Ram Sunder v. State
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
.'
CF0000064387 ^aIIotted by theHiqh Court leqa! Servjcss CommittQa^ ._^ -.
- .
^ -. .
,,..--.
,....,„, n a^-u, IN THB HIGH COXJRT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPdRt CRIMINAL APPESL N0« •^\"\,^ OF 2000 '-- Oi^on Bancb (rri".^*} RAM SUNDER, S/o Fares Rara Lohar, APPELLANTS Aged about 25 years^ R/o Nawagaon^ Thana Sihaba^ Dlstricfc DH&MTARI (M.P)s
VERSUS
STATE OF M&DHfA PRADESH, Through P»s»Slhaba,DistrieA DHAI.TTARI (M.P) :
CRIMINAL APPES^L UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF'mECODEOF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE $
/ y --;
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR @ Division Bench :
Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Shri Navin Sinha & Hon'ble JustJceShrJ Prashant Kumar Mishra.
Criminal Appeal No.2170 of 2000 APPELLANT Ram Sunder
Versus
RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh) Judgment for consideration Sd/- J ud g e ^-12-2014 Hon'ble the Actina Chijf Justice Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice ?3-12-2014 Post for pronouncement ofjudgment on the 2,4 day of December, 2014 Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Division Bench :
Hon'ble theActing Chief Justice Shri Navin Sinha & Hon'ble Justice Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra.
Criminal Appeal No.2170 of 2000 APPELLANT Ram Sunder
Versus
RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh) Present:- Mrs. Kiran Jian, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. R.K. Gupta, Dy. Adv. General for the State.
JUDGMENT
(Deliyered bn this X4^day of December, 2014) Thejyclgnlent of the Court was delivered by PrashantKumar Mishra, J.-Thisappeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30-5-2000 passed by the Special Jiudge, Raipur, in Spl. ST No. 150/99, whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellantunder Sections 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') fpr committing the murder of Gawalin Bai (since deceased) at about 12'0 clock in the night of 4-11-1999 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and Rl for 3 years, respectively.
2) Information about the death of the deceased was provided to the police in the form of merg intimation (Ex.P/11) at the instance of Lakhan Lal Pujari (PW-1).
This witness found the dead body of an unknown woman floating in the well situated in the agricultural field Sohanlal.
'^ 3) First Information Report (Ex.P/12) was recorded on 14-11-199S naming the appellant as the culprit, mentioning that on the issue concerning illicit relations the appellant committed the murder of the deceased by throttling.
In the postmortem report (Ex.P/9) the cause of death was mentioned as asphyxia, which is due to strangulation; nature of death was homicidal.
4) Case of the prosecution is mainly based on the statement of Jageshwar Halba (PW-2) and the memorandum statement (Ex.P/2) of the appellant and the consequent recovery of melted silver from Gulab Chand Golcha (Jeweler), vide Ex.P/10.
5) In'the statement of Jageshwar Halba (PW-2) he would state that at about 6.00 to 6.30 pm on 4-11-1999 he had goneto seeing a film on video in the house of Shatrughan.
When he was coming back and was proceeding towards the village pond to attend nature's call he met Gwalin Bai, who asked him as to who is he, on which he said that 1 am your nephew (foan/a). When he was coming back after attending the nature's call the deceased again met and persuade him to have sexual intercourse, hN»t however, when they were about to proceed to perform sexual intercourse, the appellant threw the torchlight on which he went away at a distance of 20-25 steps, but the deceased remained lying on the ground. Appellant came neSr the deceased and they had some discussion, which the witness could not understand. At this point, the accused strangulated the deceased and pressed her chest by pressing his knees.
He became frightened and ran away from the place, but did not disclose the incident to anybody. 6) In cross-examination, this witness admitted that the incident occurred two days prior to the Deepawali. Thus, the day of occurrence was very near
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 deceased was having physical relations with many persons in the village and a Panchayat meeting was also convened when the deceased was found with one or two persons.
10) Although statement of Jageshwar Halba (PW-2) raised strong suspicion on the appellant, but at the same time it falls short of legal requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, this Court does not find the evidence against the appellant to be of such credible nature warranting his conviction under Sections 302 & 201 ofthe IPC. 11) As a sequel, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under Sections 302 & 201 of the IPC are hereby set asi^^ on bail.
Surety and personal bonds earlier furnished at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. The appellant shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice IINUN^, i.
Gowri f'