ARJUN Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against judgment dated 26 -09 -2007 passed by Second Additional Session Judge, Balodabazar, District Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 17/2007. By the impugned judgment, accused persons/appellants Arjun, Lalaram @ Bhagat and Padumlal have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner. <IMG>JUDGEMENT_67_CGLJ1_2014.jpg</IMG>

(2.) CASE of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: - On 19.11.2006 at about 9.45 AM, deceased Ayodhya Prasad @ Rahasu had gone to his field alongwith Bajrang Manjhi (PW -1), Borri Verma (PW -2), Gilli Raout (PW -7) and Makunda Raout (PW -8). The deceased was cutting a tree with the help of above persons and at that time, the appellants came in the field and they stopped the deceased and his labour from cutting the tree. Deceased Ayodhya Prasad told the appellants that he was owner of the tree, therefore, he was cutting the tree. Some quarrel took place between them. The appellants assaulted the deceased with chaku and stone. The deceased fell down and sustained injuries on his head. His brain material came out. He was taken to Bilaspur for treatment, but, he died on the way near Mahanadi Bridge. Shivprasad (PW -6), brother of the deceased lodged First Information Report (Ex.P -18) and Merg Intimation (Ex.P -17) in Police Outpost Gidhouri. Thereafter, regular FIR (Ex.P -16) was recorded in Police Station Bilaigarh. Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence, gave notice (Ex.P -10) to panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.P. -11) on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent to Community Health Centre, Biliagarh for post mortem examination vide Ex.P 25. The postmortem was conducted by Dr. Hamath Verma (PW -12). He gave his report (Ex.P -26), finding (i) lacerated wound 6 cm x 1 cm x bone deep present on eyebrow, bone was fractured and blood was oozing out (ii) incised wound, 17 cm x 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm below the jaw (iii) incised wound, 7cm x 0.25 cm x skin deep on chin (iv) incised wound, 7 cm x 3 cm x skin deep on forehead (v) incised wound, 6 cm x 1 cm x skin deep on the right side of the forehead (vi) incised wound, 8 cm x 1 cm x 8 cm on the middle of the head and bone was fractured (vii) incised wound, 13 cm x 4 cm x 8 cm over right parieto region and bone was fractured (viii) incised wound, 8 cm x 0.5 cm x 4 cm over right temporal region and (ix) incised wound, 2 cm x 1 cm x skin deep over occipital region. He opined that the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to head injuries and the death was homicidal in nature. In further investigation, blood stained soil and plain soil were seized from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P -8. Memorandum statement of appellant Lalaram @ Bhagat was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex.P -1. At his instance, iron katta (cutting object) was seized vide Ex.P -2. Memorandum statement of appellant Arjun was recorded vide Ex.P -3. At his instance, Gandasa was seized vide Ex.P -4. Memorandum statement of appellant Padumlal was recored under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex.P -5. At his instance, stone was seized vide Ex.P -6. Sando baniyan and full -pant of appellant Lalaram @ Bhagat were seized vide Ex.P -7. Spot map (Ex.P. -9) was prepared by Investigating Officer Deenbandhu Uikey (PW -10). Seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for chemical examination vide Ex.P -23. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class Balodabazar, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Raipur, from where it was received on transfer by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District Raipur, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri Sandeep Yadav, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge do not warrant any interference by this Court.