LAWS(CHH)-2015-1-88

JANOHAR LODHI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Decided On January 19, 2015
Janohar Lodhi Appellant
V/S
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises from judgment dated 17.11.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli in Sessions Trial No. 328/1999. The Appellant stands convicted under Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in the event of failure to pay which, he was required to undergo six months further rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) In an occurrence on 22.6.1999 at about 11.45 a.m, in the common courtyard of the Appellant and the deceased Manohar who was his own brother, the First Information Report, Exhibit P-2 was lodged by the Kotwar Budhram Das, PW-1 stating that the Appellant came to him and informed that in a dispute between him and his brother with regard to construction of a drain in the common courtyard, he had assaulted the deceased who had died. The witness went to his house. The deceased was lying on the ground. The Inquest report was marked Exhibit P-6 proved by Shiv Ram Bhagat, PW-13, the A.S.I. Postmortem of the deceased was done within 36 hours by Dr. M.T. Minz, PW-12 marked Exhibit P-11. There was a lacerated wound on occipital region of skull measuring 10 cms x 12 cms with fracture of the occipital bone and the brain matter was coming out from the wound with intracerebral hemorrhage. The Doctor had opined that death was caused due to shock and internal brain hemorrhage due to antimortem head injury leading to fracture of skull and intracerebral hemorrhage.

(3.) The Appellant was taken into custody, his memorandum was marked as Exhibit P-8 witnessed by Mohan Das, PW-10 and Tekram, PW-11. The Spade used for the assault recovered on basis of the same marked as Exhibit P-9 was witnessed by Mohan Das, PW-10 and Tekram, PW-11. The clothes of the Appellant were seized by the police witnessed by Budhram Das, PW-1 marked Exhibit P-3. The FSL report Exhibit P-17 has confirmed the presence of blood on the spade and the clothes of the Appellant. He has offered no explanation with regard to the latter.