RAMESHWAR Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment dated 20 -9 -2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 407/ 2006. By the impugned judgment, accused persons/appellants Rameshwar and Sanwat have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner, with a direction to run the sentences of appellant Rameshwar concurrently:

(2.) MISS Sharmila Singhai, learned counsel for the appellants argued that Amrikabai (PW -1) is wife of the deceased. She is highly interested witness. Her evidence is not reliable. She further argued that in Merg Intimation (Ex. P -1), overt act of appellant Sanwat is not mentioned. She further argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the appellants shared common intention to commit murder of the deceased. There is no clinching and reliable evidence against the appellants. She further argued that according to the prosecution, initially the quarrel took place between the deceased and appellant Rameshwar and appellant Rameshwar assaulted the deceased. Therefore, it is established that there was no any common intention on the part of appellant Sanwat to assault the deceased. Mere presence of appellant Sanwat at the place of occurrence is not sufficient to connect him with the crime in question. Therefore, conviction of appellant Sanwat under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC is not sustainable. She further argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove the ingredients of offence under Section 450 IPC. The evidence of Amrikabai (PW -1) cannot be based for conviction. Therefore, appellant Rameshwar also cannot be convicted under Sections 450, 302/34 and 323 IPC. Hence, the appellants deserve to be acquitted.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record of Sessions Trial No. 407/2006. The conviction of the appellants is based on the evidence of Amrikabai (PW -1) and Nawal Kishore (PW -2).