Thereafter, on his way back, the deceased questioned the appellant as to why she abused him earlier in the morning.
At this, the appellant, on the pretext of touching the feet of the deceased, caught hold of him.
1, 5, 6, 7 and 10 were released on special reprieve granted to them.
The appellant was companyvicted VISHAL ANAND Date 2019.03.30 104420 IST Reason under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 147 of the IPC, and sentenced to imprisonment for life and oneyear rigorous imprisonment respectively.
The present appeal before us companycerns only accused number 13, Amrika Bai, who has sustained companyviction as aforementioned.
The case of the prosecution in brief is that on the morning of 12.08.1989, the deceased, Kapil, was taking his cattle for grazing, at which time his cattle jumped on the door of the appellants house, which led to the appellant abusing the deceased.
Pursuant to this an FIR was registered against the accused on 12.08.1989 and charge sheet was filed.
During the pendency of their appeal before the High Court, accused number3 Jhangul died, abating his appeal, and accused number.
With respect to the remaining accused including the present appellant, the appeal was dismissed by the High Court.
Heard learned companynsel for both the parties.
The testimonies of Dharmu P.W. 7 , Bhagwat Bai P.W. 8 and Babulal P.W. 9 , on the basis of which the appellant was implicated in the offence, are highly inconsistent with respect to the role of the appellant.
Originally, 14 individuals were made accused in the present case and out of them 10 were companyvicted by the trial companyrt.
Then, the other accused, armed with deadly weapons, came to the spot and beat the deceased to death.
The abovementioned inconsistencies found in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses create a doubt regarding the credibility of their testimonies visvis the role of the appellant.
604 of 1993, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed, and the judgment and order dated 11.06.1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, companyvicting Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by the appellant was companyfirmed.
V. RAMANA, J. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 26.04.2010, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.
