SHIVLAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.8.2006 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.973 of 2000, wherein the High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence, so far as the present appellants are concerned, awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, Durg dated 31.3.2000 in Sessions Trial No.147 of 1999 by which the appellants stood convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called "IPC") and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month. Sukhsagar, appellant no.2 stood convicted under Section 302 IPC and Shivlal, appellant no.1 stood convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and both were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months. All the sentences had been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are:

(3.) Ms. Tanuj Bagga, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the dispute arose because of a factional rivalry in the village and unending dispute over the land meant for community use on which Shankar Satnami, deceased, had illegally encroached upon. In the oral complaint made by Ramkhilawan (PW.7), not even a single accused had been named. There had been no eye-witness except Sukhbai (PW.9) whose evidence itself is not worth reliance. The courts below erred in convicting the appellants on the basis of the evidence on which a large numbers of accused had been acquitted. There had been material irregularities in the trial itself as no report as required under Section 157(1) Cr.P.C., has been sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate which was mandatory. The High Court brushed aside all legal submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. Once the High Court came to the conclusion that recovery of weapons itself was doubtful, the appellants were equally entitled for benefit of doubt. Both the appellants have served for more than 11 years and are still in jail. The appeal deserves to be allowed.