SAI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused/appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.PC, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14-12-2000 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar, Camp : Jagdalpur in S.T. No. 90/2000 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000.00in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one year.

(2.) The relevant prosecution story for the disposal of this criminal appeal is that on 12th August, 1999, at about 7.00 p.m., accused Sai came to the house of deceased Bannuram and started quarrelling in connection with some land dispute and he assaulted the deceased by piercing the arrow in the stomach of the deceased. On receiving the report, the Station House Officer, Barsur, registered a case and started investigation and got Bannuram medically examined. Injured Bannuram was admitted in the hospital and during the treatment Bannuram succumbed to the injuries, therefore, the post-mortem of the dead-body of Bannuram was conducted by Dr. Vijay Thakur. After the post-mortem, he prepared the report (Ex. P-l). The accused was arrested and in pursuance to the information given by the accused (Ex. P-4), the arrow was recovered at the instance of the accused through Ex. P-2. After completion of the investigation, a challan was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

(3.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge under Section 302 of IPC. The Accused denied the charge. The prosecution, in order to prove the offence against the accused examined five witnesses. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded in which he denied the statements of the prosecution witnesses and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the public prosecutor and the Counsel for the accused convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant by the impugned judgment as mentioned above.