 - who have stated that the deceased, therefote ai^ument advanced by (19) No otlier point was reasous, the ta-ial Couift attackmg Raghav any illegality or m.firmi1|y abbve evidence Madbiirendrafctimar raibed same is b^ed on cUdc] evidence. There is no trialcourt. (20) Mr. Pandey also ai^ue4 conimission offhe crunt soine dtepute between SchooL He subinitted scuffle, there was no iffb of Raghav Kumar, not travel beyond Sectk|n <bl<l[<tl41l •41*1<;lT^l^^l' <Pq^.K ^aifgHOT^r who was sittmg by fhe side of Raghav ^d attackcd Wm at about 1.15 p.in. oa' [Hc even hold the hand of the accused, jjuestion of mistakcn identity ia this identity of (he accused has been of PW-l - K.R. Oupta, Teacher Singh (eye-witnesses), ;cused was fhe person who attacfced there is no substance ia this |eamed counsel for the appeUant by Mr. Pandey. Por the foregoing |t has r^hfty held guilty tfae accused and to that extent, we do uot find in the finding of the trial Court, fhe |ching, cogent and le^Uy adinissiblc to interfere with fhe finding ofthe reason that the accused was at the tiaae of a student of C]ass - X and ftere was |the students regardmg electioa ia the fhat fhe