BALRAM YADAV Vs. STATAE OF CHHATTISHGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 30/6/2011 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Sarangarh (C.G.) in ST No.17/2010, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sec. 307/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.2,000.00 with default stipulation.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that P.W.-10 Santosh lodged the report (Ex-P/11) at police station Sarangarh on 19/12/2009 stating therein that on 18/12/2009 at about 7 P.M. after taking the meal his father Lakhan Lal went to the house of neighbor Sahasram Chouhan and returned at about 9 P.M. and thereafter he went to sleep in the room and he was sleeping in another room and at about 1.30 A.M. his sister namely Ku. Seema was screaming and told that somebody is assaulting his father, upon which he saw that his father was lying on the floor and one person was sitting upon him and trying to press his neck, then he gave one blow by a stick on that person as such he run away, thereafter he and his family members hospitalized his father. After investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the Magistrate concerned and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The names of the appellants are not mentioned in the FIR and due to old enmity between the appellants and the injured, the appellants have wrongly been prosecuted. The prosecution witnesses PW-5 Badrika Prasad, PW-8 Manohar Dhobhi and PW-14 Amrit Lal Yadav have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile and prior to the TIP parade, the complainant party had already identified the persons to be identified, as such the TIP has no value, but the learned Trial Court has not considered the above said aspects of the matter and has wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellants. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Panchram vs The State of Chhattisgarh and another, passed in CRA No.1078/2023, decided on 11/4/2023, Raju and another vs State of Uttarakhand, passed in CRA No.1151/2010, decided on 31/7/2024, Naushey Ali and others vs State of U.P. and another, passed in CRA No.660/2025, decided on 11/2/2025 and in the matter of Sivamani and another vs State represented by Inspector of Police, passed in CRA No.3619/2023, decided on 28/11/2023 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Pradeep Kumar Barve vs State of Chhattisgarh, passed in CRA No.839/2004, decided on 5/9/2024.