(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment dated 15th September, 2005 passed by Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur in Session Trial No. 387/2004. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Vijay Kumar has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run the sentences consecutively:
(2.) Shri Rajnish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is no independent eye witness. Prem Bai (PW-6) is the sister of the deceased. She is highly interested witness. Her presence at the place of occurrence is suspicious. The First Information Report was lodged belatedly. He further argued that some quarrel had taken place between the appellant and the deceased. The prosecution did not adduce any cogent and reliable evidence. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge is not sustainable and the appellant deserves to be acquitted.
(3.) Shri D.K. Gwalre, learned Government Advocate for the State/ respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Additional Session Judge do not warrant any interference by this Court.