FALIRAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 25/9/2012 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Sessions Trial No.167 of 2010, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

(2.) Name of deceased, in this case, is Rupandas. He was a resident of Village Namna. According to the case of prosecution, the Appellant is a resident of Village Ghunchapur. Both the Appellant and the deceased were working as devari (Jhadphoonk). Few days prior to 3/2/2010, i.e., the date of incident, the Appellant and the deceased went to the house of Aghnu (PW5) and his wife Suhanobai (PW6) at Village Lalati for some devari work. Thereafter, on 3/2/2010, both again went to the house of Aghnu (PW5) and Suhanobai (PW6). At that time, Aghnu (PW5) was not present at the house and his wife Suhanobai (PW6) was alone at the house. After doing some devari work at the house of the above witnesses, both the Appellant and the deceased left their house. Before 3/2/2010, when the Appellant and the deceased had visited their house, at that time, the deceased had forgotten his umbrella 's iron rod there, which he collected from there on 3/2/2010. Thereafter, the deceased did not reach back his house. On 5/2/2010, his dead body was found near the drainage of Village Rikhi. Near his dead body, one coconut and his umbrella 's iron rod were also found. Son of the deceased Bechandas (PW1) lodged morgue intimation (Ex.P1). Inquest proceedings (Ex.P5) was conducted. Post mortem examination over the dead body was conducted by Dr. A.R. Jayant (PW15) on 5/2/2010 itself. His report is Ex.P13 in which he opined that cause of the death was asphyxia, nature of the death was homicidal and the death took place 50-52 hours before the post mortem examination. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Sec. 161 of the Cr.P.C. Disclosure statement (Ex.P8) of the Appellant under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act was also recorded. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The Trial Court framed the charge.

(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses. In examination under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellant denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. No witness was examined in his defence.