BAKHRU RAM 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. 4/8/2016, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, in Sessions Trial No. R- 07/2015, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Sec. 4 and 5 of C.G. Tonhi Pratadna Niwaran Adhiniyam, 2005 and under Sec. 450 and 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_4_LAWS(CHH)2_2024_1.html</FRM>

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10/8/2014, at 4:30 p.m., at village Surbena, Police Station- Kusmi, the appellant herein trespassed into the house of complainant Phoolchand and assaulted his mother-in-law Roji Bai (now deceased) by Basula, by which, she suffered grievous injuries and died; thereby, the offence has been committed. The matter was reported to the police by the son-in-law of deceased Phoolchand (PW-1), pursuant to which, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-1, Merg Intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-2, Nazari naksha was prepared vide Ex.P-5, Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-7 and dead body of deceased Roji Bai was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. B.K.Bhagat (PW-10), who proved the post-mortem report (Ex.P-11A), in which, cause of death was stated to be hemorrhagic shock and coma due to rupture of brain and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant Ex.P-8, Basula was recovered vide Ex.P-9, but there is no FSL report brought on record. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences 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 10 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has not examined any witness, but has exhibited the document Ex.D-1.