Chattisgarh High Court
Durgesh @ Durga @ Neta Jaiswal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 March, 2024
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 652 of 2023
Durgesh @ Durga @ Neta Jaiswal S/o Shivshankar Jaiswal Aged About
24 Years R/o Chanwaridand, Baigapara, Police Station Manendragarh,
District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through S. H. O. Police Station- Manendragarh,
District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Mr. Adhiraj Surana, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan,
Panel Lawyer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge 14.03.2024
1. The Challenge in this appeal is conviction and sentence dated 10.02.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Baikunthpur, District - Korea, in Special Criminal Case No.17/2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him R.I. for Life with fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine amount further Simple Imprisonment for 1 month and under Section 3(2)
(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter in short called as "SC&ST" Act) and sentenced him R.I. for Life with fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine amount 2 further Simple Imprisonment for 1 month. Both the sentences are directed to run concurently.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.03.2020, the wife of the deceased Mantu Bai Baiga lodged a Dehati FIR vide Ex. P/5 that on 11.03.2018 at about 12:00 in the noon, when she was in her Grocery Shop alongwith her husband, the appellant came there and started altercation due to old dispute and in the intervention of the villagers he went away by giving threatening to dire consequences. Thereafter, she alongwith her husband and children were going to the police station to lodged report, at about 02:00 p.m. when they reached near the Agrawal shop, railway station road, the appellant came there alongwith his brother who is Juvinile in conflict with law and assaulted her husband on his neck with sickle like sharp edged weapon by which her husband fell down on ground and blood was oozing out from his neck. She make hue & cry then the persons of the nearby places were gathered and then appellant and his brother flee away from that place. Based on Dehati FIR, the Dehati merg intimation Ex.P/6 was recorded. The inquest of the deadbody of the deceased Girdhari Lal Baiga was prepared in presence of the witnesses vide Ex.P/2. The dead body of the deceased was sent for its postmortem to Community Health Centre, Manendragarh, where PW/7 Dr. L.P. Maravi has conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased, who found the following injuries on the body of the deceased :-
1. Stab and incised wound from Rt. Zygomatic bone to nasal concha Lt. side deeper on Rt. Zygomatic side and less on nasal concha . .. inflamed skin edges inverted margin depth - 1 inch in Zygomatic region and 0.5 inch on nasal concha region.
2. Stab and incised wound from Lt. side of mandible to cervical bone. Lt. Common carotid artery and Int. & Ext. 3
Jugular vein cut down injury deeper on Lt. Mandible side and less deeper on cervical bone region. Inflamed skin edges with blood clots irregulat margin on mandible side and inverted margin on cervical side size 6½ inches length, 1.75 inches depth on mandible side, 0.75 inches on cervical side with cartilage.
3. Lt. pinna of ear with cartilage from mid position through & though cut down irregular margin with blood clots.
4. Stab wound on occipital region with blood clot, inverted skin margin size 3 x 2 x 1 inches.
The Doctor has opined that the cause of death is hypovolumic, neurogenic shock due to damage (tear) of nerve and major blood vessels on neck and nature of death is homicidal.
3. Spot map Ex.P/7 was prepared by the police and Ex.P/10 was prepared by the patwari. The clothes of the deceased was seized vide Ex.P/15. The police has seized the video footage which is made viral in Whattsapp in social media and kept in a CD and seized vide Ex.P/3 and the said CD is Ex.P/4. The FIR Ex.P/29 was registered by the police against the appellant and his brother who is juvenile in conflict with law for the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC. The appellant was taken into custody on 12.03.2018 and his memorandum statement Ex.P/14 was recorded and based on it one sickle and his full-shirt have been seized on his instance vide Ex.P/13. During the investigation the police has seized a iron-pipe, bloodstained soil and plain soil from the place of incident vide Ex.P/12. The police has obtained enquiry report vide Ex.P/21 from the Doctor with respect to the weapon seized from the appellant and the Doctor has opined that the sent object causes death with having high heavy force. The social status certificate of the daughter of the deceased have been seized which is issued by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jaitpur, District Shahdol (Madhya Pradesh) vide 4 Ex.P/8 and the social status certificate is Ex.P/9, according to which the deceased belongs to Scheduled Tribe community.
4. The seized weapons of offence and the clothes of the deceased as well as clothes of the appellant and also the blood-stained and plain soil were sent for FSL examination to Regional FSL, Ambikapur Surguja, fromwhere the FSL report Ex.P/27 was received in which human blood was found on the iron pipe seized from the spot (Article A), Blood stained soil from the spot (Article B) sickle seized from the appellant (Article D), shirt seized from the appellant (Article E) and the clothes of the deceased (Article F1, F2, F3 & F4). Further the B group of blood was found in the iron pipe seized from the spot, blood stained soil from the spot and sickle seized from the appellant. The statement under Section 161 of CrPC of the witnesses have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation the chargesheet was filed before the learned trial Court for the offences under Section 302/34 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of SC&ST Act against the appellant and his brother who is Juvinile in conflict with law. Chargesheet was filed against his brother, who was juvenile in conflict with law before the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambikapur. The learned trial Court has framed charges against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC&ST Act. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial.
5. In order the establish the charge against the appellant the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and proved the documents Ex.P/1 to P/30. The statements under Section 313 of CrPC of the appellant was also recorded in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, plead innocence and have submitted that he has 5 been falsely implicated in the offence. One defence witness has been examined by the appellant in his support.
6. After appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as aforementioned, hence this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The so called eyewitness produced by the prosecution is not believable because of the inconsistency in her evidence. Due to the previous dispute, the appellant has been falsely implicated in the offence. There is no corroborative evidence with the evidence of the wife of the deceased. The seizure of weapon from the appellant is also planned with the connievance of the police and the complainant party. There are material omission and contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which could not be relied for the conviction of the appellant in the present offence. He would further submit that the deceased have received injuries by an accident, but the accident has been converted into his murder. He would further submit that the evidence of the defence witnesses D.W.-1 has not been properly considered by the learned trial Court, who is the eye witness of the accident, by which the deceased received injuries. He would further submit that the prosecution has produced the social status certificate of the daughter of the deceased which is issued by the authorities of State of Madhya Pradesh and therefore, the deceased and his daughter may belongs to a particular caste in the State of M.P., but in absence of any evidence that the deceased belongs to a particular caste in the State of Chhattisgarh, he can not be convicted for the offence. The 6 prosecution has to prove the caste of the deceased in the State of Chhattisgarh that he belongs to that particular caste by producing a cogent documentary evidence issued by the competent authority and therefore the learned trial Court has erred in passing the judgement of conviction and sentence and therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal.
8. On the other hand learned State counsel has opposes the argument advanced by the leaned counsel for the appellant and have submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that the wife of the deceased PW-2 Mantu Bai Baiga is the eyewitness to the incident who has duly supported the case of the prosecution. Just before the incident, the appellant has given threatening to the deceased and PW-2, for which they were going to lodged report to police station but on the way the appellant has committed murder of her husband i.e. the deceased by giving a blow in his neck by a sickle which is a sharp edged weapon. The sickle has been seized from the appellant in which B group of blood was found in the FSL report which is also found in the blood stained soil seized from the spot, which directly connect the appellant in crime in question. The human blood was also found on the shirt of the appellant. Looking to the dispute between the parties, nature of the injury received on neck of the deceased, the weapon used by the appellant by which he made repeated blow on the neck of the deceased, the incident is witnessed by PW-2 Mantu Bai Baiga and the blood was found on the clothes of the appellant as well as the weapons of offence seized from the appellant, the prosecution has proved its case beyond the reasonable doubt that the appellant is preparator of the crime, therefore, the learned trial Court has 7 rightly convicted the appellant for alleged offence and his appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and peruse the material available on record.
10. The first and foremost question for consideration would be whether the death of the deceased is homicidal or accidental as claimed by the appellant.
11. PW-2, Mantu Bai Baiga, wife of the deceased have stated in her deposition that when they were going to the police station, near Agrawal shop the appellant assaulted her husband by sickle on his neck and his brother has assaulted him with iron pipe by which her husband fell down on the ground. The witnesses of the inquest PW-1 Mahendra Pratap Singh, PW-3 Pandu, have stated in their deposition that they saw the dead body of the deceased at hospital and saw that the deceased was received cut injury on his neck, head and hand.
12. PW-7, Dr. L.P. Maravi has stated in his deposition that on 12.03.2018, the dead body of the deceased Girdhari Lal Baiga was brought before him for its postmortem, while conducting the postmortem he found the following injuries on dead body :
1. Stab and incised wound from Rt. zygomatic bone to nasal concha Lt. Side deeper on Rt. Zygomatic side and less on nasal concha . .. inflamed skin edges inverted margin depth - 1 inch in zygomatic region and 0.5 inch on nasal concha region.
2. Stab and incised wound from Lt. Side of mandible to cervical bone. Lt. Common carotid artery and Int. & Ext.
regular vein cut down injury deeper on Lt. Mandible side and less deeper on cervical bone region. Inflamed skin 8 edges with blood clots irregulat margin on mandible side and inverted margin on cervical side size 6 1/2 inches length, 1.75 inches depth on mandible side, 0.75 incision of cervical side with cartilage.
3. Lt. pinna of ear with cartilage from mid position through & though cut down irregular margin with blood clots.
4. Stab wound on occipital region with blood clot, inverted skin margin size 3 x 2 x 1 inches.
- Clothes which having blood stain - T-shirt, Baniyan, underwear, full pant handed over to police constable with seal 7 packed.
- As per my opinion - cause of death - Hypovolumic and neurogenic shock due to damage (tear) of nerve & major blood vessels on neck
- Nature of death - Homicidal in nature
- Duration of death is about - 20-24 Hrs.
13. He opined that the cause of death is Hypovolumic and neurogenic shock due to damage (tear) of nerve & major blood vessels on neck and nature of death is homicidal. PW-7 has also gave a query report with respect to seized weapon of offence i.e. sickle and opined that sent object causes death with having high heavy force. In cross-examination he has answered the question raised by the defence as below :
iz'u & 'ko ijh{k.k dh pksVas dkVus okys oLrq ,oa HkksFkjs oLrq ls igqapkbZ tk ldrh gS \ mRrj & vR;f/kd QkslZ ls ckj&ckj ekjk tk;s rks igqapkbZ tk ldrh gS A iz'u & iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ esa tks flj ds mijh Hkkx esa tks pksV crkbZ xbZ gS og okgu ls Vdjkdj fdlh yksgs ds pn~nj o dkap ds VqdMs+ ls Vdjk;s rks mDr pksV vk ldrh gS \ mRrj & ugha vk ldrh A Further the Doctor has specifically denied that the death of the deceased was accidental in nature. The appellant has tried to built up his case by examining one defence witness who has stated in his deposition that the deceased has died due to accident and he witnessed the accident. He has stated that the deceased has met with an accident 9 with a truck who after the accident ran away. When he went to the spot he saw that the iron tin and broken piece of glass were lying there and the deceased received injuries on various parts of his body. In cross- examination he has stated that with respect to the allegation of murder of the deceased against the appellant, he has not made any compliant to any of the superior police officers that the appellant has been illegally arrested by the police. He has not complained to any Court also. He has admitted that on the request of the family members of the appellant he came to depose before the Court. From the evidence of this defence witness, it appears that he is resident of Manendragarh, whereas the deceased was resident of Chanwaridand. The distance between the Chanwaridand and Manendragarh is 3 kms. Before deposing in the Court, this witness has never made any statement either before the police or before any higher authorities that the police has melafidely roped the appellant in a false case of murder but the deceased has received injuries by an accident, even he has not cited as a witness in the present case by the prosecution. Had he been the eyewitness to any accident as said by him, the police have definitely cited him as the witnesses in the case and would not have falsely implicated the appellant in the present case. From the evidence of the Doctor conducted the postmortem, query report of the weapon seized and also from the eyewitness PW-2 and witnesses of enquest, the prosecution has secceded in proving that the deceased has died due to his injuries and his death is homicidal in nature.
14. So far as the involvement of appellant in offence in question is concerned, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW-2 who is wife of the deceased and eyewitness to the incident. 10
15. PW-2 Mantu Bai Baiga have stated in her deposition that on the date of incident, she, her husband and her daughters were in the house. At about 01:00 p.m. the appellant came to her house and asked her husband as to why he has lodged the report against his parents, then her husband answered that he is unaware about any report and then the appellant started hurling abuses on her husband and given threatening to him. He went away from the house by hurling abuses and then her husband said that let us go to the police station to enquire about the matter and thereafter she alongwith her husband and her children were going to Manendragarh, Police Station. When they reached near the Agrawal Shop, her husband was little ahead then them, at that time the appellant assaulted her husband by sickle like weapon and his brother Rakesh has assaulted him by iron pipe on his head. By seeing the assault she started shouting and requested them not to assault her husband, but they were not stopped and continuously assaulting him. By the assault made by appellant and his brother her husband has died on the spot and the accused persons left the place. The police persons came on the spot and taken her husband to the hospital. In the Dehati FIR Ex.P/5 and Dehati merg intimation Ex.P/6 her signature is there on the said report. She has given the social status certificate of her daughter to the police. She further stated that she, her daughters and her husband belongs to "Baiga" caste which comes under the Schedule Tribe community. At this stage, this witness has declared hostile on the some point of her statement and she stated that she is unaware about the fact that appellant came to her house with respect to report lodged 1&1/2 years back regarding previous dispute. She denied the lodging of the 11 Dehati FIR and Dehati merg intimation on the spot and also the preparation of the spot map in her presence.
16. In cross-examination she has stated that the appellant had came to her house at about 01:00 p.m. and asked about the police report against them, hurling, abuses and threatening has disclosed by her in her police statement and if it is not there, she could not tell the reason. The learned trial Court has taken a note here that in police statement of this statement Ex.D/2, it has been mentioned that on 11.03.2018 at about 12:00 p.m. in the noon, the appellant came to her shop and hurling, abuses and given threatening to kill him. She further stated in her cross-examination that she disclosed in her police statement regarding assault made by the appellants on her husband by "sickle like weapon" and if in her police statement "sickle like weapon" is not mentioned, she could not tell the reason. She further stated that in her police statement she disclosed that when the appellant and his brother assaulting her husband, she requested them not to assault him but they have not left him and assaulted till his death and if it is not there in her police statement she could not tell the reason. She further stated that the appellant has assaulted her husband by "sickle like weapon" but it was not a weapon used to cutting paddy crop. She voluntarily stated that she has not disclosed to the police that assault was made by a sickle normally used in cutting of paddy crop, but she has stated that she has stated to the police that assault made by sickle like sharp edged weapon. She further voluntarily stated that she has lodged report to the police station. She further stated that the incident was occurred in front of Agrawal Shop and she denied that the place where her husband was being assaulted by accused persons, a tin plate and broken pieces of glass were lying there. 12
17. She further stated in her cross-examination that they were going to police station by walking and on the way assault was made upon him, he was thrown down on the ground. She vehemently stated that she has seen the assault made upon her husband and when her husband died, she also lost her consciousness. She has further stated that at the time when her husband was being assaulted, the people were not gathered for her help but after his death the people have gathered there and then police persons also came. She denied that her husband has died due to accident and vehemently stated that the appellant and his brother have assaulted her husband.
18. She further stated that she knew the journalist Mahendra Pratap Singh, but she could not remember as to whether she disclosed the incident to him or not. She denied that under the influence of Mahendra Pratap Singh, she has lodged report against the appellant and his brother. She also denied that on the instruction of the police and Mahendra Pratap Singh she has falsely implicated the appellant and his brother in the offence. She also vehemently denied that she has not tried to save her husband and she voluntarily stated that when she saw the assault made by the appellant and his brother, she requested them not to assault her husband and shouted for help. From the evidence PW-2, who has categorically stated that on the date of incident at about 01:00 p.m., the appellant came to her house given threatening to her husband and when they were going to police station, on the way the appellant and his brother have assaulted her husband by sickle like sharp edged weapon by which her husband died on the spot and the accused persons fled away. She witnessed the incident and asked to accused persons not the assault her husband, but they did not stop and thus, the involvement of 13 the appellant in the offence in question is clearly established by the evidence of PW-2 who is wife of the deceased and eyewitness to the incident. There is nothing in her cross-examination which makes the evidence of this witness doubtful that the appellant has not assaulted the deceased.
19. PW-1, Mahendra Pratap Singh who is journalist, has stated in his deposition that when he came to know about the incident he being journalist went to the spot. The dead body was already been sent for its postmortem but the blood was spread there on the ground. On the next day, he saw the dead body of the deceased Girdhari at Community Health Centre, Manendragarh, where an inquest of the dead body was prepared in his presence. He has further stated that he saw the injury on the dead body of the deceased Girdhari which was in his neck and head. A video clipping was also got viral with respect to the incident which was also came in his mobile phone. He prepared a CD of the said video clipping and gave it to the police, which has been seized by the police vide Ex.P/3. The said video clipping contains with the pictures of assaulting the deceased by the appellant with sickle like weapon and by his brother assaulting with iron pipe. Evenafter his fall on the ground, they were assaulting the deceased.
20. On 25.03.2019, the CD annexed with the chargesheet was played in the Court and after its display, it has been exhibited as Ex.P/4. In the cross- examination, this witness has stated that except the enquest and seizure of the said CD, the police has not recorded his statement and he himself also has not given any statement to the police. He has further stated that the WhatsApp video was got viral on 11.03.2018 itself. He shown his 14 ignorance as to whether the video footage can be tempered by the computer system or not. He further stated that he has given video footage to the police on 24.05.2018, he himself has prepared the CD by his own computer and given it to the police and since it has been prepared by himself by his own computer, he has not given any certificate to the police. He admitted that in the video footage the face of the person upon whom the assault was being made is not visible. He admitted that as per the video footage the place of incident is the main road and having shops and residential houses there. He also denied that he came to know that the deceased has died due to accident. He further denied the false implication of the accused and his brother.
21. PW-3, Pandu is the witness of enquest Ex.P/2 and the seizure memo Ex.P/8. This witness has also declared hostile and after declaring him hostile he has stated that the wife of the deceased has disclosed before him about entire incident. In cross-examination, he denied some part of his police statement and has stated that he was being informed about the incident by Mahendra Pratap Singh through mobile phone and whatever he stated before the Court is stated on the basis of information given by Mahendra Pratap Singh.
22. PW-5 Karn Kumar Uikey, who was the City Superintendent of Police, Chirmiri has stated that on 12.03.2018, he has taken the appellant in custody and recorded his memorandum statement Ex.P/14 based on his memorandum a sharp edged iron sickle and full shirt stained with blood was seized from the house of the appellant, seizure memo. Ex.P/13 was prepared by him. On 12.03.2018, the clothes of the deceased was also seized vide Ex.P/15. In cross-examination, he remained firm on his stand 15 that on the memorandum of the appellant, a sharp sickle iron has been seized on its instance. Although the memorandum and seizure witnesses PW-4 Harit Sharma and PW-6 Gurucharan Singh have turned hostile but have admitted their signature in the memorandum Ex.P/14 and seizure memo Ex.P/13, by the seizure of the sharp weapon sickle which has been seized from the appellant from his house. The said sickle seized from the appellant was sent for its query report to the Doctor at Community Health Centre, Manendragarh, fromwhere the query report was given by the Doctor and opined that sent object caused death with having high heavy force and the query report is Ex.P/21. The said sickle alongwith other articles like plain and blood stained soil, iron pipe seized from the spot, shirt of the appellant, the clothes of the deceased were sent for FSL examination and except plain soil, human blood has been found in all the other articles and in the iron pipe, blood stained soil and sickle which is seized from the appellant stains with B group of blood and thus the assault made on the deceased by the sickle which has been seized from the appellant has also been proved by the prosecution.
23. In view of the aforesaid discussion of the evidence, the homicidal death of the deceased Girdhari has been proved. The involvement of the appellant in the offence in question by the sickle seized form him has also been proved. The incident was witnessed by wife of the deceased Mantu Bai Baiga PW-2, who remained firm during her evidence, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly comes into conclusion that the appellant has committed murder of the deceased Girdhari.
24. The appellant has also been convicted for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC&ST Act, it is necessary here to reproduce the provisions of 3(2)(v) 16 Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the SC&ST Act) which reads as under :
3(2)(v) - "commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property [knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member], shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;
[(va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine;]"
25. In the present case, the prosecution has produced social status certificate of daughter of the deceased namely Ku. Geeta Baiga, which has been issued by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jaitpur, District Shahdol (M.P.) in which her caste is shown to be "Baiga" which comes under Scheduled Tribe category.
26. To prove the social status certificate Ex.P/9, the prosecution has examined the witness Satish Rai (PW-11), who was the then Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) posted at Jaitpur in the year 2018. He has stated in his deposition that he has received an application for issuance of social status certificate in the name of Geeta Baiga, daughter of Girdhari Baiga through the Lok Seva Kendra and after its verification he found that the applicant Girdhari Baiga belongs to "Baiga Tribe", and her caste belongs to Schedule issued for the State of Madhya Pradesh and her caste is shown in the said list at Sl. No.3. After due verification the permanent social status certificate has been issued by him. In cross- examination he has admitted that the said social status certificate Ex.P/9 17 is effective within the State of Madhya Pradesh and the said caste certificate in the name of Geeta Baiga is issued in the year 2018.
27. After bifurcation erstwhile the State of Madhya Pradesh, the new State Chhattisgarh came into existence and the prosecution has to produce the social status certificate of the deceased or his family member that he belongs to "Baiga" caste which comes under Schedule Tribe category within the State of Chhattisgarh and "Baiga" caste is also there in Schedule of Castes issued for the State of Chhattisgarh. There is no other evidence produced by the prosecution to show that the deceased or his family members belongs to "Baiga" caste which comes under ST category within the State of Chhattisgarh. Further as per Section 3(2)(v) of SC&ST Act, the offence is punishable knowingly that such person is member of SC&ST community or the property belongs to such member.
28. PW-2 Mantu Bai Baiga has stated in para-26 of her deposition that she could not tell as to whether the appellant and his brother were in knowledge of her caste or not. She also admits that the social status certificate of her daughter is of Madhya Pradesh. She herself is not having any social status certificate.
29. For the aforesaid reasons, the conviction of the appellant could not be sustained for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC&ST Act, therefore, the conviction and sentence under 3(2)(v) of SC&ST Act, is set aside, however, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC is maintained.
18
30. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed, since the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC is maintained, he shall undergo the remaining period of his sentence.
31. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Ravi Mandavi