RAJENDRA TOPPO Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal preferred by the appellants under Sec. 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dtd. 30/6/2016, passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No. 56/2015, by which, the appellants herein have been convicted for the offences under Ss. 302 and 323 read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently for appellant No.1.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15/2/2015, at about 9:30 p.m., the appellants No.1 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention started quarreling with Dataram and assaulted him by hand and fist and wooden stick and in order to intervene Anchal Uraon and Aitwaru Uraon came there and then the appellant No.1 is said to have assaulted Aitwaru Uraon by wooden stick, by which, he suffered injuries and he was escorted to District Hospital, Raigarh from where he was referred to Gourav Hospital Bilaspur where he died on 21/2/2015. The matter was reported to the police, pursuant to which, merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-20, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-25 and Ex.P-30, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-2 and dead body of deceased Aitwari Uraon was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. A.K.Kaushik (PW-21), who proved the post-mortem report Ex.P-42, in which, cause of death was stated to be coma due to head injury. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant Ex.P-4, wooden stick was seized vide Ex.P-10, which was sent for chemical examination to FSL and as per the FSL report Ex.P-48, no blood was found. After due investigation, appellants were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences under Ss. 302 and 323/34 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 appellants abjured their guilt and entered into defence stating that they have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated.

(3.) At the outset, Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that he would not like to press the appeal of appellants No.2 to 4 as they have been only convicted for offence under Sec. 323/34 of I.P.C. and they have already served the sentence. In that view of the matter, the appeal of appellants No.2 to 4 are dismissed as not pressed. Now, it is the appeal of appellant No.1 only, which is being considered.