NARAYAN RAUT Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 30/1/2020 passed in Sessions Trial No.05/2018 by the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that both the accused persons Narayan Raut and Ashok Yadav and the deceased persons Lalaram and Leelabai are related to each other. The deceased persons Lalaram and Leelabai used to stay in a hutment situated over the agricultural land at village Suarmal. On 16/8/2017 when P.W.1 Haslekh went to his field, he saw that entire hutment has been burnt wherein Lalaram and Leelabai used to stay. Accordingly, after it was found that both Lalaram and Leelabai have died of burn injuries, it was intimated to the Police and the merg was registered vide Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. The dead bodies were subjected to post-mortem and initially though it was apprehended that the incident of fire took place due to short circuit of the electricity but it was found to be incorrect and the death was due to burn injuries. Against the unknown person, case was registered under Sec. 302 and 201 of IPC and during investigation, appellants Narayan Raut and Ashok Yadav were apprehended and on their memorandum statements (Ex.P.20 and Ex.P.21), the wooden club was recovered vide Ex.P.25. During investigation, Police collected the evidence with respect to the mobile location of Narayan Raut, which was situated near the tower where the vicinity of the hutment was there and incident took place there. After recording the entire statements and collection of other documentary evidence, the charge-sheet was filed.

(3.) During the course of trial, the appellants abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution on its behalf examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 71 documents. The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of evidence placed before it, convicted and sentenced the appellants based on the circumstantial evidence. Hence, this appeal.