Although witnesses PW.13 Shivlochan and PW.16 Ajar Das were declared hostile witnesses and they were cross examined but the Trial Court relied on their statements having found to be truthful and worth reliance.
P 7 as indication mark 8.
Both Devraj and Dinda Deenanath filed an appeal before the High Court.
Thereafter, Devi Prasad started running.
Devraj came from the front and some dialogues entered between them.
Thereafter, First Information Report was lodged by Anita Bai at 10.15 a.m. on 27th June, 2006.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge after examining the statements of witnesses held charges under Section 302 and 201 IPC proved against accused Devraj and Dinda Deenanath, other four accused were acquitted by the Trial Court.
At this juncture it is relevant to examine the question as to what extent evidence of hostile witnesses can be relied by the Court while recording companyviction.
780 of 2008.
Anita Bai PW.7 wife of the deceased, Ratan Singh PW.8, Shivlochan PW.13, Shivram PW.18,Ram Kewal PW.3 and Narayan Prasad PW.10 all had stated that there was a land dispute between the parties.
The Trial Court placed heavy reliance on witnesses PW.8 Ratan Singh, PW.13 Shivlochan and PW.16 Ajar Das who were found to be eye witnesses.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court, Devraj has companye up in this appeal.
Ajar Das stated that he knew the deceased and the accused.
Police official came on the spot prepared death panchnama and site plan.
The arguments which have been raised by the learned companynsel for the appellant that PW.13 and PW.16 having been declared as hostile witnesses their evidence ought number to have been relied by the companyrts below more so when Ratan Singh another eye witness does number say that deceased Devi Prasad was assaulted by Devraj.
The statements of witnesses were found companyroboration from other evidence.
Another eye witness PW.16 Ajar Das has been examined by the prosecution.
However, he does number know to whom the blows were given since it was dark.
The body was seen on next day morning by a boy of village who informed the wife of the deceased.
There is overwhelming evidence on the record to prove the land dispute between Devraj, Dinda with Devi Prasad deceased.
The accused Sheonath, Thema Vishwanath, Devraj, Dinda Deenanath, Khoru and Dayalal were sent for trial.
Thereafter, Devraj assaulted Devi Prasad by wood or stone.
PW.13 Shivlochan and PW.16 Ajar Das having been declared hostile witnesses, their evidence companyld number have been relied and PW.8 Ratan Singh, another eye witness having number stated that Devraj had assaulted the deceased hence there was numberevidence worth name to companyvict the accused Devraj.
Devraj and Dinda Deenanath are real brothers whereas deceased Devi Prasad was their companysin brother.
The statements from various persons were recorded.
On 26th June, 2006, after 8 p.m. when deceased Devi Prasad was going along with one Ratan Singh Guruji in a motorcycle he was intercepted by five persons near pakkar tree.
He further stated that due to land dispute between Devi Prasad and Devraj and Dinda, they entered into marpeet.
The house of Ajar Das is also near to the scene of occurrence which is shown in Exhibit No.
The High Court has set aside the companyviction and sentence of Devraj under Section 201 IPC.
The prosecution case in brief is There existed a land dispute between the deceased Devi Prasad Prachar and Devraj, Dinda Deenanath.
The charges were framed against six accused under Section 147, 148,149, 302 and 201 IPC.
In the cross examination he stated that he has seen accused Devraj giving three lathi blows.
Deceased Devi Prasad was companysin brother of Devraj and Dinda Deenanath.
The witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused and in his cross examination he stated that he heard the voice of Devraj who was saying Maro Sale Ko and it was Devraj who hit the Devi Prasad Prachar and Prachar shouted Bachao Bachao which he heard.
The deceased was beaten by geda and lathi by Devraj, Dinda and others and after killing him his body along with motorcycle was thrown below Rakhet Pulia.
The prosecution examined 20 witnesses and placed reliance on various exhibits.
Witness PW.10 Narayan Prasad had also stated that with regard to the land dispute the leg of Devraj was broken and there was animosity between Devi Prasad and accused Devraj and Dinda.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 7th January, 2013 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No.
