RAMCHARAN ALIAS CHARAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the accused is directed against the judgment dated 30-1-2003 delivered by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Mungeli, in Sessions Trial No.370/2001, whereby he convicted both the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year, and to undergo RI for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months, respectively.

(2.) The prosecution story is that on 12-7-2001, Goukaran (deceased) left his home after taking dinner. He did not return. His body was found on the morning of 15th July, 2001 and on the same day, the Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-29 was prepared. Thereafter, merg intimation Ex.P-27 and spot map Ex.P-28 were prepared and on the basis of these documents, FIR Ex.P-29A was recorded. The Dehati Nalishi was lodged at the instance of Sevakram (PW-3) and FIR was lodged on the basis of this Dehati Nalishi. In these documents, it is mentioned that on the night intervening 12th & 13th July, 2001, it was raining heavily and therefore the thatched roof of the hut of the deceased, where he used to reside with his parents and wife, was leaking and the father heard the groaning sounds of the deceased coming from the house of Ramcharan. However, since he is old and cannot see, he did not make any efforts to get up and trace his son. In the morning, Hemvati Bai (PW-5) wife of Goukaran also reported that Goukaran had not returned during the night. It is also stated that when Baburam (PW-1) father of the deceased and Narmadiya Bai (PW-2) mother of the deceased went out looking for the deceased, wife of accused Ramesh was standing in the street beside their house and she informed that her husband has come back early in the morning and they should ask him if he has seen Goukaran. Then Baburam (PW-1) and Narmadiya Bai (PW-2) went to Ramesh who told them that he was in the house of Ram Prasad and was watching TV. They then went to the house of Ram Prasad. He informed them that neither Ramesh nor Goukaran had come to his house to watch TV. Then they again went back to the house of Ramesh and this time Ramesh told them that he was watching TV in the house of Geeta Mandal. Then they went to the house of Geeta Mandal and enquired about their son Goukaran whereupon Geeta Mandal informed them that neither Ramesh nor Goukaran has come to his house to watch TV as he did not have TV and therefore the question of watching TV in his house did not arise.

(3.) After recording of FIR, investigation was conducted and after completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 173 of the CrPC was filed against the accused as they were alleged to have murdered deceased Goukaran and also disposed of his body to conceal the evidence of his murder. After trial, they have been convicted and hence this appeal.