{"id":67354,"date":"2007-08-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007"},"modified":"2018-01-07T14:46:40","modified_gmt":"2018-01-07T09:16:40","slug":"2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"2 Daneshwar (Daaneshwar) Jangde vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
2 Daneshwar (Daaneshwar) Jangde vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 August, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR        \n\n        CRA No 1154 of 2002\n\n        1 Sonraj Jangade\n\n        2 Daneshwar (Daaneshwar) Jangde\n\n                         ...Petitioners\n\n                            VERSUS\n\n        State of Chhattisgarh\n\n                         ...Respondent\n\n!       Mr S L Bajaj counsel for the appellants\n\n^       Mr Ashish Shukla Additional Public Prosecutor\n\n        for the State respondent\n\n        Honble Mr L C Bhadoo J and\n\n        Honble Mr Sunil Kumar Sinha J\n\n        Dated: 01\/08\/2007\n\n:       Judgment\n\n\n        {Criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of\n\n             the Code of Criminal Procedure}\n\n\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
                  (Delivered on 01-08-2007)<\/p>\n
The following judgment of the Court was delivered by L.C.\n<\/p>\n
Bhadoo, J.: –\n<\/p>\n
1.    By this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. the
\nappellants  have questioned legality and correctness  of  the
\njudgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18-10-2002
\npassed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Mungeli
\nin  Sessions  Trial  No.402\/2000, whereby learned  Additional
\nSessions  Judge  after holding the accused\/appellants  guilty
\nfor  commission  of offence under Sections 302,  302  in  the
\nalternative  302  read  with Section 34  and  302  read  with
\nSection  34  of  the  I.P.C. for committing  the  murders  of
\nSidhram  &  Yashwant,  sentenced  each  of  them  to  undergo
\nimprisonment  for  life and to pay a fine of  Rs.5,000\/-,  in
\ndefault  of payment of fine to further undergo R.I.  for  six
\nmonths,  on  each  count.  It was further directed  that  the
\nsubstantive sentences shall run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
2.    Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Deepa Kumari
\n(PW-4) is sister of deceased Yashwant, she was residing along
\nwith her brother in Old Basti of Village: Lachanpur, whereas,
\nKirti Kumari (PW-8) is daughter of deceased Sidhram, she  was
\nresiding  along  with  her father in New  Basti  of  Village:
\nLachanpur.   Accused  Sonraj is also  resident  of  the  same
\nvillage and he is father of accused\/appellant Daneshwar.\n<\/p>\n
3.   On the occasion of the festival of Lord Ganesh, deity of
\nLord  Ganesh was installed publicly in the public  street  in
\nfront  of the house of Gokul Pusad.  In the morning  of  3-9-
\n2000,  Kirti  Kumari (PW-8) was cooking meal  in  her  house,
\nwhereas  her father Sidhram was sitting near the corridor  of
\nhis  house,  at that time, Yashwant, nephew of Kirti  Kumari,
\ncame  running  from  the place of Lord  Ganesh  festival  and
\nentered  the house of Kirti Kumari.  After picking up  Lathi,
\nYashwant  went  outside the house saying that a  quarrel  has
\ntaken place with the accused persons.  In the mean time,  the
\naccused persons also came running towards the house of  Kirti
\nKumari.   Accused Sonraj was carrying Tabbal, whereas accused
\nDaneshwar was carrying Lathi, they started abusing in  filthy
\nlanguage  on which Sidhram enquired as to what has  happened.
\nOn  that, Sonraj attacked Sidhram with Tabbal on his head and
\naccused Daneshwar attacked Sidhram with Lathi on his head  as
\na   result  of  which  Sidhram  fell  down  on  the   ground.
\nThereafter, Sonraj attacked Yashwant on his head with  Tabbal
\n3-4 times and accused Daneshwar also attacked him with Lathi.
\nThe  accused  persons ran away from the scene of  occurrence.
\nBodies  and  clothes  of  both the  injured  persons  namely,
\nSidhram & Yashwant were drenched with blood.  When Sidhram  &
\nYashwant  were being taken to Mungeli hospital in  a  bullock
\ncart,  by  the time the bullock cart reached Fasterpur,  both
\nthe  injured  succumbed to the injuries  sustained  by  them.
\nKirti  Kumari (PW-8) gave Dehati Merg intimation Ex. P-10  at
\nFasterpur  in connection with the death of Sidhram and  based
\non  that,  merg intimation Ex.P-10A was registered at  Police
\nStation: Kunda.  Based on the information of Kirti Kumari (PW-\n<\/p>\n
8),  Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-9 was given to Virendra Kumar  Singh
\n(PW-11)  in  Village: Fasterpur and first information  report
\nEx.P-9A  was registered at Police Station: Kunda.  In respect
\nof  the death of Yashwant, Dehati merg intimation Ex.P-11 was
\ngiven  and  based  on  that,  merg  intimation  Ex.P-11A  was
\nregistered  in  Police  Station:  Kunda.   Investigation  was
\nconducted  by A.R. Sahu (PW-10), Assistant Sub Inspector  and
\nVirendra Kumar Singh (PW-11), Sub Inspector.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The investigating officer after giving notice Ex.P-21 to
\nthe Panchas, prepared inquest Ex.P-22 on the body of deceased
\nSidhram and after giving notice Ex.P-23 prepared inquest Ex.P-
\n24  on  the  body of Yashwant.  Bodies of Sidhram &  Yashwant
\nwere  sent  for  post-mortem examination  to  Primary  Health
\nCentre, Mungeli where Dr. Vibha Sindur (PW-6) conducted post-
\nmortem  on  the  body  of Sidhram.  She prepared  post-mortem
\nreport  Ex.P-15.   She opined that cause of  death  was  head
\ninjury,  the  death  was  homicidal  in  nature.   She   also
\nconducted post-mortem on the body of Yashwant, prepared post-
\nmortem  report Ex.P-17.  She opined that the cause  of  death
\nwas  head  injury leading to coma and death,  the  nature  of
\ndeath was homicidal.  Blood stained soil and plain soil  were
\nseized  under Ex.P-2 from the place of occurrence where  dead
\nbody  of Yashwant was lying.  Accused Sonraj while in  police
\ncustody  gave memorandum Ex.P-3 regarding the place where  he
\nkept  Tabbal  & Lathi, weapons of offences, in  pursuance  of
\nthat,  Tabbal  (Article  `A’) and Lathi  (Article  `B’)  were
\nseized  under  Ex.P-14.   Clothes of accused  Daneshwar  were
\nseized  under  Ex.P-5.   Tabbal &  Lathi  were  sent  to  the
\nAssistant Surgeon, Primary Health Centre, Mungeli under Ex.P-
\n29  for  her opinion as to whether the injuries found on  the
\nbodies  of Sidhram & Yashwant could be caused by the weapons.
\nThe  doctor opined that the injuries found on the  bodies  of
\nSidhram  &  Yashwant  could  be  caused  by  the  weapons  in
\nquestion.  Seized articles were sent for chemical examination
\nto  Forensic  Science Laboratory, Raipur, from  where  report
\nEx.P-31 was received.\n<\/p>\n
5.    After due completion of investigation, charge sheet was
\nfiled against the accused\/appellants in the Court of Judicial
\nMagistrate,  First Class, Mungeli, who in turn committed  the
\ncase to the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, from where learned  2nd
\nAdditional  Sessions  Judge (F.T.C.), Mungeli,  received  the
\ncase on transfer for trial.\n<\/p>\n
6.    The  prosecution in order to establish charges  against
\nthe accused\/ appellants examined 12 witnesses.  Statements of
\nthe  accused persons were recorded under Section 313  of  the
\nCr.P.C.  in which they denied the material appearing  against
\nthem  in  the prosecution evidence and stated that  they  are
\ninnocent, they have been falsely implicated in the  crime  in
\nquestion.\n<\/p>\n
7.    Learned  Additional Sessions Judge  after  hearing  the
\narguments  of  counsel for respective parties, convicted  and
\nsentenced the accused\/appellants in the aforesaid manner.\n<\/p>\n
8.    We  have heard Mr. S.L. Bajaj, learned counsel for  the
\naccused\/appellants and Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned  Additional
\nPublic Prosecutor on behalf of the State\/respondent.\n<\/p>\n
9.    At the outset, Mr. Bajaj has not disputed the homicidal
\ndeath of Sidhram & Yashwant.  Moreover, Deepa Kumari (PW-4) &
\nKirti  Kumari  (PW-8)  have  categorically  stated  in  their
\nevidence  that  accused Sonraj & Daneshwar  attacked  Sidhram
\nwith  Tabbal & Lathi, thereafter, they attacked Yashwant with
\nthe  same weapons as a result of which both of them sustained
\ninjuries on head, became unconscious and died on the way when
\nthey  were being taken to Mungeli hospital in a bullock cart.
\nAbove ocular evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence
\nof  Dr.  Vibha  Sindur (PW-6) who has stated in her  evidence
\nthat  she was working as Assistant Surgeon in Primary  Health
\nCentre,  Mungeli, on 4-9-2000, she conducted  post-mortem  on
\nthe  body  of Sidhram, blood was oozing out of the left  ear,
\nthere  was big haemotoma on the left parito temporal  region,
\nthere was incised pierced perforated wound above left ear  in
\nthe  temporal area which was deep up to bone, skull bone  was
\nalso  fractured  from  that place, temporal  bone  was  found
\nfractured, there was intracranial haemotoma also,  brain  was
\nlacerated and the death was homicidal in nature on account of
\nhead injury.  She has further stated that on the same day she
\nconducted  post-mortem on the body of  Yashwant.   She  found
\nthat there was bleeding from right ear, blood was coming  out
\nfrom  nostril  & mouth, there was incised pierced  perforated
\nwound  on left side of occipital temporal area, the bone  was
\nfound  fractured in that area, brain material was  lacerated,
\nhaemotoma was also found, cause of death was head injury  and
\nthe  death  was homicidal in nature.  In view  of  the  above
\nocular and medical evidence, it is established that the death
\nof Sidhram & Yashwant was homicidal in nature.\n<\/p>\n
10.   As far as involvement of the accused\/appellants in  the
\ncrime  in  question  is concerned, Mr.  S.L.  Bajaj,  learned
\ncounsel for the appellants, argued that in this case, time of
\noccurrence  is  said to have been the day  time,      at  the
\nplace of occurrence number of persons were residing, but none
\nof  the independent witnesses has been examined in this  case
\nexcept Deepa Kumari (PW-4), sister of Yashwant & Kirti Kumari
\n(PW-8),  daughter  of  Sidhram.  In the  circumstances,  they
\nbeing closely related to the deceased persons, their evidence
\ncannot  be  relied  upon.   He also argued  that  both  these
\nwitnesses  have  stated  that  accused  Sonraj  attacked  the
\ndeceased  persons with Tabbal (iron pointed weapon),  whereas
\naccused  Dhaneshwar is alleged to have attacked  with  Lathi,
\nonly  one injury has been found on the heads of each  of  the
\ndeceased,  there  is  no Lathi injury,  therefore,  there  is
\nvariance  between ocular and medical evidence, as  such,  the
\nevidence  of  these  two so called eye  witnesses  cannot  be
\nbelieved.  Learned counsel further submitted that as  far  as
\nthe  evidence of Deepa Kumari (PW-4) is concerned, as per the
\nprosecution  case, Deepa Kumari was residing in the  vicinity
\nof   old   Basti  along  with  her  brother  Yashwant  (since
\ndeceased),  whereas, Kirti Kumari was residing in  new  Basti
\nalong  with  her  father Sidhram (since deceased),  there  is
\ndistance  between  the  two Bastis,  therefore,  it  was  not
\npossible for Deepa Kumari to have come on the spot to witness
\nthe  incident,  as  such, her evidence  cannot  be  believed.
\nWhile  inviting attention of the Court towards Court evidence
\nand  police  case diary statement under Section  161  of  the
\nCr.P.C.,  Mr.  Bajaj  argued that there is  variance  between
\nCourt  evidence and police case diary statement.   This  fact
\nalso further supports his argument that Deepa Kumari was  not
\na  witness  to  the incident.  He further submitted  that  no
\nblood  has  been found on the weapons of offence  alleged  to
\nhave   been   used   in  committing  the   crime.    In   the
\ncircumstances,   the  accused  persons  have   been   falsely
\nimplicated in the crime.  Learned counsel placed reliance  on
\nthe judgments of the Apex Court in the matters of Hem Raj and
\nothers  v. State of Haryana<\/a> (2005 Cri.L.J. 2152) &  Pohlu  v.
\nState    of   Haryana   (2006   Cri.L.J.   532).    Regarding
\ncontradiction between medical and ocular evidence, he  relied
\nupon  the  judgment of the Apex Court in the  matter  of  Ram
\nSwaroop  and  others  v.  State of Rajasthan<\/a>  (2004  Cri.L.J.
\n5043).\n<\/p>\n
11.  On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional
\nPublic Prosecutor supported the judgment of the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
12.   In  order  to  appreciate  the  arguments  advanced  by
\nrespective counsel, we have examined the record.  It is  true
\nthat  Deepa Kumari (PW-4) is sister of deceased Yashwant  and
\nKirti   Kumari  (PW-8)  is  daughter  of  deceased   Sidhram.
\nYashwant  was nephew of Kirti Kumari.  Therefore,  these  two
\neyewitnesses are closely related to the deceased persons.  It
\nis  also  admitted  position that the time  of  incident  was
\nduring  the  festival of Lord Ganesh and the  deity  of  Lord
\nGanesh  was installed in public street in front of the  house
\nof  one Gokul Pusad.  On the occasion of the festival of Lord
\nGanesh,  people  of  Village: Lachanpur were  offering  their
\nprayers and attending various functions during these days  at
\nthe place where the deity of Lord Ganesh was installed.  Case
\nof  the  prosecution is that on the fateful day i.e. 3-9-2000
\nin  the  morning  some  altercation took  place  between  the
\naccused  persons  and deceased Yashwant, therefore,  Yashwant
\nrushed  towards the house of deceased Sidhram & Kirti  Kumari
\n(PW-8).   Hearing  the commotion, Deepa  Kumari  (PW-4)  also
\nrushed  towards  the  house of Sidhram, there  in  the  first
\ninstance, she witnessed the accused persons attacking Sidhram
\nand  thereafter,  Yashwant.  At that time, Kirti  Kumari  was
\ncooking meal, Yashwant came running to their house, picked up
\nLathi and went outside the house saying that some quarrel has
\ntaken  place.  In the mean time, accused Sonraj came carrying
\nTabbal in his hand and accused Daneshwar came carrying  Lathi
\nin  his  hand,  as  both are son & father respectively,  they
\nfirst attacked Sidhram, when he enquired from them as to what
\nhas happened, they also attacked Yashwant.\n<\/p>\n
13.  It is settled law that the evidence of eyewitness cannot
\nbe  rejected  merely  on the ground that  they  are  relative
\nwitnesses, therefore, they are interested witnesses.  On  the
\ncontrary,  in order to ascertain veracity of the evidence  of
\nsuch witness the Court has to scrutinize the evidence of such
\nwitness with care and circumspection.\n<\/p>\n
14.  In the matter of Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra<\/a> reported
\nin  2007  AIR SCW 1835, the Apex Court has held that a  close
\nrelative  cannot be characterized as an `interested’ witness,
\nhe  is  a  `natural’ witness, his evidence however,  must  be
\nscrutinized carefully.  If on such scrutiny, his evidence  is
\nfound  to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable  and
\nwholly  trustworthy, conviction can be based  on  the  `sole’
\ntestimony  of  such witness.  Close relationship  of  witness
\nwith  the  deceased  or  victim is no ground  to  reject  his
\nevidence.   On  the contrary, close relative of the  deceased
\nwould  normally be most reluctant to spare the  real  culprit
\nand falsely implicate an innocent person.\n<\/p>\n
15.   In  the matter of Dalbir Kaur (Mst.) v. State of Punjab<\/a>
\nreported  in (1976) 4 SCC 158, the Apex Court held  that  the
\naccused  killed  his  own  father and  real  brother  over  a
\nproperty dispute.  Eyewitnesses to the `gruesome, brutal  and
\nunprovoked’   double-murder  were  near  relatives   of   the
\ndeceased.   It  was,  therefore,  contended  that  they  were
\n`interested’  witnesses  and their  evidence  should  not  be
\naccepted  for holding the appellants guilty.  Negativing  the
\ncontention and upholding the order of conviction,  the  Court
\nstated that
\n          “There can be no doubt that having regard  to
\n          the  fact that the incident took place at mid
\n          night  inside the house of Ajaib  Singh,  the
\n          only  natural witnesses who could be  present
\n          to see that assault would be Jaswant Kaur and
\n          her  mother  Shiv Kaur.  No outsider  can  be
\n          expected  to  have come at that time  because
\n          the  attack  by  the appellants  was  sudden.\n<\/p>\n
          Moreover,  a  close relative who  is  a  very
\n          natural  witness  cannot be  regarded  as  an
\n          interested  witness.  The  term  “interested”
\n          postulates  that  the person  concerned  must
\n          have some direct interest in seeing that  the
\n          accused  person  is some  how  or  the  other
\n          convicted  either because he had some  animus
\n          with  the  accused or for some other  reason.\n<\/p>\n
          Such is not the case here.”\n<\/p>\n
16.   In  the  matter  of Harbans Kaur v.  State  of  Haryana
\nreported  in (2005) 9 SCC 195, the conviction of the  accused
\nwas  challenged  before the Apex Court,  inter  alia  on  the
\nground that the prosecution version was based on testimony of
\nrelatives   and   hence   it  did  not  inspire   confidence.
\nNegativing the contention, the Apex Court said:\n<\/p>\n
          “There   is  no  proposition  in   law   that
\n          relatives  are  to be treated  as  untruthful
\n          witnesses.  On the contrary, reason has to be
\n          shown when a plea of partiality is raised  to
\n          show  that the witnesses had reason to shield
\n          actual  culprit  and  falsely  implicate  the
\n          accused.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
17.   Further,  the Apex Court in the matter of Harbans  Kaur
\n(supra) ruled that the testimony of the solitary witness  can
\nbe  basis  for conviction.  Neither the legislature  nor  the
\njudiciary  mandates that there must be particular  number  of
\nwitnesses  to  record  an  order of  conviction  against  the
\naccused. Criminal Justice system has always laid emphasis  on
\nvalue,  veracity  and  quality of  evidence  rather  that  on
\nquantity,  multiplicity or plurality of  witnesses.   It  is,
\ntherefore,  open to a competent Court to fully and completely
\nrely   on   a   solitary   witness  and  record   conviction.
\nConversely,  it may acquit the accused in spite of  testimony
\nof several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality
\nof  evidence. The bald contention that no conviction  can  be
\nrecorded in case of a solitary eye-witness, therefore, has no
\nforce and must be negatived.\n<\/p>\n
18.   The  Apex Court in the matter of Rizan and another  vs.
\nState of Chhattisgarh, through the Chief Secretary, Govt.  of
\nChhattisgarh, Raipur, reported in AIR 2003 SC 976, in para 6,
\nheld  that  “the  relationship is  not  a  factor  to  affect
\ncredibility  of  a  witness.  It is more  often  than  not  a
\nrelation   would   not  conceal  actual  culprit   and   make
\nallegations against an innocent person.  Foundation has to be
\nlaid  if plea of false implication is made.  In such a  case,
\nthe  Court  has  to  adopt  a careful  approach  and  analyze
\nevidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.”\n<\/p>\n
19.  Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in State  of
\nU.P.  vs.  Paras Nath Singh and others AIR<\/a> 1973 SC pg.  1073,
\nthe  Division Bench of the Kerala High Court also held in the
\nmatter of Sahadevan Rajan and others vs. State of Kerala<\/a> 1992
\nCri.L.J.  2049  that  “the  straightforward  and  trustworthy
\nevidence  of  relations of the deceased need no corroboration
\nfor  sustaining  the  conviction.  Such  evidence  cannot  be
\ndiscarded  on  the  sole  ground  of  interestedness  in  the
\nprosecution case.”\n<\/p>\n
20.   In  the  light of the above principle, if we scrutinize
\nthe  evidence  of Deepa Kumari (PW-4) & Kirti Kumari  (PW-8),
\nKirti  Kumari  (PW-8),  near whose house  the  incident  took
\nplace, has stated in her evidence that at about 7 a.m. on the
\nfateful  day she inflamed the hearth in order to  cook  meal,
\nher father was sitting in the house, her nephew Yashwant came
\nfrom  the  street, accused Sonraj carrying Tabbal  &  accused
\nDaneshwar  carrying Lathi came to their house,  they  started
\nabusing  on which her father Sidhram asked them not to  abuse
\nand  why they are abusing, on that Sonraj attacked her father
\nwith  Tabbal on his head as a result of which he  fell  down,
\nthereafter,   Daneshwar  attacked  his  father  with   Lathi.
\nThereafter, they attacked Yashwant, her nephew, Sonraj chased
\nhim  and attacked with Tabbal.  Daneshwar attacked with Lathi
\nas  a  result  of  which  Yashwant also  fell  down.   Sonraj
\nattacked Yashwant with Tabbal 3-4 times.  When she came  out,
\nSonraj   threatened  her  that  they  will  beat  her   also,
\ntherefore, she closed the door and after attacking her father
\nand  nephew they ran away.  Her father sustained injuries  on
\nhead  and  her nephew also sustained injuries on  head.   She
\nbrought her father & nephew in the house by dragging them one
\nby   one.   Looking  to  place  of  occurrence  and  time  of
\noccurrence,  presence  of  this  witness  at  the  scene   of
\noccurrence   cannot  be  doubted.   It  was   morning   time,
\ntherefore,  as  a natural course, one has to  remain  in  the
\nhouse.  In cross-examination of this witness defence has  not
\nbeen able to elicit anything which discredits the evidence of
\nthis witness.\n<\/p>\n
21.  Mr. Bajaj argued that Kirti Kumari (PW-8) has stated  in
\nher  evidence  that she took her father & nephew  inside  the
\nhouse from the place of occurrence and as per the prosecution
\ncase,  both of them had sustained injuries on head and  blood
\nwas oozing out of the injuries, whereas, no material has been
\nproduced by the prosecution in order to establish that  blood
\nof  Sidhram & Yashwant fell on the clothes of Kirti Kumari or
\non any article, therefore, her evidence cannot be believed.\n<\/p>\n
22.   In the light of the argument advanced by Mr. Bajaj,  we
\nhave perused the evidence of Kirti Kumari (PW-8).  In para  3
\nof her evidence, she has stated that when the accused persons
\nran   away  she  dragged  her  father  into  the  house   and
\nthereafter,  Yashwant into the house.  Nothing  has  come  in
\ncross-examination of this witness that she in any way  lifted
\nSidhram  or Yashwant and their bodies touched to her  clothes
\nso  that some blood fell on her clothes.  If any one drags an
\ninjured  person,  who is bleeding, by holding  his  hands  or
\nlegs, the injuries were on head, there was no injury on other
\nparts  of the body, then it was not possible that the  person
\nwho  has  dragged the injured will have any  blood  spots  on
\nhis\/her cloths.\n<\/p>\n
23.   Moreover,  Kirti  Kumari has  stated  that  her  father
\nSidhram  &  nephew Yashwant were placed in bullock  cart  and
\nwere  being  taken  to Mungeli hospital in order  to  provide
\ntreatment, but both of them succumbed to the injuries on  the
\nway at Fasterpur, there the Police Officer met her.  She gave
\nDehati  Nalishi Ex.P-9 in respect of the incident to Virendra
\nKumar  Singh  (PW-11), Sub Inspector, Dehati merg  intimation
\nEx.P-10 in respect of Sidhram and Dehati merg intimation Ex.P-
\n11 in respect of Yashwant.  Perusal of Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-9,
\nreveals  that the manner in which the offence took place  has
\nbeen  categorically mentioned, it was given at 3.10 p.m.  and
\ndistance between the place of occurrence & Fasterpur  was  20
\nkms.  Within a reasonable time, this Dehati Nalishi was given
\nby  this witness (Kirti Kumari).  What she has stated in  her
\nCourt evidence has been categorically mentioned in the Dehati
\nNalishi.   There  is no variance between Court  evidence  and
\nDehati Nalishi.  Therefore, this further establishes the fact
\nthat she had witnessed the offence.\n<\/p>\n
24.  The case of Hem Raj (supra) cited by learned counsel for
\nthe   appellants  is  distinguishable  on   facts   and   the
\nobservation of the Apex Court in that case that there were no
\nblood  stains on their clothes is of no help in  the  present
\ncase.  In that case, since those witnesses claimed that  they
\npicked up the deceased injured person, placed him on the  cot
\nand  carried him to the hospital, the Court observed that  no
\nblood was found on their clothes, therefore, the evidence  of
\nthis  witness  cannot be believed.  Whereas, in  the  present
\ncase,  Kirti Kumari (PW-8) has simply stated that she dragged
\nher  father & nephew Sidhram & Yashwant, respectively, in the
\nhouse.  Therefore, there was no occasion that blood must have
\nbeen found on her clothes.\n<\/p>\n
25.   Mr.  Bajaj  further argued that Deepa Kumari  (PW-4)  &
\nYashwant  were residing in old vicinity of Lachanpur whereas,
\nKirti  Kumari (PW-8) & Sidhram were residing in new vicinity.
\nThe  statement made by Deepa Kumari that her house was  at  a
\ndistance of 3-4 houses from the place of occurrence cannot be
\nbelieved,  because  one  of  the witnesses  has  stated  that
\ndistance  between old and new vicinity is about one  furlong.
\nPerusal of the evidence of Radhey Prasad (PW-5) reveals  that
\ndistance  between  the  two houses is about  100-150  meters.
\nLatel  Ram (PW-9) who is a Patwari, a Government servant  and
\nan  independent witness, in his cross-examination stated that
\nold  vicinity  and new vicinity are adjacent.  Therefore,  in
\nview of the above evidence of these two witnesses (PW-5 & PW-\n<\/p>\n
9),  it cannot be said that the evidence of Deepa Kumari (PW-\n<\/p>\n
4)  is  not  correct that her house is at a distance  of  3-4
\nhouses from the place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
26.   As  far  as the argument about variance between  police
\ncase  diary  statement and Court evidence is  concerned,  Mr.
\nBajaj invited attention of the Court towards paras 4, 5, 6  &
\n7  of  the evidence of Deepa Kumari   (PW-4) wherein  it  has
\nbeen  stated by her that she disclosed to Police  that  after
\nhearing the commotion when she came out of the house, she saw
\naccused  Sonraj carrying Tabbal and Dineshwar carrying  Lathi
\nin          their hands, going towards  the  house  of  Kirti
\nKumari,  if  the same          is  not  written   in   Ex.D-1
\nshe  does   not   know  why  it   has              not   been
\nwritten.   She  also  disclosed  to the Police that she  went
\ntowards the house of Kirti Kumari, if the same is not written
\nin  her  police case diary statement Ex.D-1, then she  cannot
\nexplain.  She also disclosed to the Police that Kirti  Kumari
\nalso  witnessed the incident from the door of her  house,  if
\nthe same is not written in Ex.D-1, then she cannot assign any
\nreason.   She further disclosed to the Police that  Daneshwar
\nattacked  her  brother with Lathi, he also  attacked  Sidhram
\nwith  Lathi, if the same is not written in Ex.D-1,  then  she
\ncannot  assign any reason.  Mr. Bajaj argued that on  account
\nof these discrepancies between Court evidence and police case
\ndiary  statement,  the  evidence of this  witness  cannot  be
\nbelieved.\n<\/p>\n
27.   Deepa Kumari (PW-4) has stated in her evidence that  on
\nthe fateful day at about 7 a.m. she was at her residence, she
\nheard commotion from the side of the street, she came out  of
\nher  house  and saw that Sonraj carrying Tabbal  &  Daneshwar
\ncarrying  Lathi were going towards the house of her  paternal
\naunt  (Kirti  Kumari), therefore, she also went towards  that
\nside.   Her  house  is at a distance of 3-4 houses  from  the
\nhouse of her paternal aunt.  She saw that Sonraj attacked her
\ngrand-father   Sidhram,   Sidhram  fell   down,   thereafter,
\nDaneshwar attacked him with Lathi on his head.  At that time,
\nher  brother  Yashwant was standing at certain distance  from
\nSidhram,  accused Sonraj attacked him with Tabal as a  result
\nof  which  he fell down, thereafter, Daneshwar also  attacked
\nhim  with  Lathi.  The incident was also witnessed  by  Kirti
\nKumari,  she witnessed the crime from the door of her  house.
\nDeepa  Kumari  was  frightened  after  seeing  the  incident,
\ntherefore, she had not gone near the incident.\n<\/p>\n
28.   Law  laid down by the Apex Court on the point  is  that
\ndiscrepancies found in ocular account of the witnesses unless
\nthey  are  so  vital,  cannot affect the credibility  of  the
\nevidence  of  the  witnesses.  There are  bound  to  be  some
\ndiscrepancies  between the narrations of different  witnesses
\nwhen they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are
\nof  a  material  dimension, the same should not  be  used  to
\njettison the evidence in its entirety.\n<\/p>\n
29.  The Apex Court in the matter of Leela Ram (Dead) through
\nDuli Chand V. State of Haryana and another reported in (1999)
\n9 SCC 525 held that:-\n<\/p>\n
          “…..the  discrepancies found in the  ocular
\n          account of the witnesses unless they  are  so
\n          vital,  cannot affect the credibility of  the
\n          evidence  of the witnesses.  There are  bound
\n          to   be   some   discrepancies  between   the
\n          narrations of different witnesses  when  they
\n          speak    on    details,   and   unless    the
\n          contradictions  are of a material  dimension,
\n          the  same should not be used to jettison  the
\n          evidence   in  its  entirety.   Incidentally,
\n          corroboration  of evidence with  mathematical
\n          niceties   cannot  be  expected  in  criminal
\n          cases.   Minor embellishment, there  may  be,
\n          but  variations by reason therefor should not
\n          render    the    evidence   of   eyewitnesses
\n          unbelievable.   Trivial  discrepancies  ought
\n          not  to  obliterate  an otherwise  acceptable
\n          evidence.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
30.   In the matter of State of U.P. V. M.K. Anthony<\/a> reported
\nin  (1985)  1  SCC 505, in para-10, the Apex  Court  observed
\nthat:-\n<\/p>\n
          “While   appreciating  the  evidence   of   a
\n          witness,  the  approach must be  whether  the
\n          evidence  of  the  witness read  as  a  whole
\n          appears  to have a ring of truth.  Once  that
\n          impression   is  formed,  it  is  undoubtedly
\n          necessary  for  the court to  scrutinize  the
\n          evidence  more particularly keeping  in  view
\n          the  deficiencies, drawbacks and  infirmities
\n          pointed  out in the evidence as a  whole  and
\n          evaluate  them  to  find out  whether  it  is
\n          against  the  general tenor of  the  evidence
\n          given  by the witness and whether the earlier
\n          evaluation  of the evidence is shaken  as  to
\n          render   it   unworthy  of   belief.    Minor
\n          discrepancies on trivial matters not touching
\n          the core of the case, hypertechnical approach
\n          by  taking sentences torn out of context here
\n          or   there   from  the  evidence,   attaching
\n          importance to some technical error  committed
\n          by the investigating officer not going to the
\n          root  of  the  matter  would  not  ordinarily
\n          permit  rejection of the evidence as a whole.
\n          Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ
\n          in   some  details  unrelated  to  the   main
\n          incident   because  power   of   observation,
\n          retention   and  reproduction   differ   with
\n          individuals.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
31.   In  the  matter of Rammi V. State of M.P.  reported  in
\n(1999) 8 SCC 649, in para-24, the Apex Court observed that:-\n<\/p>\n
          “When an eyewitness is examined at length  it
\n          is  quite  possible  for  him  to  make  some
\n          discrepancies.  No true witness can  possibly
\n          escape  from making some discrepant  details.
\n          Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored
\n          can  successfully make his testimony  totally
\n          non-discrepant.  But courts  should  bear  in
\n          mind  that  it is only when discrepancies  in
\n          the evidence of a witness are so incompatible
\n          with the credibility of his version that  the
\n          court   is   justified  in  jettisoning   his
\n          evidence.   But  too serious  a  view  to  be
\n          adopted  on  mere variations falling  in  the
\n          narration  of an incident (either as  between
\n          the  evidence of two witnesses or as  between
\n          two  statements  of the same witness)  is  an
\n          unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In paras-25 to 27 it was observed that:-\n<\/p>\n
          “25.       It  is a common practice in  trial
\n          courts  to make out contradictions  from  the
\n          previous   statement   of   a   witness   for
\n          confronting   him  during  cross-examination.
\n          Merely  because  there  is  inconsistency  in
\n          evidence  it is not sufficient to impair  the
\n          credit of the witness.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          26.   A  former  statement  though  seemingly
\n          inconsistent  with  the  evidence  need   not
\n          necessarily  be  sufficient  to   amount   to
\n          contradiction.  Only such of the inconsistent
\n          statement    which   is    liable    to    be
\n          `contradicted’ would affect the credit of the
\n          witness.   Section  145 of the  Evidence  Act
\n          also  enables the cross-examiner to  use  any
\n          former  statement  of  the  witness,  but  it
\n          cautions   that   if  it   is   intended   to
\n          `contradict’  the witness the  cross-examiner
\n          is  enjoined  to  comply with  the  formality
\n          prescribed therein. Section 162 of Code  also
\n          permits   the  cross-examiner  to   use   the
\n          previous  statement of the witness  (recorded
\n          under  Section 161 of the Code) for the  only
\n          limited  purpose  i.e.  to  `contradict’  the
\n          witness.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          27.  To contradict a witness, therefore, must
\n          be to discredit the particular version of the
\n          witness.  Unless the former statement has the
\n          potency  to  discredit the present statement,
\n          even  if  the latter is at variance with  the
\n          former to some extent it would not be helpful
\n          to  contradict  that witness (vide  Tahsildar
\n          Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR  1959
\n          SC 1012).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
32.   In  the  light of the above law laid down by  the  Apex
\nCourt,  we  have perused the evidence of Deepa Kumari  (PW-4)
\nand  her police case diary statement Ex.D-1.  Perusal of  the
\nstatement  Ex.D-1  reveals that she has stated  that  on  the
\nfateful  day i.e. 3-9-2000 at about 6.30 a.m. to 7  a.m.  she
\nwas  at her residence, her brother went towards the vicinity,
\nshe  heard  commotion and saw that the accused  persons  were
\ngoing   towards  the  house  of  her  grand-father   Sidhram,
\ntherefore,  she  also went towards that side following  those
\npersons  and  saw  that Sonraj & his son  Daneshwar  carrying
\nTabbal  &  Lathi were attacking her grand-father  &  brother.
\nBlood was oozing out from their heads, they were lying on the
\nground  and  her  aunt Kirti Kumari dragged them  inside  the
\nhouse.  Perusal of the above statement shows that there is no
\nvariance  between  police  case  diary  statement  and  Court
\nevidence  of this witness, what to talk of vital or  material
\ncontradiction.   It is true that the version given  by  Deepa
\nKumari before the Court is in detail, whereas, in police case
\ndiary  statement Ex.D-1 which is written by the Investigating
\nOfficer  in  his  own manner, all the material  points  viz.,
\nhearing  commotion,  coming out from the  house,  seeing  the
\naccused  persons going towards the house of Sidhram following
\nthem,  accused  Sonraj carrying Tabbal &  Daneshwar  carrying
\nLathi  attacked her grand-father Sidhram & brother  Yashwant,
\nboth sustaining injuries on head thereafter, dragging Sidhram
\n&  Yashwant by Kirti Kumari inside the house, have also  been
\nmentioned.   Deepa Kumari has also stated in her police  case
\ndiary  statement  that  Kirti  Kumari  dragged  the  deceased
\npersons  inside the house.  Therefore, there is  no  question
\nthat  Deepa Kumari has not stated that Kirti Kumari  has  not
\nwitnessed  the incident.  In the light of the above judgments
\nof  the  Apex  Court, we are of the considered  opinion  that
\nthere  is no material contradiction or variance between Court
\nevidence or police case diary statement of this witness.\n<\/p>\n
33.  In the circumstances, evidence of Deepa Kumari (PW-4)  &
\nKirti  Kumari (PW-8) establish their presence at the time  of
\noccurrence.  Their evidence supports the prosecution  version
\nin material particulars and they cannot be held to be created
\nwitnesses.\n<\/p>\n
34.    Now,  coming  to  the  point  of  non-examination   of
\nindependent  witness,  in  the first  instance,  one  witness
\nnamely,  Vishnu Prasad (PW-1) has been examined, but  he  has
\nbeen  declared  hostile.  Sukhdev Das (PW-2)  has  also  been
\nexamined  who has stated in his evidence that he  reached  on
\nthe  spot  and  saw Sidhram & Yashwant in injured  condition,
\nthere  were  injuries on their heads, but at  that  time  the
\naccused persons were not there.  In the first instance, it is
\ncommon   knowledge  that  in  criminal  activities   normally
\nindependent  witnesses do not come forward to  speak  against
\ncriminals,  as  they  do not want to antagonize  the  accused
\npersons.   Therefore, non-examination of independent  witness
\ncannot  be  said to be fatal in every case.   Only  in  cases
\nwhere the evidence of relative witness is not sterling worth,
\nis  shaky in nature, does not inspire full confidence of  the
\nCourt,  suffer  from  inherent weakness, then  such  evidence
\nrequires corroboration from independent witness, in order  to
\nconvict  the  accused, in case implicit  reliance  cannot  be
\nplaced  on relative evidence.  In other cases conviction  can
\nbe rest on the evidence of relative witness.\n<\/p>\n
35.   In the present case, evidence of Deepa Kumari (PW-4)  &
\nKirti  Kumari  (PW-8) have been scrutinized and evaluated  in
\nthe light of the arguments advanced by Mr. S.L. Bajaj.  Their
\nevidence  inspire confidence and their evidence stood  up  to
\nthe  scrutiny  in  order to ascertain the veracity  of  their
\nevidence.   Therefore,  if no other independent  witness  has
\nbeen  examined by the prosecution, that does not  affect  the
\nprosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
36.   Now,  coming  to  variance between medical  and  ocular
\nevidence, in the matter of Thaman Kumar v. State of  U.T.  of
\nChandigarh<\/a> reported in (2003) 6 SCC 380, at page 389 para 16,
\nthe Apex Court held that
\n          “The  conflict  between  oral  testimony  and
\n          medical  evidence can be of varied dimensions
\n          and  shapes.  There may be a case where there
\n          is   total  absence  of  injuries  which  are
\n          normally  caused  by  a  particular   weapon.\n<\/p>\n
          There  is  another category where though  the
\n          injuries  found on the victim or of the  type
\n          which  are possible by the weapon of assault,
\n          but the size and dimension of the injuries do
\n          not exactly tally with the size and dimension
\n          of  the  weapon.  The third category  can  be
\n          where  the  injuries found on the victim  are
\n          such  which are normally caused by the weapon
\n          of  assault  but they are not found  on  that
\n          portion of the body where they are deposed to
\n          have  been caused by the accused.   The  same
\n          kind  of  inference cannot be  drawn  in  the
\n          three categories of apparent conflict in oral
\n          and  medical evidence enumerated  above.   In
\n          the  first  category it may  legitimately  be
\n          inferred  that  the  oral evidence  regarding
\n          assault  having been made from  a  particular
\n          weapon  is  not  truthful.  However,  in  the
\n          second and third categories no such inference
\n          can  straightaway be drawn.  The  manner  and
\n          method  of  assault,  the  position  of   the
\n          victim,  the resistance offered by  him,  the
\n          opportunity available to the witnesses to see
\n          the  occurrence like their distance, presence
\n          of  light and many other similar factors will
\n          have  to  be  taken  into  consideration   in
\n          judging the reliability of ocular testimony.”\n<\/p>\n
37.   In the matter of Mani Ram v. State of U.P.<\/a> reported  in
\n1994  Supp  (2)  SCC 289, the appellant was  convicted  under
\nSection 302 IPC.  The only eyewitness admitted in his  cross-
\nexamination that the deceased was shot on his back  while  he
\nwas  running, whereas the injury as per the medical  evidence
\nwas on the right shoulder and front side of the upper arm  of
\nthe  deceased.  Acquitting the appellant, the Apex Court held
\nin para 9 that
\n          “It  is  well  settled  by  long  series   of
\n          decisions of this Court that where the direct
\n          evidence  is  not  supported  by  the  expert
\n          evidence then the evidence is wanting in  the
\n          most  material  part of the prosecution  case
\n          and,  therefore,  it would  be  difficult  to
\n          convict  the  accused on the  basis  of  such
\n          evidence.  If the evidence of the prosecution
\n          witnesses  is totally inconsistent  with  the
\n          medical  evidence this is a most  fundamental
\n          defect  in  the prosecution case  and  unless
\n          this inconsistency is reasonably explained it
\n          is  sufficient  not  only  to  discredit  the
\n          evidence but the entire case.”\n<\/p>\n
38.   In  the light of the above judgment, if we examine  the
\npresent case, Dr. Vibha Sindur (PW-6), who has conducted post-
\nmortem  has  stated in her evidence, in respect  of  deceased
\nSidhram,  that  there was a big haemotoma  in  left  side  of
\nparietal temporal region, incised perforated wound above left
\near  in  temporal  area, the bone was  fractured,  brain  was
\nlacerated  and there was intracranial haemotoma.  In  respect
\nof  deceased Yashwant, she has stated that there was bleeding
\nfrom  right ear, nostril & mouth, on examination it was found
\nthat  on  left  parietal  region  there  was  incised  wound,
\nperforating pierced wound, bone was fractured and  there  was
\nhaemotoma  near the injury.  In para 12 of her evidence,  she
\nhas  stated  that  she had examined Lathi &  Tabbal  and  the
\ninjuries which were found on the bodies of Sidhram & Yashwant
\ncould  be  caused  by both the weapons.  Tabbal  is  an  iron
\nweapon  with  pointed corners.  Therefore, if  injuries  were
\ninflicted by Tabbal such injuries were possible.  Thereafter,
\nif  Lathi  blow  is also given on the same place,  then  such
\ninjuries are possible.  The doctor has also stated that there
\nwas haemotoma apart from perforated injury.\n<\/p>\n
39.  In the circumstances, in all possibilities it cannot  be
\nsaid  that  the  injuries which were found on the  bodies  of
\nSidhram  & Yashwant were not possible to be caused  by  these
\nweapons  which  the  accused persons were holding,  as  such,
\nthere is no variance between medical and ocular evidence.\n<\/p>\n
40.  Medical evidence is an expert’s evidence of a doctor and
\nit  is  the  opinion of an expert form the field  of  science
\nwhich is admissible under Section 45 of the Evidence Act.   A
\nmedical witness is an expert to assist the court, he is not a
\nwitness  of fact it is advisory in character.  As  a  general
\nrule,   oral  evidence  is  given  preference  over   medical
\nevidence,  in case of minor contradictions between  the  two.
\nBut  where the medical evidence completely rules out the oral
\nevidence,  medical evidence is relied upon by the Courts  for
\ndeciding  the  guilt of the accused.  The  value  of  medical
\nevidence  is only corroborative.  It proves that the injuries
\ncould  have  been  caused in the manner alleged  and  nothing
\nmore.  Unless, however, the medical evidence in its turn goes
\nso  far  that  it  completely  rules  out  all  possibilities
\nwhatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged  by
\neyewitnesses,  the  testimony of the eyewitnesses  cannot  be
\nthrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between  it
\nand the medical evidence.\n<\/p>\n
41.   In  the  present case, injuries found on the  heads  of
\ndeceased  Sidhram & Yashwant could be caused by  Tabbal.   By
\nLathi  blow  the  injury of fracture and haemotoma  could  be
\ncaused.  Therefore, there is no contradiction between medical
\nand ocular evidence.\n<\/p>\n
42.   As  far  as  the argument of learned  counsel  for  the
\nappellants  that  no blood stains were found  on  weapons  of
\noffence is concerned, as per the F.S.L. report Ex.P-31, blood
\nwas  found  on Tabbal, however, no blood was found on  Lathi.
\nEven at the time of recovery of Lathi, there was no blood  on
\nit.   Therefore,  it cannot be said that the accused  persons
\ncannot be connected with the crime in question on account  of
\nthis  discrepancy.   In the first instance,  the  doctor  has
\nstated  in her evidence that the injuries found on the bodies
\nof  Sidhram  &  Yashwant could be caused  by  these  weapons.
\nMoreover,  blood has been found on Tabbal as per  the  F.S.L.
\nreport.   Therefore, on the ground that  no  blood  has  been
\nfound  on  Lathi, it cannot be held that it was not  used  in
\ncommission of crime.\n<\/p>\n
43.   In  the matter of State of Rajasthan vs. Teja  Ram  and
\nothers<\/a>  reported  in (1999) 3 SCC 507, in para  27  the  Apex
\nCourt  held  that “it cannot be said that in all cases  where
\nthere  was failure of detecting the origin of the blood,  the
\ncircumstance arising from recovery of the weapon would  stand
\nrelegated to disutility”.  Similarly, in the matter of Sanjay
\nalias Kaka vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2001) 3  SCC
\n190, the Apex Court held that “prosecution’s failure to prove
\norigin  of  blood found on the pant and shirt of the  accused
\nwho  was  alleged to have killed the deceased  by  inflicting
\ndagger injuries – Held on facts, not sufficient to hold  that
\nthe accused was not guilty of offence of murder”.\n<\/p>\n
44.  As far as the judgments cited by learned counsel for the
\nappellants,  in the matter of Pohlu (supra), the  Apex  Court
\nheld  that in the F.I.R. the informant eyewitness named  only
\nthree  persons,  whereas later she added  two  other  accused
\npersons,  the  place of occurrence was also shifted  and  the
\nother  eyewitness,  son of the deceased,  stated  during  the
\ncourse  of  investigation that his father had been  assaulted
\nonly  by  main accused, thereafter in the Court  evidence  he
\ninvolved all the accused persons.  Therefore, the Court  held
\nthat  both  the  eyewitnesses are not reliable,  particularly
\nwhen  one  of the injured persons was not examined.   In  the
\ncircumstances,  above case is distinguishable  on  facts  and
\ndoes not apply to the facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
45.  Similarly, the judgment of the Apex in the matter of Ram
\nSwaroop  (supra)  is also distinguishable on  facts  for  the
\nreason  that in that case so called eyewitness, wife  of  the
\ndeceased,  stated  that  one  of the  accused  assaulted  the
\ndeceased  whereas in F.I.R. lodged by son of the deceased  it
\nwas  not  mentioned that the said accused had caused injuries
\nto  the  deceased.  The evidence of wife of the deceased  was
\ncontrary  to the evidence of other witnesses who stated  that
\nit  was  other  accused who assaulted deceased on  his  head.
\nMoreover  number and nature of injuries caused by accused  as
\ndeposed  to  by  her  was  wholly inconsistent  with  medical
\nevidence  on record.  Even her version regarding the  assault
\nmade   by   remaining  accused  persons  was  not   believed.
\nTherefore,  the testimony of that witness was  not  accepted.
\nVersion  of a witness was quite different from what has  been
\nmentioned in the F.I.R. and also in his statement recorded in
\nthe  course of investigation.  Hence, the Court held that the
\nperson  was  not  an  eyewitness to  the  incident.   In  the
\ncircumstances, this case is also not applicable to the  facts
\nand   circumstances   of  the  present   case   and   it   is
\ndistinguishable on facts.  In the present case,  evidence  of
\nDeepa  Kumari  (PW-4) & Kirti Kumari (PW-8) is consistent  in
\nall respects as has been discussed earlier.\n<\/p>\n
46.   No  other point was argued by learned counsel  for  the
\naccused\/appellants.\n<\/p>\n
47.   In  the  result,  we  do not  find  any  illegality  or
\ninfirmity  in the judgment of the trial Court,  there  is  no
\nmerit  in this appeal, same is liable to be dismissed and  it
\nis hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
J U D G E                                         J U D G E\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court 2 Daneshwar (Daaneshwar) Jangde vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 August, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No 1154 of 2002 1 Sonraj Jangade 2 Daneshwar (Daaneshwar) Jangde …Petitioners VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh …Respondent ! Mr S L Bajaj counsel for the appellants ^ Mr Ashish Shukla Additional […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-67354","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\n2 Daneshwar (Daaneshwar) Jangde vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2 Daneshwar (Daaneshwar) Jangde vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-07T09:16:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"36 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"2 Daneshwar (Daaneshwar) Jangde vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-07T09:16:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":7110,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007\",\"name\":\"2 Daneshwar (Daaneshwar) Jangde vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-07T09:16:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2 Daneshwar (Daaneshwar) Jangde vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 August, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"2 Daneshwar (Daaneshwar) Jangde vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2 Daneshwar (Daaneshwar) Jangde vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-07T09:16:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"36 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"2 Daneshwar (Daaneshwar) Jangde vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-07T09:16:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007"},"wordCount":7110,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007","name":"2 Daneshwar (Daaneshwar) Jangde vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-07T09:16:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-daneshwar-daaneshwar-jangde-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-1-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2 Daneshwar (Daaneshwar) Jangde vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 August, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67354","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=67354"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67354\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67354"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67354"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67354"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}