AMILAL BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Sec. 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 7/8/2013 passed in Sessions Trial No.74/2012 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) by which the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_45_LAWS(CHH)7_2023_1.html</FRM>

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 28/2/2012 at 11:30 AM at village Khamhar Pakut the appellant assaulted deceased Lalit Ram Bhagat (hereinafter called as deceased) by a Spade (Farsa), by which, the deceased suffered grievous injuries, resulting into his instantaneous death.

(3.) Further case of the prosecution is that on 28/2/2012, the appellant, deceased, P.W.1 Pradhan Rathia and P.W.2 Bhagat Ram were celebrating Guniyai Pooja, a local festival, near Pakut Dam, in which, they have organised party and pursuant to which, they were taking bath including deceased. All of sudden, the appellant herein came there armed with Spade and assaulted deceased behind the neck, on account of which, the deceased suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the same, the information of which has been sent to Lailunga Police Station and on the basis of which, Merg intimation was recorded by the complainant Bhagat Ram vide Ex.P.1. F.I.R. was lodged vide Ex.P.2. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.14. After completion of inquest proceedings vide Ex.P.18, dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination vide Ex.P.4A to Community Health Center, Lailunga, where Dr. Yogeshwar Singh Sarathia (P.W.4) conducted post-mortem vide Ex.P.4 and opined that the deceased died as a result of Haemorrhagic and spinal shock on account of incised wound over neck by a hard and sharp object and death was homicidal in nature. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P.7 and at the behest of the appellant, weapon of offence used in crime in question was recovered vide Ex.P.8. Vest of the deceased contained with bloodstains was seized vide Ex.P.9 and vide Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11, plain soil and bloodstained soil as also cloths of the appellant were seized. Seized articles were sent for examination to F.S.L. vide Ex.P.22, but no F.S.L. report has been brought on record. The appellant was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P.12. A query report has been obtained vide Ex.P.5, in which, Dr. Yogeshwar Singh Sarathiya (P.W.4) opined that the injury found on the neck of the deceased could have been caused by this weapon.