KUNJBIHARI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment dated 13.8.2004 passed by 10th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 35/2004. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Kunjbihari alias Kunju has been convicted under Sections 342 and 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and 7 years, respectively and to pay fine of L 1,000, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 4 months. The jail sentences are directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: On 26.9.2003, deceased Joidha had gone to his field at Village Binauri alongwith his Advocate Shivanand Shende (PW 13). When they reached near the village at about 3 p.m. and were going to the field, the appellant abused the deceased and assaulted him with Danda, hand and fist and dragged him to his house. Shivanand Shende (PW13) went to Police Outpost Pachpedi and informed the police about the incident. Constable Santdeen (PWI 1) went to Village Binaurl alongwith Constable Kunjram Jagat and took deceased Joidha to Police Outpost Pachpedi where Joidha lodged First Information Report (Ex. P9). Deceased Joidha was sent to Primary Health Centre, Masturi for medical examination from where he was referred to District Hospital, Bilaspur. On the way, the deceased died. Intimation of his death was sent to Police Station Kotwali vide Ex. P4 where Merg Intimation (Ex.P8) was recorded. The Investigating Officer reached CIMS, Bilaspur, gave notice (Ex. P 11) to Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex. P12) on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination vide Ex. P 13. Dr. A.K. Shukla (PW1) conducted postmortem examination and gave his report (Ex. P 1), in which he found:

(3.) Shri B.M.K. Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial Court erred in recording the conviction of the appellant as there is no any iota of legal and admissible evidence against the appellant for establishing the charges against him. The conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of Shivanand Shende (PW13) and Santdeen (PW11). Their evidence is not cogent and credible, therefore, the conviction of the appellant cannot be based on their testimonies. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant are not sustainable.