DALLI @ DALGEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.11.2012 passed by the Special Judge {Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989}, Korea (Baikunthpur) in Special S.T.No.11/09 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC on two counts and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulations respectively on each count.

(2.) As per prosecution case, in the intervening night 12-13th March, 2009 the appellant committed murder of Rajkumar and Rajkishore, who were the employees of liquor shop ('kjkc Hk h) by causing injuries with Kripan (a small sword-like weapon). The incident was witnessed by PW-3 Shyam, PW-4 Arvind Soni and PW-9 Devnath Pathak, however, in the Court PW-3 and PW-4 turned hostile and only PW-9 supported the prosecution case. At the instance of Rakesh Dubey (PW-19) FIR (Ex.P/31) was registered on 13.3.2009. Immediately thereafter merg intimations (Exs.P/33 and P/34) were also registered by the police. Inquest over the dead bodies of Rajkumar and Rajkishore were prepared vide Exs.P/8 & P/10. Dead bodies of Rajkishore and Rajkumar were sent for postmortem which was conducted by PW-11 RR Gajbhiye vide Exs.P/16 & P/17, who noticed numbered of injuries on their bodies and opined the cause of death to be hemorrhagic shock due to antimortem injuries and that the death was homicidal in nature. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and as deceased Rajkishore belonged to scheduled caste, in addition to charge under Section 302 IPC on two counts, charge under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short "the Act") was also framed against the accused/appellant.

(3.) So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses. Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.