KHORBAHRA Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRONOUNCED by Hon'ble Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 6th of May, 1996 passed in Sessions Trial No. 197/92 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur. By the impugned judgment, appellant- Khorbahra has been convicted u/s 302 IPC and appellant- Sadhram @ Sadhu has been convicted u/ss 302/34 IPC and both have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Deceased- Chhabidas and the 3 accused persons namely- Khorbahra (A-l), Bhuneshwar @ Bhakla (A-2) and Sadhram @ Sadhu (A-3) were residents of same village. In the intervening night of 26th - 27th of February, 1992, they planned for gambling. For gambling, they selected the premises of Mahamaya Devi Temple which was situated in the outer area of the village. The case of the prosecution is that during the course of gambling, a quarrel begun between them and the accused persons assaulted the deceased by lathi and stones. The deceased sustained multiple serious injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The incident was witnessed by Janaklal (PW-7) and Chhannu (PW-8). Janaklal (PW-7) lodged First Information Report (F.I.R. - Ex.-P/14) at 8.00 a.m. on 27.2.92. Merg intimation (Ex.-P/22) was also recorded at 8.20 a.m. Dr. D.N. Bijwe (PW-6) conducted the autopsy. He noticed multiple serious injuries, including fracture of scalp on the dead body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death was coma on account of fracture of scalp and compression of brain due to repeated blows and the death was homicidal in nature. The postï¿ 1/2mortem report is Ex.-P/12. The learned Sessions Judge relied on the testimonies, of Janaklal (PW-7) and Chhannu (PW-8) and held that it was proved that the deceased was assaulted by the above 2 appellants, received multiple serious injuries and succumbed to those injuries, therefore, the appellants were liable for punishment as above. However the 3rd accused namely- Bhuneshwar @ Bhakla (A-2) was acquitted because Chhannu (PW-8), in Para-19 of his cross-examination, could not explain the omission in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.-D/2) relating to involvement of this accused.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Arvind Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court.