DEVNATH @ BHUKHA @ RAMDEO Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Ambikapur in S.T. No. 129/2011 passed on 16/10/2014, whereby the appellants were convicted under Sec. 307/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentence with rigorous imprisonment of ten years along with fine of Rs.1000.00 each.

(2.) The case of prosecution is, that on 24/11/2010 at about 5 p.m. near Changori crusher, under Police Station, Dhourpur, District Ambikapur complainant Abhishek Singh (PW-3) was on his way to home when appellants and juvenile Jagdev Lal stopped him on the way, thereafter appellant Devnath by using an axe assaulted Abhishek Singh with intention to commit murder on his neck causing injury and also causing injury on the left side of the face. Complainant felt unconscious and was taken to the District Hospital, Ambikapur. His brother Sanket Singh (PW-2) lodged information un-numbered vide (Ex.P/5) with the officer of Police Station, Ambikapur in the Hospital and on its basis later on numbered FIR (Ex.P/9) was recorded for the offence under Sec. 341 and 307 of IPC against Devnath @ Bhukha. Investigation was carried out in which seizure of blood stained and plain soil from the spot was made vide (Ex.P/3). Spot map (Ex. P/4) was prepared. Complainant was medically examined. One spot map made by the Patwari was also prepared. At the instance of appellant Devnath vide memorandum statement (Ex.P/1), one axe was recovered and seized from the possession of Devnath vide (Ex.P/2). Seized articles were sent for Forensic Science Laboratory Examination and report (Ex.P/29) was obtained, according to which the presence of blood stains were confirmed on axe seized from the appellant Devnath. Seized axe was also examined by Dr. Ravi Soni (PW-6) in which he has reported vide (Ex.P/7), that the injuries found on Abhishek Singh can be possibly caused by this axe. Statement of witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation appellants were charge-sheeted. Juvenile Jagdev was charge-sheeted before the Juvenile Justice Board.

(3.) Appellants were charged under Sec. 341, 506 B and 307/34 of IPC. On denial of charge trial was conducted and impugned judgment was passed by which appellants have been acquitted under Sec. 341 and 506 B of IPC, but have been convicted under the remaining charged offence and sentenced as mentioned above.