SHESHMAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (twice) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment (twice) with default stipulations by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dantewada, in ST No.282/11 for committing murder of Madhav Sethiya (since deceased) and his wife Sudhamani (since deceased) at 5.00 6.00 pm on 9- 7-2011. It is this conviction, which is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, PW-1 Kamlochan Sethiya lodged First Information Report (FIR) (Ex.P/3) at 8.55 am on 10-7-2011 informing that his father-in-law Madhav Sethiya and mother-in-law Sudhamani Sethiya reside at village Balood, Bastapara. PW-2 Suganti @ Sugandhi was also residing with the deceased persons. Appellant had forcibly possessed four acres land belonging to the deceased Sudhamani for which there was a subsisting dispute between them. In the evening of 9-7-2011 his nephew Tularam (PW-6) informed him about the murder of two deceased persons whereafter he went to village Balood and saw his father-inlaw and mother-in-law lying dead under a Mahua tree at some distance from their house. PW-2 Suganti @ Sugandhi informed him that the appellant has committed murder.

(3.) Before the above FIR (Ex.P/3), merg intimations (Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2) were lodged by PW-1 Kamlochan Sethiya. Appellant's memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P/7 consequent to which one axe and one teak wood log was recovered vide Ex.P/8. Bloodstained soil and plain soil was recovered from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P/9. Naksha panchayatnama was recorded vide Ex.P/11. Postmortem of deceased Sudhamani was carried out by PW-10 Dr. R.N. Gangesh who submitted his report vide Ex.P/14 opining that cause of death is coma due to head injury resulting into hypovolemic shock; homicidal in nature. Similarly postmortem of Madhav was carried out by the same Doctor who submitted his report vide Ex.P/15 giving similar opinion.