Samar Vijay Singh Tomar & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Sessions Case No. 07/1999 by Shri A.S.Naidu, Sessions Judge, Sarguja, the appellant Samar Vijay Singh was convicted imder Section-302 of the I.P.C. for committing murder of Ku. Prceti Shrivastava by intentionally causmg her ^ death on 03-12-1998 at 10.45 A.M. in Govt. Girls CoUege Campus, Ambikapurby runniag her over by Jeep No.M.P.-27- B-1068 aad sentenced to undergo unprisonmLent for Ufe and a fme ofRs.1,000/- & m defaiilt to undei^o additional rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Co-accused Rajkumar Tiwad.» Javed Alam & Ganesh Kashyap were convicted under Section 302 read with Section-34 of the I.P.C. intentionaUy causing the death of Ku. Preeti Shrivastava in furfheraace of fhe common mtention with fhe appeUant Samar Vijay Singh aad sentenced to iraprisonnient for Ufe aad to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- aiid in default to iindergo additional rigorous imprisoninent for 6 months. Co-accused Raavijay Singh Toiaar, fafher of appellant Samar Vijay aad owner of the jeep used by the above accused persons for committing fhe aforcsaid offence was acquitted from the charge under Section-201 ofthe I.P.C.

2. AppeUants Samar Vijay Singh and Raj Kumar Tiwari preferred Crimmal Appeal No. 594/2000 whUe appeUants Javed & Ganesh preferred Criminal Appeal No. 716/2000, assailing aforcsaid. The State fheir conviction aad sentence as preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1239/2000 for enhancement of sentence awarded to the appeUaats & Crimmal Appeal No, the acqmttal of Ranvijay Singh Tomar 783/2005 against under Section-201 of the I.P.C. This judgment govems aU the abovementioned appeals.

3. BrieUy stated the prosecution case is that on 03-12-1998 Ku. Prceti Shrivastava, a student of B.A. Final in Ck»vt. Girls CoUege, Ambikapitr was sitting wifh Ku. Vijaylaxmi Mishra PW-7, Kii. Seema Mishra PW-8 and Ku. NishaThakur PW-17 ia fhe campus ofthe CoUege siace the second period was free. Her bag and tiffin werc kept by the side of fhe road. Maay ofher girls were baskiag in the sun iaside the cainpus. At about 10.45 A.M., a Jeep driven by Samar Vijay Singh suddenly entered the coUege cainpus and cnishing the bag and fhe tiffm of Ku. Preeti Shrivastava undemeath, went ahead. AppeUaats Rajkuiaar Tiwari, Javed AlaDi and Gaaesh Kashyap were acconipaiiyuig Samar Vijay Singh ia fhe jeep. Seeing her tiffin & bag crushed by the jeep, Ku. Flreeti Shrivastava decided that she would stop the jeep on its retum aad ask fhe driver to make good fhe loss suflTered. When the jeep retumed, Kzi.Preeti stopped fhe jeep, stood in front of it and asked appeUant Sainar Vijay Siagh to repair the tif&n. and the bag for her. Hearmg fhis, the occupants of the jeep mcludmg fhe driver started laughing. The girls noticed that fhe occupants of fhe jeep were caUiag each other by names aad thereby leamt that Samar Vijay Siagh, the driver of the jeep was accompanied by Rajkumar Tiwan, Javed Alam aad Ganesh kashyap. Appellaat Samar Vijay Singh asked Ku. Preeti to get out of his way, failing which, threatened to crash her zinder fhe jeep. However, Ku,Preeti stood firm aad didn't budge. Appellaat Rajkumar Tiwad, Javed & Gaiiesh asked appeUant Samar Vijay to crush Ku. Prceti, if she didn't give way. Upon this, Samar Vijay inoved the jeep ahead and pushed Kii. Preeti who feU down. When the girls werc about to move for picking up Preeti, Sam.ar Vijay Singh reversed and fhen accelerated the jeep ahead, crushing Preeti's head under the jeep in the process & ran away with the co-appeUaiits. Ku. Vijaylaxmi PW-7, threw a stone on the jeep, which hit fhe bumper of the jeep. She noted down the number of the jeep m her palm as M.P.-27-1962. Ku. Lalita Yadav PW-6, attempted to catch hold of one of the appeUants but she was pushed aad fell down. Ku.Vijaylaxmi noticed that fhe jeep had a "stickei^ "Vote for fhe Congress" on the back number plate The girls got Smt. Archaaa Singh PW-9 aad Asst. Professor Smt. Pratibha frightened and informed Asst. Professor Singh PW-10 about the incident who along with Ku. Lalita Yadav PW-6, Ku.Vrjaylaxmi PW-7, Ku. Kumudmi Kerkatta PW-4 & Ku. UrmUa Paikra PW-5 took the injurcd Ku. Preeti to 1 ^z fhe District Hospital, Ainbikapur. Clerk Tarachaad Sahu PW-11 offhe Girls CoUege reached the spot fhereafter aad on being iastancted by flie Principal lodged the F.I.R. Ex. P-12 at 11 A.M. in PoUce Station-Ambikapur to Asst Sub-Inspector B.N.Singh PW-31. Dr. M.L. Beatrice PW-3, Chief Medical aad Surgical Supdt., Holy Cross Hospital who first exaiaiaed Ku, Preeti Shrivastava at the District Hospital, Ambikapur found her to be in deep coma with profuse bleeding from fhe nose and mouth with her nasal bone fractured. She also found a deprcssed fracture ia the occipital region of Ku. Preeti size 2,5" x 2". On beiag mformed by Kzi. Vijaylaxmi PW-7 aad Kii. Lalita Yadav PW-6, she wrote aHit by jeep on fhe head and knocked down and passed over by front aiid back wheel of fhe jeep" in her report Ex. P-4. Soon after Ku. Preeti Shrivastava succumbed to the mjuries at 12.10 P.M. Upon F.I.R. Ex.P-12 being lodged at 11 A.M. Assistant Sub- Inspector Hardeep Singh PW-36 rcached the Hospital. In fhe meanwhUe, Shri R.L.Shrivatava PW-32, father of Ku.Preeti Shrivastava, on receiving infonnation about the incident had already rcached the hospital and enquired about fhe iacident from the girls who were prcsent there. A.S.I. Hardeep Smgh recorded merg intimation Ex. P-19 on the report of Laboratory Technician Mariam Tirky PW-16 aad prepared inquest Ex. P-18. In prcsence of Shri R.L. Shrivastava PW-32 he also recorded the statements Ex. P-10 and Ex. P-7 rcspectively under Section-161 of Cr.P.C. of Kii.Vijaylaxmi PW-7 and Ku. Lalita Yadav PW-6 on 03-12-1998 at the District Hospital who told hun that since fhe occupaats of the jeep whUe talkiag were addressmg each other by their names, ^- fhe driver of fhe jeep was Sam.ar and the occupants of fhe jeep were Rajkiunar Tiwari, Javed and Ganesh. They also stated that the occupaats of fhe jeep had said "Saiiiar if the girl does not give way, crush her under the ^ o Jeep^. In the merg mtimation Mariam Tirky PW-16 gave fhe Jeep No. as M.P.-27 B -1068.

8. Dr. A.K. Jain PW-33 Medical Officer, District Hospital, Ambikapur conducted fhe autopsy on fhe body of Ku. Prceti Shrivastava on 03-12-1998 aad found the foUowing exteraal injunes :- A. An abrasion on left scapular region 8x6 cm (Eight on by six cia) red iii colour, and obUquely pkiced, B. An abrasion to right side of back iniddle part measuring 10 x 6 cm extendmg to right scapular region red m colour obUquely placed;. C. An abrasion, ri^ht kaee, lateraUy 8x3 cm, rcd in colour, D. An abrasion on right fhigh upper part mediatly 2x2 cm, rcd ia colour, E. Two abrasions over right foot, one at the lateral border 2x3 cni, aad second one on right DiaUeola, lateral side 2x2 cm red ia coloiir, obUquely placed, P. Depression aad crepitus at occipital region and right zygomatic region 8 x 4 cm, On intemal exammation, he recorded the foUowing finduigs: A. SkuU :- There was depressed fracture in occipital bone aad zygomatic bone 8x4 cni extendiag up to zygoma, B. Meninges and braia injurcd due to fi-acture and brain matter canie out, huge haem.otoiaa present and blood present craaial cavity, C. Fractiire of fhe fhird rib left side axiterolateraUy, [ ^ D. Pleura injured, trachea aiid fhroat was healthy, left lung was injured and gorged, blood prcsent pleural cavity , right lung was also gorged blood present in pleural cavity, in heart the blood was present, in little quantity in right chamber aad the left was empty, Aerota contaming Uttle blood, mouth, esophagus, covering of intestine aad diaphragni, were healfhy, in stoinach, fherc was semi digested food material, large intestine, Uttle facial matter was liver was ruptured posteriorUy, and blood present, was present in paritonial cavity, spleen and kidney were healthy, uterus was healfhy, blader was fuU of urine, uterus was ofnormal size. Dr. Jain opmed vide report Ex. P-37 that death was due to coma as a rcsult of J&actare of skull bone and iajury to vital organs, brain, lung aad Uver.

9. Assistaat Sub Inspector Hardeep Singh PW-36 reached the spot on 03-12-1998 aad seized the blood stained Tar and soU aiid plain soil as also fhe black bag and broken ttffin of Ku. Preeti vide seizure memo Ex. P-25. On the same day at rvfv'

3.00 P.M., he seized vide Ex.P-33 the Jeep No. M.P.-27-B- 1068 which stood in front of the house of appeUaat Samar Vijay. In the front bumper of fhe Jeep some remaias of blood stains which had been washed were noticed. At the back curtaia a pamphlet ofCongress-I was pasted.

10. On 04-12-1998 at 6 P.M., Town Inspector S.C. Mishra PW-39 arrested appeUants Samar Vijay Singh, Rajkumar Tiwari aad Javed Alam vide Ex. P-72, 73 & 74. On 05-12-1998 at 7.00 A.M., he also arrested AppeUant Ganesh on surrcnder at the police station vide Ex. P-75. On the same day, he seized vide Ex. P-16 two stones haviag traces of light brown paint from near the spot in Govt. Girls College, Ambikapur. He also scratched the paint from the back of flie seized Jeep, sealed ^^ and seized it vide Ex. P-34. On 06-12-1998 Raavijay Singh Tomar, fafher of appellant Samar Vijay Siagh and the owner ofthe jeep was arrested by him vide Ex. P-76. On 09-12-1998, a document Ex. P-71 was obtaiaed from R.T.0., Ambikapur certifying Ranvijay Singh Tomar as fhe owner of the jeep, Senior Scientific Ofl&cer, Forensic Science Laboratory, Scene of Crime Unit, Sarguja performed Benzidine Test on the mud of fhe left mudguard and on the stams found on fhe left front tyrc. This test was positive mdicative of presence ofblood. On being sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar vide rcport Ex. P-79 prcsence ofblood was confinned ou the mud scratched from the front mudguard of the Jeep. However/ examination by Serologist. Vide report Ex. P-80 offhe Forcnsic the pamt scratched firora fhe Science Laboratory, Sagar, stones (seized frora the spot uiside fhe coUege canipus) aad ftie Jeep were found to te of simUar origia. found sufi5cient this was not Investigation rcvealed that appeUaat Rajkumar had soon after fhe occurrence gone to Abhaydeep Singh PW-2 and told him that fhe Jeep driven by Samar Vijay Singh hacf dashed against a girl. Statement under Section-164 ofCr.P.C. Ex. P-3 ofAbhaydeep Smgh PW-2 was recorded by Shri S.R.Banjare, J.M.F.C., Ambikapur on 18-12-1998. After completion of iavestigation, prosecution was launched against appellant Samar Vijay Singh under Section-302 of I.P.C., against Javed Alam, Gaaesh Kashyap under Rajkmnar Tiwari, Section-302 rcad with Section-34 of the I.P.C. aad under Section-201 of the I.P.C. against co-accused Ranvijay Singh Tomar for causmg disappearaace of evidence of murder by washing the blood stams on the jeep; t^- i Appellants Samar Vijay Singh, Rajkumar, Ganesh, Javed and co-accused Ranvijay Singh Tomar gmlt. Prosecution examiaed as many as 39 witaesses. The leamed Sessions Judge, Ambikapur acquitted Raavijay Siagh Tomar abjured

12. (fp for want of evidence aad convicted Sainar Vijay Siagh under Section-302 ofI.P.C. and Raj Kumar Tiwari, Javed Alam aad Ganesh Kashyap under Section-302 rcad wifh Sectlon-34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced theia as aforesaid in para-1 on the basis of fhe foUowing evidence - A. Testimony of Ku. Lalita Yadav PW-6, Ku. Nisha PW-17, Ku. Seema Mishra PW-8, Dr. M.L. Beatrice PW-3, Dr. A.K. Jain PW-33 proving that Ku. Prceti died a homicidal deafh. B. Statements made by Ku. LaUta Yadav PW-6 aiid Ku. Vijaylaxini PW-7, as forming part of res-gestae under Section-6 of fhe Evidence Act. to Shri R.N. Shrivastava PW-32 on his rcaching fhe hospital disclosing the names of the driver of fhe jeep as Samar Vijay Singh and the occupants of fhe Jeep as Rajkumar Tiwari, Javed aad Ganesh. C. Extra Judicial Confession made by the appeUaat Raj Kumar beforc Abhaydeep Singh occurrcnce, PW-2 D. impUcatmg appellaat Sacaar Vijay Siagh as the driver ofthe Jeep. Testimony of Ku. Seema PW-8 especiaUy ia para-34 aad 35 showing the thrce occupants of fhe Jeep had asked fhe driver Samar Vijay to run the girl over in case she didn't give way and Sainar Vijay surgiag the jeep ahead crushed Preeti's head undemeafh. E. Testiimouy of Arymd Gaur, Assistant Professor, P.G. CoUege, Ambikapi-ir PW-12 showing fhat Ganesh Kashyap, a student of <B' section was absent from B.Com 18t ye.ar class on 03-12-1998. F. Testimony of Professor Rajesh Shrivastava, P.G. CoUege, Ambikapur PW-18 showing that ^ on 03-12-1998 Samar Vijay Singh and Raj Kumar Tiwari, students of B.Com Ist year Section-W were absent from class (10 A.M. to 10.40 A.M.). G. The fact of surrender by appeUants Javed and H. Gaaesh in PoUce Station-Ambikapur on 04-12-1998 vide Ex.P-74 and 75. (i) Seizure ofJeep No. M.P.-27-B-1068 from, in front of fhe house of appeUant Saaiar Vyay. (ii) Merg intimation Ex. P-19 by Mariam Tirki PW-16 showmg the number of the Jeep as M.P.-27-B-1068. (iii) Testimony of Z.A. Abbasi PW-37 R.T.O. OflRce Ambikapur proviag ownership of Ranvijay Siagh Tomar over Jeep M.P.-27-B-

1068. (iv) Admission by Ranvijay Stagh Tomar of the seizure ofJeep M.P.-27-B-1068, in rcply to Question No. 218 ia examiaation under Section-313 ofCr.P.C.

13. Shri Surendra Siagh^ Leamed Senior Counsel appeUants Samar Vijay Singh, Rajkumar Tiwari, Ganesh Kashyap and Javed Alam argued fhiat there was no legal evidence ou rccord to substaatiate the convictiou aad sentence awarded by fhe leamed Sessions Jzidge. No coinmon intention of the occupaats of fhe Jeep to cause fhe death of Ku. Preeti was established by fhe proseczition. Evidence of Ku.Seema Mishra PW-8 was read in extenso while arguing ttiat the driver of the Jeep merely wanted to get away as fast as possible aad therefore fhe offence if aay committed by the driver of the Jeep wozild not travel beyond Section-304 Part-I of fhe I.P.C., fhe atleged act being a rash or negUgent act without any intention to kill Preeti. Referring to the testimony of Ku.Seema PW-8 and Ku. Nisha PW-17, it was next argued 1 10 ttiere has been an unfair aad dishonest cross- examination by the prosecutor due to which the trial Judge was in error in holding that the identity of fhe driver of the Jeep was estabUshed. During iavestigation, identification of the appeUaats Samar Vijay Siagh^ Rajkuniar Tiwari, Ganesh Kashyap aad Javed Alaai was got done from the witaesses who even did not identtfy the occupants of the Jeep in Court.

14. Serious objection was taken to the findiag recorded in para- 104 of the impugned judgment whereby the statements made by Ku. Lalita Yadav PW-6 and Ku. Vijaylaxmi PW-7 to Shri R.L.Shrivastava PW-32 werc relied on as admissible and formmg part of res-gestae under Section-6 of fhe Evidence Act., on the groiind fhat both LaMta Yadav PW-6 aad Ku. Vijaylaxmi PW-7 had tumed hostile and the testimony of Shri R.L.Shrivastava PW-32 was mercly hearsay siace he admitted that the statements made by the abovementioned two girls were not spontaaeous but upon askiag. ReUaiice was placed iipon Pralap Sinah 8K anotker Vs. Staie of Madhiia Pradesh throuah P.S.-Bhind reported in 1970 M.P.L.J.-978. Reliaace was also placed ia the case of Geniela Viiaifavardhan Rcw Vs. Siaie ofAndhra Pradesh reported in A.I.R.-1996-8.C.- 2791 para-15, yasm Gulam Hyder v. Slate of Mahcirashtra 1980-8C-878, Vijender v. State of DeJhi 1997 8AR (CKI)- 365-para-7, Malkhan Singh v. State of M.P. 1990-Cr.L.J- 2763 and Dharma vs. State of Madtvua Pradesh 1996-8C- 2478 Placitum <C> It was also argued that reUance placed by the Sessions Judge upon the statement of Abhay deep PW-2 recorded under Section-164 of the Cr.P.C. was contrary to law since the statement recorded under Section-164 of the Cr.P.C. could only be used to corroborate or contradict its maker and exti-a judicial confession should be of such a naturc as by itself the accused. ReUance was would be suf5cie.nt to convict

16. 11

17. placed on Kanda Pajdaifachi v. State of Tamil Nadu A.I.R. 1972-8.C.-66 Para-11. A.I.R.-2001-8.C.-1103 Placitum-MAW and Hiramba Brahrna & another v, State of Assam A.l.R.- 1982-8C-1595 Placitum-<B*. ReUaace was also placed on Pandurang & oikers v.State of ffyderabad AJ.R.-1955-8C-216 and Suresh & another vs, Siate of U.P. A.I.R.2001-8C-1344 Placitum -<<B" whUe arguing that merc prcsence of Rajkumar Tiwari, Javed aad Ganesh at the scene of the crime did not show culpabUity since fherc was no ineetuig of miads and no preineditated concert to kiU Kzi, Preeti. At the most it could be said that the appeUants were carefrce youngsters who had taken the Jeep iaside the coUege campus merely to have a look at the girls aad werc laughing when Ku. Preeti tried to come to fhe middle of the Jeep and the driver backed the jeep to get away while Ku.Prceti had faUen upon a mild push. At the most it could be said ftiat there was coniplete Diiscalculation and rashness on ftie part of fhe driver ia tryiag to get away froin fh-e campus. The driver of the jeep alone could at the most be held guilty under Section-304 Part-I offtie I.P.C. ReUance was placed on Sadhu Sinah v. Siate ofPepsu A.I.R.-1954-8C-271. Absence of tyrc marks either on fhe skall or on the clofhes of Ku. Prceti as admitted by Dr. Jain PW-33 ia para-10 falsified that Ku. Preeti was run over deliberately. Absence of the appeUaiits Saaiar Vijay, Ran Kum.ar aad Gaaesh from coUege at fhe time of occurrence did not prove their complicity ia the ofience of mmder ofPreeti. Use ofJeep No.M.P.-27-B-1068 in the crime was also not estabUshed smce the number of the offendmg vehicle was noted by Ku. Vyaylaxmi PW-7 to be M.P.-27-1962 aad presence of huinaa blood was not confinned vide Forcnsic Science Laboratory Ex. P-79 on the soU seized from the left tyrc ofthejeep,

18. Replymg to fhe above arguments Shri Rramod Verma, learned arguments Additional Advocate General during his brief 12 contended fhat the demeanor offhe eye-witaesses as noted by fhe leamed Sessions Judge revealed that fhe girls were iinder fe.ar and tremendous pressurc aad were not wiUing to disclose the identity of the occupaats of fhe Jeep barriiig stray statements made by some girls io. their testunony, showed that the iacidenf in which Ku. Preeti was crushed under fhe jeep and died had a fcpeniendous impact on fhe minds of the girls who saw fhe occurrence. The evidence showed fhat fhe girls werc zinder shock even at fhe hospital where they truthiuUy disclosed fhe nauies of the occupants and driver of the jeep to Shri R.N. Shrivastava PW-32, the shocked father of the deceased who had rcached the hospital It also soon after leaming about the iacident. There was no tiine for deliberation or concoction. Eveiy one was under shock and panic. Statements of Ku.Vijaylaxmi PW-7 and Ku. Lalita Yadav PW-6 under Section-161 of Cr.P.C. which were rccoided by A.S.I. Hanieep Singh PW-36 on 03-12-1998 at the Hospital showed that both girls had stated that siace fhe occupants of the Jeep werc addrcssiag each other by names aad had asked Samar the driver of fhe jeep to run over Ku. Preeti if she didn't give way, they learat about the identity of the driver as Samar and fhe occupaats as Rajkumar, Ganesh aad Javed. These girls had also given fhe histoiy of fhe incident to Dr. M.L.Beatrice PW-3 who had recorded the same in Ex. P-4. Thercfore, the testimony of Shri R.L.Shrivastava PW-32 that he was informed by the abovementioned girls about the names of the occupants and driver of fhe jeep at the hospital, fonas part of res gestae aad is admissible zinder Section-6 of fhe Evidence Act. Smce there was no malice, no enmity or cause to falsely implicate innocent persons, fhe trial judge, in its quest for tonith rightly relied on the testimony of Shri R.L.Shrivastava PW-32 to hold that Saniar Vijay Singh was the driver and Rajkumar, Ganesh and Javed were fhe occupants who had asked Samar Vijay Singh to run Preeti over if she did not give way. ___- ^ ».. 1 , \ . ••-': ^ r ^ 13

19. It was next argued fhat the very fact fhat Kii. Preeti had fallen affcer a gentle push by the Jeep and thereafter the Jeep was reversed emd accelerated further, cozipled wifh fhe senoiis injuries siistained by Prceti clearly reflected fhe iatention of appellants Samar Vijay, Raj Kumar, Javed aad Ganesh. The evidence of Dr. Jain P.W.33 and the fuidings rccorded on mteraal exammation during autopsy revealed fhe inipact aad speed at which the Jeep was accelerated ahead. The act of appeUant Saxnar Vijay ia ninniag over the fallen Ku. Preeti and fhe act of appellaats Raj Kumar, Javed and Gaaesh ui exhorting Samar Vijay to run Preeti over if she did not give way coupled wifh the fact that after Ku. Preeti feU, the Jeep was reversed aad accelerated proved that fhe appeUaat Sainar Vijay shared the common iatention with Raj Kumar, Javed and Ganesh to kill Ku. Pretti by cnishiag her under the Jeep. As rcgards fhe evidence ofAbhaydeepP»W.2 relating to extra judicial confession of appeUant Raj Kumar, it was argued tiiat Abhaydeep had no nialice or enmity with Raj Kiunar or any rcason to falsely unpUcate him.

20. Leamed Addl. Advocate General whUe arguing upon Cr.A. 1239/2000 for enhancement ofsentence awarded to the appeUants Samar Vijay, Raj Kumar, Javed and Ganesh did not divulge any ground for enhaiicing the sentence or for awardmg the extreme penalty. Cr. A. 783/2005 agamst acquittal of Ranvijay Siagh Tomar, learued Addl. Advocate General left it whoUy to the discrction of the Court, if it found aay evidence on record to convict Raovyay Singh Toraar under Section 201 I.P.C.

21. We have heard fhe rival contentions and have gone fhrough fhe record of S.T.Np.7/99 minutely. We have also gone through the various case laws cited by fhe learaed senior coiuisel for fhe appeUants. Ku. LaUta Yadav P,W.6 deposed that on 3.12.98 Ku. Pretti Shrivastava, alongwith Ku. Nisha P.W.17, Ku. Seema Mishra P.W.8, Ku. Vijaylaxmi P.W.7 and 14 ^ maay other girls were sitting by the side of the road when fhe Jeep entered the coUege campus and crushing the bag aad tififm of Preeti, went ahead. Ku. Prceti said that she would ask ttie culprits to make good fhe loss aad stood m finont of fhe Jeep on its rctuni. Preeti was hit by the bonnet of the Jeep. When Lalita ran, one of the boys pushed her due to which she fell. Vijaylaxmi noted the number ofJeep. The medical rcport Ex. P.4 written by Dr. M.L.Beatrice (P.W.3) clearly shows that Ku. Lalita had gone with the iajured Prceti to fhe hospital and had given the history that Ku. Preeti was hit by fhe Jeep, knocked down and passed over by the wheel of the Jeep. There is no doubt fhat Ku. LaMta saw the entire occurrence aad the culprits. The learaed Sessions Judge noted her denieanor that she was nervous aad was repeatedly tiyiiig to console herself. Obviously she did not have fhe coiirage to testify the fa-uth. The testimony of Ku. Vijaylaxmi P.W.7 clearly shows that she has supprcssed the entire trufh. She was the person who accompaaied the iajurcd Preeti to fhe hospital and gave the history as mentioned the mcident, above, Dr. M.L.Beatrice P.W.3 which was rccorded m rcport Ex.P.4 contaming the name of Ku Vijaylaxmi P.W.7 as the person giving the histoiy of the incident. The testimony of LaMta Yadav P.W.6 shows that Kii. Vijaylaxmi P.W.7 was sittmgwith Ku. Preeti when the Jeep entered the campiis. Obviously Ku, Vijaylaxmi was under fear while giving evidence aad did not have fhe courage to speak the truth. ^

22. ^^

23. Ku. Seema Mishm P.W.8 blurted Oiit diiring cross- exammation some traces of truth which was labeled as unfair aad dishonest cross-exaniuiation by the learaed senior counsel for the appeUants, At the end of the ordeal of her evidence she cried aad requested the Court never to call her again for evidence sitice they werc disturbed for the entire year. The plight of the girls who werc under prcssure from ^ ! 1f ^ 15 forces which act ia such cases, depicts fhe tremendous need for witness protection in our countiy if cniniaal adininistration was to be a rcality. justice

24. Ku. Seema Mishra P,W.8 deposed that upon her bag and tiffin being crushed under fhe Jeep, Preeti stopped fhe Jeep on its retum and stood ia front of it aad asked fhe boys to get fhe bag and tiflfia repaircd. There was a discussion as the boys declmed. On this, Prceti stood in front of the Jeep and chaUenged fhe boys who were slowly moving fhe jeep, rcpair the bag. The boys asked her to get out of fheir way faUing which fhey would n.in her over. Preeti said she wozild drove the Jeep running it over Preeti, not move and if they wished they could nin her over, The driver changed gear and moved the Jeep due to which Prceti feU down. As they raoved to llft Preeti the driver speedUy In reply to question 27 she said that she did not see the occupaats which was sheer falsehood as in answer to fhe next questibn she said that fhere were four boys ia titie Jeep. This statement has not been controverted in cross-examination by fhe defence. In rcply to the next two questions she said that she did not hear the boys taking each other's name. She was cross-exaraiaed by the pubUc prosecutor. Question No.32, 34, 35 & 37 and the aaswers given are rcproduced in EngUsh. Q. 3 2: We aUege fhat fhe occupaat boys in fhe Jeep were taUcing to each ofher and laughing. Ans. Boys werc laughing. > i Q. 34: The occupaats ofthe Jeep were asking Samar, the driver offhe Jeep to nm the girl over if she did not give way. 1 Ans. Boys had said so but afterwards. 1 Q.35: After fhat Samar surged the Jeep ahead, crushed the head of Prceti and went away. ^ Ans. Ye^. Q. 37: Fointing out towards the accused Samar Vijay, Javed, Raj Kumar and Ganesh, the witaaess was ^» f%l 16 asked if these were in the Jeep. Ans. I do not remeiaber.

25. In such a case fhe Coiirt is required to fuiiction Uke the legendary swan ia separating fhe grains of trufh fh)ra the chaffoffalsehood. The skiUftd cross-examiriation to e.1icit the fcrufh is not fbe forte of the defence alone biit caa be a tool for fhe prosecutor when the wituess siippresses the truth under fear. The Court ought not to act inechanicaUy aad accept statements given under fear or prcssure, denyiag the complicity of the appeUants ia the crime and to ignore the thrcads of truth appeanng in fhe testtmony of a witoaess iii answer to leadiag questions by fhe prosecutor. question 37, Ku. Seema did not say fhat the appeUants were not the occupants offhe Jeep but said she did not remember. In reply to There is no doubt that Ku. Seema P.W.8 saw fhe entire incident and also fhe appeUants Samar Vijay, Javed, Raj Kiimar and Ganesh from veiy close raage m broad day light and the incident would remam recorded in her meinoiy for a Ufe time. She also admitted that the boys were laughmg in the Jeep aad had said to Samar fhat if the girl did not give <yes9 to a way he should nin fhe girl over. She said a positive specific question No.35, clearly meaning fhat crushmg Prceti's head Samar had surged the Jeep ahead. The trial Judge, ia this case, righUy accepted the above portion of the testimony ofKu. Seema.

26. Ku. NishaThakur (P.W.17) has corroborated the testunony of Ku. Seema (P.W.8) mentioned above rcgarding the incident ia which Ku. Priti got crushed under fhe Jeep. Regarding the complicity of appeUant Samar Vijay, she stated during cross- examination by fhe defence ia para 13 that the occupants of the Jeep had said that tf Preeti does not give way Samar Vijay In para 12 she has Siagh should nin fhe Jeep over her. the boys were laughing, she has agam very stated fh.at positively asserted that one offhe occnpants oftitie Jeep had ^

27. ^ 17 said that if Ku. Preeti did not give way she should be run over by the Jeep. As held in Gura Sinoh v. State of Rwasthan A.I.R. 2001 8.C. 330 the testimony of Ku. Nisha Thakur P.W.17, Ku. Seema P.W.8, Ku. Lalita Yadav P.W.6 cannot be brushed aside or excluded or rendered unworthy of consideration mercly because they have been declared hostUe. It was held that in appropriate cases, fhe court caa rely zipon fhe part of testimony of such witaaesses if fhat part of the deposition is found to be crcdit worthy. Shri R.L.Shrivastava P.W.32, deposed that on receiving iaformation froni two girls of Girls CoUege, Amblkapur fhat his daughter Ku. Preeti was crushed under fhe Jeep he rcached fhe hospital at 5 to 7 iniiiutes after 11 A.M. and saw his daughter in deep coma, with her eyes bulgiag out. Just outside fhe door of muior operation theatre the staff of the ^ Girls College and Ku. LaUta Yadav, Ku. Nisha, Ku. Vijaylaxmi and Seeiaa Mishra were standing. As a uiost natural conduct he generaUy asked what happened and where and who saw? It is clear fhat he generally enquired frora fhe girls who stood outside the lainor operation fh.eatore whercupon Lalita Yadav P.W.6, Vijaylaxmi P.W.7, Seema Mishra P.W.8 and Nisha Thakur P.W. 17 spontaneously told him that they were sitting with Ku. Preeti by the side of the road when a Jeep wifh four boys entered the campus aad crushed fhe ttffin aad bag of Preeti and went ahead. Prceti decided that she would stop tlie Jeep on its rctum aad ask the boys to make good fhe loss. She did so aad stopped fhe Jeep on its rctum, stood ra front of it and asked the driver as to how witl she attend the next period since her bag was crushed. On hearing this, Samar Vijay, fhe driver said fhat she should give way, failing which she would be crushed under the Jeep. Javed, fhe boy sittmg with fhe driver iii front seat aad Raj Kumar and Ganesh the ofher frwo boys sitting in fhe rcar seat also said to fhe driver that if the girl does not give way she should be crushed. Javed, the boy sittuig next to the driver said to hiia, "Saniar gs, 18 Vijay crush the girl and run or else we would have to face serious trouble." This witaess asked Vijay Laxmi P.W.7 and Ku. LaMta Yadav P.W.6 as to how they leamt the names ofthe driver aiid occupants of fhe Jeep. They told hun fhat smce fhe boys were laughing and taking each others name fhey leamt fheir naaies. The girls named above also told him fhat the driver suddenly drove fhe jeep with ajerk thereby pushiag Ku. Preeti who was thrown by fhe side of fhe road. As fhe girls ran to lift Ku. Prceti the driver backed the Jeep aiid fhen crushiag Preeti under the front tyre of fhe Jeep ran away. Vijay Laxmi P.W.7 also told him that when she caught the sweater of Raj Kumar who was sittiag behiad, he pushed her due to which she feU down.

28. Section 6 of fhe Evidence Act is an exception to the rule of evidence that hearsay evidence is not admissible. The test for applying the rule ofres-gestae is that the statement should be spontaneous aad should fomi part of the same transaction, ruling out In Qentela any possibUity of concoction. Viieaiewetrdhcm. R€W Vs. State ofAndhra Pradesh reported ia A.I.R.-1996-8.C.-2791 para-15, itwas held as follows: "Section-6 of fhe Evidence Act and some of the succeeding sections embody the rule of aduii^sion of evidence relating to what commonly kaown as rcs gestae, They are ia tlie nature of exceptioii to "hearsay^ rule. Sectlon-6 permits proof of coUateral statements which are so coiuiected wifti the facts m issue as to form part of the same transaction. Whether statement made by a witness was a part of the same ti'aiisaction or not is to be considered ia the light of the circiimstances of each case. The principle is that it shoiild be so intimately connected with the fact in issue as to be a spontaneous excitement of the occsLsion or a spontaaeous reaction fhereof, fhere beiag no opporfrLinity for deliberately fabricatiiig the statement. In other words, the statement which is a part of res gestae does not narrate a past event, but it is the event itself speaking through a person fhus excluding the possibiUty of any design behind it." utteraace inspired ————- ^ 19

29. We have mmiitely gone fhrough fhe cross-exammation of R.L.Shrivastava. We find fhat there is not even an iota of material m his cross-examiaation which would rebut his above testiraony or render it unworthy of credit, Nofhiag has been elicited which would even suggest that R.L.Shrivastava had any maUce or motive to falsely iinpUcate fhe appellants Samar Vijay Singh, Javed, Raj Kumar aad Ganesh. The incident had occiirred at 10.45 A.M. The girls and staffofftie coUege had rtished Preeti to fhe hospital. Wifhin mtniites R.L^Shrivastava P.W,32 had reached fhe hospital. Preeti was alive thozigh m deep coma at fhat time» After seeing Preeti's condition he was iafomied by Lalita Yadav P,W.6, Vijay Laxmi P.W.7, Seema Mishra P.W.8 and Ku. Nisha Thakur P.W.17 about fhe wholeincident Before this, LaMta Yadav P.W.6 and Vijay Laxmi P,W.7 had already given the brief histoiy of fhe incident to Dr, M^L.Beatorice P.W.3 who had recorded it as <<the injured beiag hit by the Jeep, and knocked down aiid passed over by fhe wheel of In the facts and the Jeepw. circumstances of fhe case, we are of fhe considercd opinion fhat fhe statement made by Ku. Lalita Yadav P.W,6, Ku. Vijaylaxmi P.W.7, Ku. Seema Mishra P.W.8 and Ku. Nisha ^ Thakur P.W.17 to Shri R.L.Shrivastava P.W.32 is admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as res-gestate despite the fact that the above mentioned girls have tunied hostile siace the stateinents were niade to Shri R.L.Shrivastava soon after the occurrence when fhe girls were ia a state of shock aad there was not even fhe remotest possibility or even a thread of a chance of falsehood haviag crcpt in. Haviag given it our utmost serious consideration, we are unable to comprehend a situation in fhis case ia which therc could be even ftie sUghtest possibUity that the girls could have been tiitored. At fhe hospital, there was no one except fhe girl students who had witnessed the incident and fheir teachers. AU of ftieni stood aghast outside fhe minor operation theatre when Shri R.L.Shnvastava after having a look at Preeti who was ia deep coma, came out aad asked the crowd as to what had ^ K

30. 20 happened and where. The shocked girls blurted out truthfuUy to the father of the deceased the incident as it happened, Ku. Preeti when he reached fhe hospited wifhin miautes of fhe There was no chance for concoction or occurrence. improvement by any one at that juncture. The fact that Ku. LaUta Yadav P.W.6 aad Ku. Vijaylaxmi P.W.7 had m their statements recorded by A.S.I. Hardeep Singh P.W.36 on

3.12.1998 at the District Hospital under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also given aa absolutely siinUar description of the incident and the manner in which they leamt the nanies of fhe driver the possibUity that subsequenfly raade aiid occupants of the Jeep rales out R.L.Shrivastava P.W.32 might have miprovements m his statement. Thus, the testimony of It R.L.Shrivastava P.W.32 is whoUy reliable. estabUshed beyond doubt that fhe occupants of the Jeep were laughing aad taking each ofhers name as Raj Kumar, Ganesh and Javed who had asked the driver of the Jeep Samar Vijay to nin the girl over if she did not give way. Thus the act of Samar Vijay in crushing Ku. Preeti under the Jeep was in furtherance of the common intention of the occupants of the In Gentela's case Jeep i.e. Raj Kumar, Ganesh and Javed. (supra.) it was held that if fhere was tune which was sufficient enough for fabrication then the stateme.nt is not part of res- gestae. However, as we have already held in this case fhere did not exist any possibHity of fabrication or false iniplication of mnocent Shri R.L.Shrivastava did not kaow the boys before fhe incident. Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Kii. Lalita P.W.6 and Ku.Vijaylaxmi P.W.7 were recorded on 3.12.1998 at the hospital itselfby A.S.I. Haideep Singh P.W.36 which give out the naaies of the driver aiid occupaats of Jeep. Neither the father of the deceased nor A.S.I. Hardeep Smgh had the slightest idea at that juncture as to who had caiised the death ofPrceti. In Malkhan Sinah v. State of M.P. 1990 Crl. L. J. 2763 the rale of res-gestae was not appUed suice the evidence of the persons 21 two witnesses to whom ttie statements were made was foiind to be not rcUable. The statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of one of the witaesses was rccorded after 16 days and aaother witness was found to be an mtercsted witness. However, in this case, statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. ofVijaylaxmi aad Lalitawere reconled at the hospital itself on 3.12.1998. The testimony of Shri R.L.Shrivastava P.W.32 about utteraaces made by the above mentioned wifaiesses to him at only wholly imrebutted hospital confidence. cross-examination Shri R.L.Shrivastava would not have the sUghtest motive for implicatmg innocent persons and shieldmg the rcal culprits responsible for the murder ofhis daughter. inspires The evidence led by the prosecution fuUy satisfies the test laid v. State of Hyderabctd down in Pandurana & others A.I.R.1955 8C 216 and Suresh 8s another v. State of U.P. A.I.R.2001 8.C. 1344 for ascertaming whether the appeUants Samar Vijay, Javed, Raj Kumar and Ganesh Kashyap shared the coiamon intention for causing fhe deafh of Prceti, The evidence clearly shows that fhe thrce occupants of the Jeep had asked the ddver to mn the girl over tf she did not give way and Javed had said to Samar Vijay that he should better crush Prceti aiid run away or else will have to face troiible. The testimony of Nisha Thakur P.W. 17 in cross-exammation para 13 also clearly shows that fhe occupants of the Jeep had asked fhe driver to run the girl over if she did not give way. The testimony of Ku. Seema P.W.8 m reply to question 34 also con-oborates conditions necessary for arriviag at a finding that appeUants had shared the common intention to cause the In Suresh Ss another (supra), the death of Preeti are satisfied. Apex Court went to fhe extent of sayiag that it was not that the co- necessary for attractmg Section 34 of I.P.C. accused must be present at fhe scene ofoccurrcnce. Even an omission can m certain circumstaaces amount to aii act. So above testimony m toto. Thus,

31. a^ ^ k ll^l' 22 8?. the act mentioned in Section 34 ofI.P.C. need not be an overt act, even aa iUegal omission to do a certaia act m certaia situation caa ainount to aa act e.g. a co-accused, standiag near the victim face to face saw an armed assadlaat nearmg fhe victun from behind wifh a weapon to iaflict a blow. The co-accused who could have alerted the victiin to move away to escape from the onslaught deUberately refrain froin doiag so with the idea that the blow should faU on the vicfun, siich omission can also be termed as an act in a given situation. In fhe present case, the occupants of the Jeep were laughuig at the iusistence of Preeti standiag beforc the Jeep, aad exhorted Samar Vijay to run her over tf she did not give way, furtheraace of which, Samar Vijay rcversed the Jeep a Uttle bit and acceleratmg it surged ahead crushing Preetiag underaeath. Thus, the common intention of fhe occupants of the Jeep in crashmg Preeti under the Jeep whUe escapmg from the college campiis is clearly bome out.

32. Arviad Gaur P.W.12, Asst Professor, P.G.CoUege, Ainbikapur has established that Samar Vijay, Ganesh and Raj Kuinar Tiwari were his students and on 3.12.1998 Gaaesh Kashyap was absent from coUege as per entiy ia fhe attendaace register article-A. SiDiiilarly, fhe testiinony of Professor Rajesh Shrivastava P.W.18 proved that Samar Vijay aod Raj Kumar Tiwari were absent froni CoUege on 3.12.1998. We have also miautely examined the testunony of Abhaydeep Singh P.W.2 which establishes that Raj Kumar Tiwari had gone to hun soon after the occzirrcnce at 10.45 A.M. and stated that fheir vehicle had dashed agam.st a girl, The above testimony finds corroboration from his statement Ex. P.3 recorded under exainination to show fhat Section 164 CnP.C. Nothing has been eUcited ia cross- this witness bears any grudge agamst Raj Kumar or had any inotive to falsely implicate hiin. The testimony of Abhaydeep Singh only proves a strong circumstance against the appeUant Raj Kiiniar. It is not being used as an extora jiidicial confession of Raj Kumar since it \ r 23 does not by itsetf establish the guilt of fhe maker of such admission as held ia Kanda Pddaiiachi v. Siate of Tcunil Nadu A.I.R. 1972 SC 66 Para 13. Similarly, the statement iinder Section 16(t Cr.P.C. made by Abhaydeep Singh can also not be used as a substantive piece of evidence but only as a piece of corroborative evidence. The testixnony of Inspector S.C.Mishra P.W.39 and the arrcst memo Ex.P.74 also establish that appellant Javed had surrendered in PoUce Station Ambikapur on 4.12.1998 at 6.00 P.M. and was arrested.

33. Use of vehicle Jeep No. M.P.27-B-1068 in the iacident is established by the fact tfaat merg mtiniation Ex. P.19 by Mariam Tirki P.W. 16 has been proved by Asst. Sub-Inspector Hardeep Siagh P.W.36. It shows fhat fhe Jeep bearing rcgistration No. M.P.27-B-1068 had cmshed Ku. Preeii underaeath. Seizure ofJeep M.P. 27-B-1068 which stood in front of the house of Samar Vijay vide Ex.R33 is also established by A.S.I Hardeep Singh P,W.36. Ranvijay Singh Toinar, father of appeUant Samar Vijay is the owner of fhe Jeep M.P.. 27-B-1068 is also estabUshed by Z.A.Abbasi P.W.37 and not disputed. Ranvijay Singh Tomar had, m rcply to Q.No.218 in examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also admitted this. Report ofForensic Science Laboratory, Saugor Ex. P.80 confirmed that the paiat scratched from the stones in the college cainpus and the Jeep were of simiilar origia.

34. The injuries sustained by Ku. Preeti as given in the post- mortem report Ex. P.36 proved by Dr. A.K.Jam P.W.33 have been detailed by us ia paragraph 8 supra which prove the treniendous force wifh which the stationery Jeep surged ahead after beiag reversed. Despite fhe fact that Ku. Preeti had fallen in front of fhe Jeep, the manner and the force ia which appellant Sainar Vijay reversed, accelerated aad siurged the jeep ahead on being exhorted by Raj Kumar, Javed and Ganesh to nin the girl over, shows fhat the appeUants shared < ^ ^ ") ^-

35. ^ 36 24 the coraiEion intention of cazisiag tiie deafh of Ku. Preeti by crushing her under Jeep. The testimony R.L.Shrivastava P.W.32, Dr. A.K.Jain P.W.33, Ku.Nisha P.W. 17 and Ku. See.ma P.W.8 proves beyond doubt that death of Ku. Preeti was homicidal and in cold blood and not accidental by any stretch of unagination, Having thus considered the rival contentions aad the evidence led by the prosecution ia its entircty, we are ofthe considered the tdal Judge has nghtly convicted fhe opinion fhat appeUant Saiaar Vijay Siagh under Sectioa 302 I.P.C. and appeUants Raj Kumar, Javed aad Ganesh under Section 302 rcad with Section 34 I.P.C. The sentence imposed by the trial Judge also does not caU for iaterference as fhe case does not faU wifhin the category of rarest of fhe rare case aad does not justify award of fhe extreme penalty of deafh. So far as co- there is no accused Ranvijay Singh Tomar is considered, evidence against hiia to hold him guUty under Section 201 of I.P.C. for causing disappearance of evidence of inurder of Ku. Preeti. In the result, Cr. Appeal No.594/2000 preferred by Samar Vijay Siagh & Raj Kumar Tiwan and Cr. Appeal No.716/2000 preferred by Javed & Ganesh Kashyap fail and are hereby dismissed. Cr. Appeal No. 1239/2000 filed by the State for enhancement of sentence awarded to the appeUaats Saiaar Vijay Suigh and Raj Kumar Tiwari and Javed Alaxa and Gaaesh Kashyap by the sessions Judge, Anibikapur S.T.No.7/99 also fails and is hercby dismissed. Cr.Appeal No. 783/2005 prcferred by the State against fhe acqiiittal of Ranvijay Singh Tomar also fails and is hercby dismissed, Per Hon*ble Fakhruddin.J

37. I had ftie advaatage of rcading tUe Judgment esteexned learaed brother Shri DUip Raosaheb \ 25 Deshinukh, J. I wholly agree wifh his reasoning and conclusion. However I would like to add regarding the nature of the ofience, in view of the arguments advanced by the defence.

38. Shri Surendra Singh, leamed Sr. Counsel appearing for the accused-appeUants contended that the driver of the jeep merely wanted to get away as far as possible and tn that process, the accident occurred and the case would fall under Section 304-A of I.P.C. He further contended that in any case, would not travel beyond Section 304 Part-I as the alleged act was without any intention to kill Ku. Preeti Shrivastava. The main thrust of the argument advanced by the defence is tliat there was no intention to cause the deafh. Similar matter has been dealt with by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofVasant -v- State of Maharashtra reported tn 1998 CRI.L.J. 844. In Vasant's case death was resulted by running over of inotor vehicle and question arose whether the deafh is accidental or intentional. The trial Court held that there was no strong motive for the appellant to murder the deceased. It believed that he had gone to the extreme wrong side of the road and knocked down the deceased but in absence of any intention to kill, the trial Court held fhat fhe death of Shridhar was ^ ^ caused as a result of rash and negligent driving of jeep. The trial Court, appellant under Section 304-A of fhe IPC and not convicted the therefore, under Section 302 of I.P.C. The appellant therein challenged his conviction under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and the State filed an appeal against his acquittal under Section 302 of I.P.C. Taking into „ consideration fhe facts and circumstances, the High 25 Court aUowed the State appeal and convicted the appellant fherein under Section 302 of I.P. C. and dismissed the appeal filed the appeUant and held that all the circumstances proved by the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 4 clearly indicate that what was done by the appellant was done intentionally. The High Court took note of the fact that the place where the tncident took place was a Tar Road 19 feet in width. the time of mcident, no other pedestrian or At vehicle was passing on that road. The High Court, took fhe view ftiat fhere was no other therefore, reason for the appeUant to take his jeep in great speed on ttie wrong side ofthe road.

39. The matter went to the Supreme Court. The Hon?ble Supreme Court elaborately considered fhe matter in para 8 and the same is quoted below:- "8. Leamed counsel for the appellant is not in a position to point out that any of the reasons given by the High Court is wrong. So far as P.W. 4 is concemed, the High Court has given good reasons to bclicvc his prcscncc at thc tiinc of incidcnt and for accepting his evidence. He has in clear terms stated that the appeUant had gone running towards the spot where the boring work was going on. The appellant sat in the jeep which was standing there in reverse up to fhe and took it intersection which meets the National Highway. The appellant then came in great speed with the result he got frightened and ran for cover. The appellant then knocked down Shridhar. The evidence of P.W.s 2 and 3 also support this version. Once it is believed that the appellant behaved in that manner and it is also believed that there was no other reason for the appeUant to go on the wrong side of the road, it has to be held that whatever the appellant had done was done mtentionally and the incident did not happen accidentaUy. I. ^

40. c? 2y In the present case injiiries sustained by the deceased Ku. Preeti as given in the post mortem report Ex. P-36 proved by Dr. A.K. Jain P.W.33, prove tremendous force witii which fhe stationery Jeep surged ahead after being rcversed. Despite the fact that Ku. Preeti had fallen in front of fhe Jeep, fhe manner aad the reversed, accelerated and surged the jeep ahead on being exhorted by Raj Kiunar, Javed aad Ganesh to ruu the girl over, it was to be held tbLat whatever the appeUant had done was done intentionally and not accidentally. in which appeUant Samar Vqay

41. Appellants Javed Alam aad Ganesh are on bail pursuant to oider dated 27-7-2000. Their bail bonds are canceUed. They shall now surrcnder before fhe Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur on or before 1.05.2006 for undergoing fhe reinaming sentence.

42. Iu the end, we appreciate the valuable assistaace rendered by learaed counsel who appeared ia fhis case. A copy of this judgment be kept ia fhe records of all fhe connected cases. _— y.' Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge (^