PATI RAM URANV Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Sec. 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dtd. 30/6/2016, passed by the Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No.140/2015, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for the offences under Ss. 302, 323 (three times) and 326 of I.P.C. and sentenced as under with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_37_LAWS(CHH)11_2023_1.html</FRM>

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that as per the charge dtd. 12/1/2016 on 22/8/2015, at about 9:00 p.m., at village Ishwarpur, Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh, wife of appellant Bhanuprabha (PW-5) told the appellant not to drink Mahuwa liquor, on account of which, he became angry and assaulted his daughter Sangita Toppo (now deceased) by iron rod and axe, by which, she suffered grievous injuries and died. The appellant also assaulted his wife Bhanuprabha (PW-5), his other daughters Ku. Dipika Toppo and Ku. Sejal Toppo (PW-6) and committed the offence under Sec. 323 (three times) of I.P.C. Then, the appellant further assaulted his brother Bigna Ram Uraon (PW-7) by axe, by which he suffered grievous injuries and thereby he committed the offence under Sec. 326 of I.P.C. Thereafter, the matter was reported by Bhanuprabha (PW-5) to the police, pursuant to which, merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-29, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-28, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-19 and dead body of deceased Sangita was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. Manoj Patel (PW-1), who proved the post-mortem report Ex.P-8, in which cause of death was due to neurogenic with hemorrhagic shock as a result of skull fracture from hard and sharp object and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant Ex.P-14, axe and iron rod were seized vide Ex.P-15, which were sent for chemical examination to FSL along-with other seized articles, but the FSL report has not been brought on record. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences under Sec. 302, 323 (three times) and 326 of I.P.C. before the jurisdictional criminal court, which was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated.

(3.) In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor has exhibited any document.