RAMVRIKSH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Sec. 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment dtd. 19/2/2014 passed by the Special Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), in Special Sessions Trial No.121/2009, whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant herein for offences under Sec. 302 of the IPC and under Ss. 25(1-B) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter called as 'Arms Act') and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months, R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.500.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.500.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25/9/2008 at 3 p.m. at village Kumhaiyapat, Police Station Chando the appellant herein caused death of Sohna Uraon by gun shot injury and thereby committed the offence. It is further case of the prosecution that wife of deceased Sohna namely Julan (not examined) absconded with the appellant herein eloping with him and were staying in the house of Sandhuwa Korwa situated at pahar (mountain). On 27/9/2008 Dhani Ram (PW-3) informed to deceased Sohna Uraon that the accused and his wife Julan were in mountain nearby forest, then deceased Sohna and Dhaniram both went to the spot where the accused and the deceased's wife Julan were present and staying therein, the deceased asked his wife to accompany him, but the accused / appellant said that he will take her and reach to village along with Julan, on that promise given by the appellant, the appellant herein and Julan proceeded for their village and thereafter the deceased and Dhaniram (PW-3) were also returning for their village, on the way near Kumhaiyapat Dhaniram (PW-3) stayed for answering the call of nature and deceased Sohna proceeded further for his village and thereafter Dhaniram heard noise of gun-shot injury, then he has reached to the spot and found Sohna lying dead on the floor and gun shot injury was made by the appellant herein. Dhaniram reached to the village and informed to Kotwar Dubraj and other villagers about the incident and thereafter he and Kotwar Dubraj, Mangala and Vrikshram Uraon came to the spot and brought dead body of deceased Sohna Ram to the Police Station Chando and pursuant to the report of Namar Sai (PW-4) on 28/9/2008, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-9. Merg was also recorded vide Ex.P-10. Dead body of deceased Sohna was sent for postmortem to Community Health Center, Kusmi, where Dr.Pramod Kumar Sinha (PW-10) conducted postmortem over the body of the deceased and opined that cause of death was hemorrhage and shock due to injury to lungs and head by bullet and death was homicidal in nature. His postmortem report is Ex.P-14. Spot map was prepared by investigating officer vide Ex.P-2. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. On 2/12/2008 Head Constable Lalit Ram Bhagat (PW-1) seized sealed packet (Ex.P-1) in which one bullet taken out from the body of the deceased was there and the appellant was arrested on 19/8/2009 vide Ex.P-8 and as per his memorandum statement (Ex.P-6), country-made pistol was recovered from Kachra Chawari para jungle. Explosive and cracker were also seized vide Ex.P-7 and were sent to armourer and report of armourer is Ex.P-17. The appellant was charge-sheeted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramanujganj, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Surguja (Ambikapur) for trial in accordance with law.

(3.) In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents Exs.P-1 to P-17. Statement of the accused/appellant under Sec. 313 of the CrPC was recorded, in which he denied guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed the offence and he has falsely been implicated in offence in question. However, the accused examined none in his defence.