CRA/751/2000 of Lodharo Ram @ Tulsi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December 2000

^SS^-i-5.:"IAP F SAL-OTFR Ic.

111'&?• et.49 Ns'ne ^?^--?T5~$..^rg^TFather's nsme •^i3)3TS"''^c^r (Resj'aence An^f^^-vy?' 'W;'^' •^'X l.•!^ CSeatenced to •^E<TC-tX '^Sff 111'&

CF0000062928

•307^^^ ^ffi-^^•5^'^^ S"zt/^

1Cder section

;; ai-^Uiii^i

It is expiginedto the .prisoner that if he states he wishestobe: represented by s legsl prsctitioner the appeliste Court willnot proceed with the case for seven days unless the legsl prac-tition&rsppesrs csrlier,If the legaliprsctitioner does not sppear withindoesseyen not days -r;ish he insy-to be hot represented hesrd st all. by legsl if the practitioner prisoner ststes the court that msy heproceed st once with the-case snd wlll not be obiiged to givs shearing to sny legsl prsctitioner who should sppear.

JS-^9-T,

JS-^9-T,1 .Dste of Applicstion'for copy of Judgement- - *^?=^-/^'- - -Dgte on which copy[rece] ived-'-'"-//-[-]

Seteon which Appesl sent- - -&ri-f-—Q^Q^S- ~ —~ - --4.Whether the prisoner wishes to be repre:sen-ted or not-—s^———- No. n^Name n^^TC-e.'f?*^'"'97^^3')^"Confined InJail ymyryNo-Dated..;<!J99-~s;l&9o -3, ^ ^2—IL!~fCForwarded to the: /-^rty^T •^ssTT^sieiyf/I -?T%,^to gethsr with s oopy of judgement or order psssed in the. cs ,-c forfavour of trsnsmission to the proper Appellste court.

^ate of re'ceipt in- - -- - -Office-—- - - - &-l-tPVV-dste of rcceipt o^ j-ecord to sccojBipsriy the-••Memo of Appeal to the Appel: court- - - -No. 6( f C-'S • CT-f^'-"'^-Da te do s-- \ - 2-crs'e'Forwsrded to the->-&^AC<y^—-^<JLA/^/VC>A-r\o1^ ^^-s_A^

Dste of receipt in Appellste court- - - - - - - rB.^i-eK-u-iK^^SSK^g^-c?.^)»•£";•;sii'y(";";KIRSi'S~B^i5SS'?u- HIGH COHRT OFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR

CRIHINAL APPEAL No. 751/2000

Lodhari Ram@ TtilsX

State of H.P.

For tbe petitionersFor the respondent:

Sbri Ambika Erasad Jaiswal.Adv.Dr.N.K.Shukla. Dy.A.G.

ERESENTs- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S.GARG

ORALORDER(12-12-2000)

Impugning tbe correctness,valiolity andpropriety of the judgnent dated 01-10-1999 passed inSessions Tria.1 No. 54/1999 by the learned First Addl.Sessions Judge,Raigarh, convlcting the appellantuader section 307 IPC and sentencing him to undergorigorous imprlsoament for 4 years,the appellant -^°.spreferred this appeal.

(2) The facts in ^ nut-shell are that on22-12-1998 at about lO.p.m.when the present appel-lant and his father Slngharam were sltting in thelrhouse,the appellant made a complaint to his ownfather that because of the complaint of hls father,he is likely to go to ja-tl,ttie father did not sayanything . Taking an exception to it,the appellantiaadh.i.t his fatberori haad with a B*5a*aa. whlch causedan injury on the head.Tbe said injury was1 x .5 cm Btr-'*^^

r-'*^^

K

Another eontuision was 6 x .5 em.The victimwas inunediately referred to the Hospital wherehis injuries were Fepaired and he was refei-redto the Radlologist.Accordlng to the reportEx.P-12, tte Radiologist found a fracture on thehead and ultitnately observed that the injury wasdangerous to llfe.Spot map was prepared.Plainand stained DaMusJLOJ-^S^ was recovered_ from_ the a^swU-aat..S^tyt •The weapon of offence was recovered.The statementof witnesses were also recorded and on conclusionof the investigation, the challan was filed againstthe accused.As the accused denied commission ofoffence, he was put to trial.

(3) After assessi.ng the evidence and hearingthe parties, the le arned trial Court found infavour of the prosecution, convicted and sentencedthe accused, as referred to above.Being aggrievedby the said Judgment. the appellant has filed thisappeal.

(4}Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for theappellant submits that the Judgment o£ the trialCourt is influenced by conjuctures and surraiseswhile in £ac*, there is no legal evidence availableon the record to connect the appellant with thealleged crime or to record A finding of guiltagainst the accused.After taxing rae throughthe evidence, he has subniitted that the learnedcourt beiow has ralied upon the statements ofwitnesses which otherwise are inadmissible inevidence.On the other hand, learned counsel^-^-'

-3-

for the State submits that £rom the statement ofthe witnesses and the medical report coupled withthe statement of the Doetors, it is proved onrecord that the appellant was author of the injury.

(5) I have heard the parties at length andhave perused the records.

(6) Singharam, the victim has not been examinedas a witness probably as he had expired.Roopan(PW.2) and Bhinsarin (PW.4) wi£e of f^ Singharam;Vt-who are said to^the eye-witnesses did not supportthe prosecution case.According. to Roopan, he didnot witness the incident nor he knew as to how hisfather suffered injuries.Even he denied the factthat the report was lodged by him.Bhinsarin (pW.4)wife of the victim and mother of the present appellantmust have been in the horns of dilenmiaan<3 fini|ing^'f^.sJll^S;,'in favoui- o£the ywsyaoii, she did not support theprosecutjon and ststed beforethe Court that atthe time of alleged incident,she had goneto dosome labour work.The prosecution in support ofits case, has examined P.W.l Parameshwar who hassimply prepared a plan map.P.W.3 Udaydas who saysthat he was informed by PW.2 and PW.4 that theaccused had hit the victim Singharam.P.W.5Mularobai has also not supported the prosecutioncase.P.W.6 Kashi Ram is a witnessto certain sel-zures.P.W.7B.S.Tbakur,is the InvestigatlngOfficer who had made certain seizures & recoveriesand had prepared certain memos.PW.8 Dr.Banodha,has certified the injuries of the victim. ^---^'

(7) It is not the prosecution case that i>arringP.W.2,P.W.4 and P.W.5,there were any other eye-witnesesA11 the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecutionhave not supported the prosecution case.The statemento£ P.W.3 Udaydas so £ar as it relatesto the informa-tlon received by him would not assume any importanceunlessthe person who gave him the information,appearsin the court and says that such information wasimparted by him to Udaydas.The statement of Udaydascan be used as corroborative evldenceto show theimmediate conduct ofthe person who fed him theinformation.Unless the person who ^avethe informa-tion to Udaydas comes and says beforethe Courtthat he himself was an eye-witness and had suppliedthe information to Udaydas,statement o£ Udaydaswould not assume any importance.Virtually it wouldbe hear-say and is inadmissible in evidence.

(8) The recovery o£certaln articlessueh as blood stained baton,plain and stainedearth would only show that somebody had beatensomeone, but it would not lead to the only irresistable'conclusion that it wasthe aecused who caused injuriesto the victlm.S.tngharam.In absence of any positiveevidenceto connect the applicant with the crimeorto show that the applicant isthe only personwho can be held responsible for committing thealleged crime,no finding o£ guilt,could be recordedagainst the appellant.

/Rao/

l1./

-5.

(8) The trial Court was absolutely unjustifiedin convicting and sentencingthe appellant.Thefindings reeorded by thelearned court below deserveto and are accordingly quashed.The appeal is allowedThe accused is acquitted of a11the charges.He bereleased forthwith,if not required in connectionwith any other offences.[---——___,]- - Sd/-R.S. Garg[-]JudgeJUUUE,12-12-:

- -