GOVERDHAN SINGH GOND Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal preferred by the accuse/appellant under Sec. 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dtd. 27/2/2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba in ST No.59/2018 by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under Sec. 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 18/7/2018 at about 3 pm the appellant caused the death of Pardeshi by assaulting him with hands, fists and club and thereby committed the offence. Further case of the prosecution is that on 18/7/2018 complainant Santram (PW-1) and the deceased had gone to their field for the purpose of ploughing and at around 2.45 pm they were returning to their home. Meanwhile, the appellant and his wife were quarrelling in front of their house, on which they asked the appellant not to quarrel, whereupon the appellant's wife had gone somewhere else. Thereafter the complainant and the deceased had come to the house of Jaikaran (not examined by the prosecution) and immediately thereafter the appellant came to the house of Jaikaran and asked the whereabouts of his wife, on which they (i.e. complainant and the deceased) informed the appellant that they were not aware as to where she has gone. Thereafter the appellant assaulted the deceased by hands, fists and club, as a result the deceased fell unconscious. The deceased was brought to the hospital where he died. Merg intimation was registered in the Police Station Katghora vide Ex.-P/1. During enquiry, Panchanama was prepared and on the recommendation of the Panchas, the dead body was sent to the CHC, Katghora for postmortem examination, which was conducted by (PW-6) Dr. G.S. Kanwar, who gave his report (Ex.-P/10) and opined that the cause of death was internal haemorrhage of brain. Thereafter the appellant was arrested and on memorandum statement of the appellant, the club was seized, however, the same was not sent for FSL examination. The appellant was arrested for offence under Sec. 302 of the IPC and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

(3.) In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents. The appellant has abjured his guilt and examined two witnesses in his defence namely, Santram Gond and Kansram Gond, whose statements have been recorded vide Ex.-D/1 and D/2.