VIJAY KUMAR AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment dated 30 -3 -1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti in Sessions Trial No. 459/1992. By the impugned judgment, accused persons/appellants Vijay Kumar and Rajimbai have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Case of the prosecution, In brief, is as under:

(2.) SHRI Subhash Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that there is no independent eye -witness. Narendra Kumar (PW -1) is grand son, Sumitrabai (PW -2) is daughter -in -law, Soni Bai (PW -3) is widow and Bahadur (PW -6) is son of the deceased. They are relatives and highly interested witnesses. There evidence can -not be accepted. He further argued that Amarnath (PW -12) is not reliable witness. His presence at the place of occurrence is suspicious. The prosecution did not adduce any cogent and reliable evidence. He further argued that according to the prosecution initially a quarrel took place between the deceased and appellant Vijay Kumar. The place of occurrence is in front of the house of the appellants. Presence of appellant Rajimbal at the place of occurrence Is natural. Mere presence of the appellant Rajimbai Is not sufficient to draw Inference for common Intention. Prosecution did not establish that there was any common intention of appellant Vijay Kumar and Rajimbai to assault the deceased. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC is not sustainable.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the record of Sessions Trial No. 459/1992. The conviction of the appellants is based on the testimonies of Narendra Kumar (PW -1), Sumitrabai (PW -2), Soni Bai (PW -3) and Amarnath (PW -12).