SUNDER LAL YADAV 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. 11/3/2015, passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar Dantewada, in Sessions Trial No.257/2013, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Ss. 302 and 449 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_50_LAWS(CHH)7_2023_1.html</FRM>

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22/8/2013 at about 11:00 a.m. at village Nagfani, Patelpara, Police Station- Barsur, District Dantewada, appellant tress-passed in the house of his elder brother Gourilal (now deceased) and assaulted him by knife, by which he suffered grievous injuries and died; thereby, offences have been committed. Further case of the prosecution is that there was a domestic dispute between appellant and deceased (both reals brothers) on account of which, on the fateful day, appellant herein tress-passed the house of deceased and assaulted him by knife, which was witnessed by Saraswati (PW-1), who informed the incident to Bucky (PW-9), Shankar Lal (PW-5) and Vishnu Kashyap (PW-3) and thereafter, the matter was reported to the Police Station- Barsur and FIR was registered vide Ex.D-1, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-3 and dead body was sent for post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr.Sudama Das (PW-8), who proved the post-mortem report Ex.P-13, in which cause of death was due to excessive bleeding due to external and internal injuries and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant Ex.P-4, knife was seized vide Ex.P-5, which was sent for examination to FSL and in the FSL report, blood was found on the seized knife. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence to the jurisdictional criminal court and the case 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 9 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has not examined any witness but has exhibited the documents Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5.