NABOR LAKADA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dtd. 23/5/2017, passed in Sessions Case No. 12/2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sessions Division, Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) wherein, the Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000.00, with default stipulation.

(2.) According to the case of prosecution, on 22/4/2016 at about 2:00 AM, the Appellant along with injured namely Admon and other persons were gone to attend the marriage of son of Dev Singh Kujur. Allegedly, during marriage party, due to some previous enmity, the Appellant assaulted Admon with the help of knife due to that he sustained injuries on his abdomen. The incident was witnessed by wife and sister of injured Admon and other witnesses. Thereafter, the matter was reported in concerned Police Station. On the basis of above, offence has been registered against the Appellant. Later on, statements of injured person and witnesses recorded under Sec. 161 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the Police. Trial Court framed the charges against the Appellant. To robe the Appellant in the crime-in-question, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. In the statement of the Appellant recorded under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C, he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter, however, no defence witness was examined by the Appellant. After completion of trial, Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in Para 01 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the prosecution agency has failed to prove the guilt of the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. He further submits that there are material contradictions and omissions occurred in the deposition of prosecution witnesses, therefore, their statements are not reliable. Alternatively, the Counsel further submits that out of seven years of jail sentence, the Appellant has already undergone about 5 years in jail. He has no criminal antecedent and has facing the lis since 2016. The Counsel lastly submits that if the conviction of the Appellant may be affirmed, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the Appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.