Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 22-10-2003 Kotwar P.W.1 Guha Ram and some other persons saw a female dead body in Ramlal's field. On the intimation of P.W. 1 Guha Ram merg intimation Ex. P-1 was lodged in police station Kotraroad. Inquest report Ex. P-9 was prepared. P.W. 9 constable Danial Toppo, P.W. 43 Ramakant Sharma had told to P.W. 55, T.I. Sachin Dev Shukla that on 21-10-2003 at about 1.30 am they had seen all the four accused near the accused Ashok Mishra's Ambassador car which was stuck near the scene of crime. Spot map was prepared. FIR was registered. Autopsy was conducted on the dead body of the deceased. Plain and blood stained soil were seized. Soil having marks of moving tyre of four wheeler and paddy plants were also seized. On the memorandum of accused Harish Patnaik one pestle and one pair of slippers were seized. On memorandum of accused Ashok Mishra, some articles and affidavit Ex. P-23 were seized. One Ambassador car bearing number CG 13 ZD 1075 was seized from accused Ashok Mishra. Inside the car stains, hair, un-husked rice grain, green leaf of paddy were present. Soil was present on the disc of the left wheel. One stained wrist watch was seized from accused Ashok Mishra. Blood stained materials of the car and filter paper were seized. Notary register was seized from P.W.12 Gopal Mishra. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Reports were obtained from the Chemical examiner, the RFSL and the Central Forensic Science Laboratory. After completion of the evidence, a charge sheet was filed against all the four accused.

RFSL REPORTS

59. As per the RFSL report Ex. 145 and Ex. 146 blood was found on Article A -salwar, Article B- pestle, Article C -soil Article E -hair, Article G- handle of the car, Article H -packing rubber, Article I -regzine, Article K- filter paper, Article M- watch, Article N -file cover.

60. There is no such evidence on record on the strength of which it could be said that Ex. 145 and 146 are not believable. Thus, this Court believes on Ex. P-145 and Ex. P-146.