YASHWANT BAGHEL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against impugned judgment dated 13-3- 2013 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocity), North Bastar, Kanker in Special Sessions Case No. 106/2010, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_78_LAWS(CHH)1_2023_1.html</FRM>

(2.) Case of the prosecution in brief is that, in the intervening night of 1/2/7/2010, when deceased Devendra Pudo was sleeping in the house of Rajendra Sahu (appellant No. 3) at village Murdonda, he was kidnapped by some unknown masked men at about 23.30 hours in the night. On subsequent days, on being searched he could not be traced, hence on 5/7/2010, FIR Ex. P-7 under Sec. 365/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as'IPC') was lodged by Rohit Kumar (P.W. 2), against 4 unknown persons. Subsequently, on 7/7/2010, Balkrishna Baghel, juvenile in conflict with law, stated in front of villagers that in the fateful night he along with appellants (excluding Rajendra Sahu) kidnapped the deceased from the house of accused Rajendra Sahu (appellant No. 3), took him to Kusum Dahra Kotri river, where they killed deceased Devendra Pudo and thrown his body. On being searched by villagers, dead body of Devendra Pudo was found in the bank of the river. Thereafter, Merg Ex. P-1 was lodged by Mishrilal (P.W. 1) in PS Pakhanjur.

(3.) Charges under Ss. 148, 364, 120-B, 302/149 of the IPC were framed against the appellants. Charge under Sec. 3(ii)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1985 was also framed against accused Yashwant Baghel, Rajendra Baghel and Rajendra Sahu. Appellants abjured their guilt. Prosecution in order to bring home the guilt, examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 35 documents. Statements under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. of the accused persons were recorded, in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them. In defence, they examined two witnesses.