GIRDHARILAL Vs. BABLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein, Girdharilal (A-2) and Bablu @ Raja (A-4) have jointly preferred Criminal Appeal No.959/2017, Vinod (A-3) has preferred Criminal Appeal No.996/2017 and Arkhito (A-5) and Rohit Manjhi (A-6) have preferred Criminal Appeal No.1617/2017 under Sec. 374(2) of Cr.P.C. calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 30/5/2017 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, in Sessions Trial No.138/2012, by which they have been convicted for the offence under Ss. 302/149 and 323/149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_74_LAWS(CHH)2_2024_1.html</FRM>

(2.) Since common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals and have been arisen from Sessions Trial No.138/2012, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

(3.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 2/5/2009, at 4:00 p.m., at Nathaldai Temple, the appellants herein in their coconut shop abused Ishwar (PW-2), Navin (PW-3), Rajkumar (PW-4), Ranjit (PW-6) and Bablu in furtherance of their common object assaulted them by hand and fists and by dangerous weapon, by which, Bablu died and caused simple injury to Ishwar (PW-2), Navin (PW-3), Rajkumar (PW-4) and Ranjit (PW-6) and also damaged the vehicle owned by Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal; thereby, the aforesaid offences have been committed. Further, case of the prosecution is that on 2/5/2009, Dilip Ratre (PW-1) had gone to Chandrahasani Temple at Chandarpur to perform the marriage of his daughter Sunita with Ashok Kumar Satnami and after completion of the marriage, he along-with others came into Mahanadi bridge and was taking coconut from the coconut shop of the appellants, then the dispute arose on account of purchasing coconut, due to which, the appellants assaulted Ishwar (PW-2), Navin (PW-3) Rajkumar (PW-4) and Ranjit (PW-6), by which, they suffered grievous injuries and on the report of complainant Dilip Kumar Ratre (PW-1), offences under Ss. 294, 506 Part-II, 323 and 427 of I.P.C. were registered against the appellants vide Ex.P-1 and the injured persons were examined vide Ex.P-36, Ex.P-38, Ex.P-40, Ex.P-42 and Ex.P-44 and during course of treatment at Raipur, Bablu died, pursuant to which, merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-35 at Police Station-Mohadapara, Raipur and dead body of deceased Bablu was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. E.K.Thakur (PW-19), who proved the post-mortem report Ex.P-51, in which, cause of death was stated to be cardio respiratory failure as a result of head injury and its complications and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of Girdharilal (A-2), wooden log was seized vide Ex.P-22, pursuant to memorandum statement of Vinod (A-3), wooden stick was seized vide Ex.P-21 and on the memorandum statement of Arkhito (A-5), wooden stick was seized vide Ex.P-23, but no FSL report has been brought on record to hold that the seized articles were stained with human blood. Furthermore, the Test Identification Parade (for short 'TIP') was conducted vide Ex.P-3, Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-9 by the Executive Magistrate A.P.S. Parihar (PW-26) in the concerned Tahsil office to identify the accused persons, as Ishwar (PW-2), Navin (PW-3), Rajkumar (PW-4) and Ranjit (PW-6) did not know the appellants herein prior to date of offence, in which, they identified the appellants as persons who have assaulted Bablu and to them also. As per the FSL report (Ex.P-65) on Article A, B and C i.e. Handkerchief of Navin (PW-3), Full-pant of Navin (PW-3) and Scarf of Ishwar (PW-2) blood was found and further on Article C i.e. Scarf of Ishwar (PW-2) human blood was found. After due investigation, the appellants were 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 appellants abjured their guilt and entered into defence stating that they have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated.