RAJESH SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 6/8/2024 passed by the learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Mungeli in ST No.49/2011, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:-

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17/7/2011, the main accused Rajesh, the present appellant along with other coaccused persons Baliram, Bhupesh, Gayaram, Dayaram and Mahesh Sahu assaulted the deceased Devendra Sahu and the injured Goverdhan with club, stick and shot gun fire on them, as a result of which Devendra Sahu died, whereas Goverdhan received severe injuries, thereafter the matter was reported to the police station concerned and after investigation, the accused persons were arrested, whereas the present appellant and the co-accused Mahesh Sahu were absconding at the time of filing charge sheet by the police before the Magistrate concerned. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial court is bad in law as well as facts available on record. There is delay in lodging the FIR and the FIR was lodged against 4 accused persons, whereas final report was filed naming 6 accused persons improving the story. Dehatinalisi (Ex-P/14) is said to have been drawn at school as deposed by K. K. Sahu, Investigating Officer, but according to PW-8, it was drawn at the alleged place of occurrence. There is no memorandum under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act with regard to seizure of 12 bore gun at the instance of the co-accused Baliram from his house. The gun was never produced before the Trial Court nor it was sent for conducting forensic test. He further submits that there are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of Goverdhan Sahu (PW-2) and the eye witness Punit Ram Dhruw was also not examined. The wife of Goverdhan namely Anita (PW-1) stated that her husband Goverdhan, Devendra and Komal had gone to the field and on being informed by Punaram (PW-8), she went to the place of occurrence, whereas she did not name Punit Ram in her statement, who according to Goverdhan, was also accompanied Goverdhan. She also did not name the present appellant that he shot gun fire, whereas the Goverdhan stated that the present appellant shot gun fire, as such the statements of both these witnesses are contradictory.