CRA/2170/2000 of RAM SUNDER Vs STATE on 24 December 2014

JUDGMENT

(Deliyered bn this X4^day of December, 2014)

Thejyclgnlent of the Court was delivered by PrashantKumar Mishra, J.—Thisappeal is directed against thejudgment[of][ conviction][ and]sentence[dated][ 30-5-2000]passedby theSpecial Jiudge, Raipur, in Spl. ST No. 150/99, whereby the learned SpecialJudge has convicted the appellantunder Sections 302 & 201 of the IndianPenal Code (for short 'the IPC') fpr committing the murder of Gawalin Bai(since deceased) at about 12'0 clockin the night of 4-11-1999 andsentencedhim to undergo imprisonment for life andRl for 3 years,respectively.

2) Information about the death of the deceased was provided to thepolice in the form of merg intimation (Ex.P/11) at the instance of Lakhan LalPujari (PW-1).This witness found the dead body of an unknown womanfloating in the well situated in the agricultural field Sohanlal.

hN»t

3) FirstInformationReport (Ex.P/12) wasrecordedon14-11-199Snaming the appellant as the culprit, mentioning that on the issue concerningillicit relations the appellant committed the murder of the deceased bythrottling.In the postmortem report (Ex.P/9) the cause of death wasmentioned as asphyxia, which is due to strangulation; nature of death washomicidal.

4) Case of theprosecutionismainlybasedonthestatement ofJageshwar Halba (PW-2) and the memorandum statement (Ex.P/2) of theappellant and the consequent recovery of melted silver from Gulab ChandGolcha (Jeweler), vide Ex.P/10.5)In'the statement of Jageshwar Halba (PW-2) he would state that atabout 6.00 to 6.30 pm on 4-11-1999 he had goneto seeing a film on videoin the house of Shatrughan.Whenhe was comingback and wasproceeding towards the village pond to attend nature's call he met GwalinBai, who asked him as to who is he, on which he said that1 am yournephew (foan/a). When he was coming back after attending the nature's callthe deceased again met and persuade him to have sexual intercourse,however, when they were about to proceed to perform sexual intercourse,the appellant threw the torchlight on which he went away at a distance of20-25 steps, but the deceased remained lying on the ground.Appellantcame neSr the deceased and they had some discussion, which the witnesscould not understand. At this point, the accused strangulated the deceasedand pressed her chest by pressing his knees.He became frightened andran away from the place, but did not disclose the incident to anybody.

6) In cross-examination, this witness admitted that the incident occurredtwo days prior to the Deepawali. Thus, the day of occurrence was very near '^

IINUN^,

Conclusion

9) Lakhan Lal (PW-1), Jageshwar Halba (PW-2) & Ranjan Singh (PW-5)^~who are the residents of the same village, have admitted that the deceasedwas having physical relations with many persons in the village and aPanchayat meeting was also convened when the deceased was found withone or two persons.

10) AlthoughstatementofJageshwarHalba(PW-2)raisedstrongsuspicion on the appellant, butat the same time it falls short of legalrequirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.Thus, this Court does notfind the evidence against the appellant to be of such credible naturewarranting his conviction under Sections 302 & 201 ofthe IPC.

11) As a sequel, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposedupon the appellant under Sections 302 & 201 of the IPC are hereby setasi^^on bail.Surety and personal bonds earlier furnished at thetime of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of sixmonths in view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.Theappellant shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed.

Sd/-Prashant Kumar MishraJudge

Sd/-Ag. Chief Justice

i.

Gowri

f'