CHAINA KODAKU 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. 30/9/2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Sarguja, in Sessions Trial No. 368/ 2003, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500.00, in default of payment of fine, 1 month additional rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24/5/2003, at about 9:00 p.m. at village Ramanujganj, Ward No.13, Police Station-Ramanujganj, the appellant assaulted Budhan Kodaku (now deceased) by blunt side of axe, by which, he suffered grievous injuries and died; thereby, offence has been committed. Further case of the prosecution, is that, on 24/5/2003, at about 9:00 p.m., the appellant had gone to the house of deceased Budhan and his son-in-law Ramprasad (PW-2) to borrow sickle, which the deceased refused to give and on that account, the appellant assaulted the deceased by blunt side of the axe, by which, he suffered grievous injuries and he was admitted to the hospital and offence under Sec. 307 of I.P.C. was registered pursuant to FIR (Ex.P-1) and during course of treatment, he died in the Government Hospital, Ramanujganj. Thereafter, merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-3, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-5 and dead body was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. B.R.Ratre (PW-6), who proved the post-mortem report Ex.P-11, in which cause of death was stated to be syncope due to severe internal hemorrhage and death was homicidal in nature. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence under Sec. 302 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 6 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has not examined any witness, but has exhibited one document Ex.D-1.