PODIYAMI LAKHO Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants challenge their conviction under Sec. 302/34 IPC and the consequential sentence of life imprisonment. Lukhmo (P.W.1), Budri (P.W.2), Kade (P.W.3), Maso (P.W.5) and Dundi (P.W.6) are the eye-witnesses who have ascribed specific roles to the accused persons. Insofar as accused appellant - Signature Not Verified Podiyami Lakho and accused Podiyami Maso, Podiyami Ando are concerned the prosecution evidence is consistent that they had assaulted the deceased on the head with stones which they were carrying weighing about 7 kg. and 11 kg.

(2.) The aforesaid assault on the head of the deceased by heavy blunt object finds corroboration from the evidence of Dr. Y. Markam (P.W. 7), the doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination. While P.Ws. 2 and 3 do not ascribe any injury by the accused appellant - Podiyami Ando (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1058/2011) on the head of the deceased what cannot be lost sight of is the fact that the conviction of the all the accused persons is with the aid of Sec. 34 IPC. In this regard, there is no dispute that all the accused persons had gone together to the place where the deceased was standing and had mounted a common assault on the deceased. In these circumstances, we do not see how the vicarious liability under Sec. 34 IPC would not be attracted.

(3.) Furthermore, there is a evidence of recovery of the offending weapons at the instance of the accused which fact is admissible under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The defence version that there is inconsistency in the prosecution case with regard to the place of occurrence i.e. the courtyard or the street and the further defence that the eyewitnesses were inside the house and, therefore, could not have seen what was happening outside, stands concluded by the concurrent findings recorded by the learned trial Court and the High Court. Shortly, the finding in this regard is that the courtyard which is open stretches out to the main street and, therefore, the entire area was an open area which could be clearly visualized from inside the house.