DADURAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentenced dated 02.02.2013 passed by Sessions Judge Rajnandgaon in Session Trial No. 47/2011 whereby and where under, the appellant No.1 is held guilty for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced Life imprisonment and appellant No.2 held guilty for commission of offence under Section 323 IPC and sentenced for one year simple imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution story, as is unfolded from the impugned judgment and the record of the case is that an FIR in Ex.P-19, was lodged in the Police Station by Radha Bai (PW-1) in which, she disclosed that the appellants along with their daughter came to her house and appellant No.1 Daduram inflicted repeated assaults on the head of her husband Dularu whereas, appellant No.2 KejaBai assaulted with hands and their daughter Dineshwari Bai with wooden in club in which incident, Dularu sustained injury, fell down and later on, died. The inquest over dead body was prepared and sent for postmortem. Dr. Anil Mahakalkar (PW-10) conducted postmortem, prepared his report and opined that death was caused due to hemorrhage as a result of injuries. The appellants herein were chargesheeted and charges were framed for commission of offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The appellants having abjured guilt, were put to trial. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of incident, coaccused Dineshwari Bai was minor, therefore, charge sheet in respect of her was submitted before the Juvenile justice Board.

(3.) The prosecution led eye witness account of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-7 to prove its case of assault by the appellants on the deceased. The appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C in respect of incriminating evidence and circumstance against them. The appellants denied having committed the offence. In support of their defence, case the appellants/accused examined sole defence witness namely minor Dineshwari Bai - co-accused of the case. The learned trial Court however, relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution and disbelieving the defence in so far as the present appellants are concerned, held them guilty of offence under Sections 302 and 323 IPC, respectively and sentenced them as mentioned above.