Santosh S/o Hemraj vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Section & Act.,Imprisonment,Fine Amount,"Imprisonment in lieuÂ

of default of payment of

fine.",,

U/s. 148 of IPC.,1 year RI,â€",--,,

U/s. 449 of IPC,5 years RI,"1,000/-",1 year RI,,

U/s. 302/149 of IPC.,R.I. for life,"1,000/-",1 year R.I.,,

U/s. 324/149 of IPC,1 year R.I,â€",--,,

Name of accused,Date,Time,Seized article,Place accused,Exhibit

L a x m a n @

BharatÂ",02/02/06,16.2,Knife,House Bheel Colony,P/10

Santosh Jaat,02/02/06,17.15,Knife,House Bheel Colony,P/11

Pappu,02/02/06,16.5,Knife,House Bheel Colony,P/12

Kalu,02/02/06,16.3,Sword & Motorcycle,House Bheel Colony,P/13

Pankaj Sachan,02/02/06,17,Knife,"132, Krishnapuri",P/14

stated that Police has not arrested and seized the arms from the accused persons. He was also declared hostile. There is a lot of improvement in his,,,,,

statement in the Court. His statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded on 02.02.2006. He is also unreliable witness. In cross-,,,,,

examination he admitted that when he reached to the Police Station all the arms were kept on the top of the table, therefore, there was no seizure in",,,,,

his presence. In Para 9 he also admitted that the accused persons were not known to him and he cannot tell the name of each accused. Rest of the,,,,,

witness i.e. Vijay (PW-9), who ran away from the spot after seeing the accused persons chasing his brother Gotiya. He did not try to save him and",,,,,

ran away. Police has not recorded his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and directly examined in the Court. Jitendra (PW-10) has turned,,,,,

hostile. Gabbar (PW-16) also turned hostile, Satish Kushwaha (PW-17) and Ajay Silawat (PW-18) have turned hostile, therefore, except the",,,,,

statement of Chanda Meena (PW-6) and Narayanibai (PW-7) there is no eye witness in this case. As discussed above, there are lot of contradictions",,,,,

between the statements of Chanda Meena (PW-6) and Narayanibai (PW-7) in respect of place of causing injury, dragging the deceased to the road,",,,,,

no telephone in the house etc. They did not go to the hospital along with the deceased and rushed to the Police Station for lodging the report. In the,,,,,

FIR they disclosed the name of each and every accused but in the cross-examination they admitted that the accused persons are not known to them.,,,,,

Their names were disclosed by Gabbar and Satish Kushwaha after two days of the incident and Satish Kushwaha and Gabbar have turned hostile.,,,,,

Their arrest and seizure are also doubtful because all have been arrested at the same time by different persons and the same recovery has been made,,,,,

at different places which makes the investigation doubtful and the appellants are entitled for the benefit of doubt.,,,,,

So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that when the dead body of the deceased was attended by Dr. Arvind Chaudhari,,,,,

at 4.15 p.m. the body was cold and Rigor Mortis was there on entire body. The incident said to have been taken place at 1.30 p.m. and within three,,,,,

hours the Rigor Mortis cannot spread over the entire body even in a winter season. According to the Doctor, it starts after four to six hours after the",,,,,

death and in winter season Rigor Mortis starts with the delay and 12 hours takes place to spread the Rigor Mortis over the entire body, therefore, the",,,,,

timing of the injury and death are doubtful. According to the prosecution, the murder took places in the broad day light in a densely located residential",,,,,

area. The accused persons broken two doors of the house, entered into the house, caused multiple injuries, dragged him to the road and left there but",,,,,

not a single local resident has been examined, who has witnessed the incident. According to Narayanibai (PW-7), as per the map, Naksha",,,,,

Panchnama, she saw the incident but her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was not recorded and she was not examined in the Court. Hence,",,,,,

appeal is allowed. Judgment and conviction of all the accused are hereby quashed. They be released, if they are not required in any other crime.",,,,,

Record of the trial court be sent back to the trial court for necessary compliance.,,,,,