GAUKARAN ALIAS PHUSAKU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused/appellants have preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19th February, 2000, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appellants guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and further each one of them was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The relevant facts for the disposal of this criminal appeal are that on 18th April, 2000, Suresh Kumar gave a merg intimation to the Police Station, Lohara stating that he is the resident of Village Dhangan, his brother Sukhdev is residing separately with his wife and children in the village, he is constructing his house on a land allotted to him under the Indira Awas Yojana and in the night he used to sleep in the house where he is constructing the new house. In the night of 17th April, 2000 after taking dinner Sukhdev went for sleeping in his newly constructing house. On the next day morning Durjan Kurmi came and informed Suresh Kumar that Sukhdev is sleeping in the new house and he is not getting up. On this, Suresh Kumar along with Durjan, Amol and Gaukaran went to the site and saw that Sukhdev was lying on the cot, there was a sign of injury on his neck and he is lying dead on the cot. It has been stated in the merg intimation given by Suresh Kumar that how Sukhdev has died he does not know. The police received this merg intimation through Ex. P-24 and based on this report, the Station House Officer of Police Station, Lohara proceeded on the site and got the dead-body of Sukhdev medically examined. The post-mortem was conducted by Dr. R.K. Bhaorya and he prepared the post-mortem report (Ex. P-16). During the investigation the S.H.O. Shri Ajay Mishra prepared the Naksha Panchayatnama through Ex. P-2, the site plan through Ex. P-3 and the Panchanama of the dead-body of Sukhdev through (Ex. P-4). He arrested accused appellants Gaukaran and Ramkaran and in the police custody accused/appellant No. 1 Gaukaran gave the information (Ex. P-9) and pursuant to that information the accused got recovered one Sabbal through (Ex. P-10 and Ex. P-12). The chappals of accused/appellant No. 2 Ramkaran were also recovered and got identified through Ex. P-11. The accused/appellant No. 2 Ramkaran also gave the information under Section .27 of the Evidence Act through Ex. P-19. The First Information Report (Ex. P-21) was registered. After investigation, the challan was filed against the accused/appellants for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused/appellants under Section 302 of the IPC. The accused/appellants denied the charges. The prosecution in order to prove the offence against the accused/appellants examined in all 12 witnesses. The statement of the accused persons were recorded in which they denied the statements of the prosecution witnesses and after hearing the Counsel for the accused/appellants and the Public Prosecutor, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the impugned judgment.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.