DHARAM PAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26-6-2008 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koria in Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2007 convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and to undergo RI for five years and pay a fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations respectively.

(2.) In the present case, name of the deceased is Gopal. It is alleged that on 1-5-2007 the accused/appellant consumed liquor along with deceased Gopal and then committed his murder by strangulation. After committing murder of the deceased, he picked up the dead body of the deceased on his shoulder and threw the same behind the house of the deceased beneath the Mango tree. On 2-5-2007 at 8.30 pm., Merg intimation (Ex.P/11) was lodged by the appellant informing the Police that he saw the dead body of the deceased beneath the Mango tree and some-body had killed him. Inquest on the dead body was conducted on 3-5-2007 vide Ex.P/7 and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem which was conducted on 4-5-2007 by Dr. Rajeev Kumar Raman (PW/9) vide Ex.P/9 and according to autopsy surgeon, cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia due to strangulation. It has been opined by the autopsy surgeon that death was homicidal in nature. On the basis of merg enquiry, first information report (Ex.P/13) was registered on 6-5-2007 under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC against unknown person. On 8-5-2007 memorandum of the accused/appellant (Ex.P/2) was recorded, based on which seizure of Tong (Sandshi) was made whereas vide Ex.P/4 club was seized and vide Ex.P/5 plastic shoe allegedly belonging to the deceased was seized. As per identification memo (Ex.P/6), the said plastic shoe was identified by the wife of the deceased to be of the deceased. During investigation, it was noticed by the Police that to save himself, the appellant had given a different story of the murder of the deceased by saying everywhere that the deceased was killed by the Naxalite. However, Police reached the conclusion that it is the accused/appellant who killed the deceased. After filing of charge sheet, the trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC against the appellant.

(3.) So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses in all. 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.