RAJA @ MOHANLAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.101/2011 passed on 31/12/2012, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 394/397 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.250/-, under Section 450 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years along with fine of Rs. 250/- with default stipulation.

(2.) The case of prosecution is this, that Kishanchand Wadhvani (PW-1) lodged FIR Ex.P/1 on 21/02/2011 at 22.20 p.m., in Police Station City Kotwali, that at 9.20 p.m. in the same night his wife informed him on telephone, that appellant came to their house and by putting a knife on her neck demanded money and gold jewellary, then using same knife appellant injured Kavita Wadhvani (PW-6) and Khushbu Wadhvani (PW-12). Complainants were admitted for treatment in hospital of Dr. Ghosh. It was reported, that jewellary worth Rs. 7 Lakhs were looted. In the investigation spot map Ex.P/2 was prepared. Blood stained clothes of the injured was seized vide Ex.P/3 and blood stains from the spot were preserved. Articles a pair of slippers, bed sheet were seized vide Ex.P/6. Injured Kavita Wadhvani was medically examined vide Ex.P/7 by Dr. Sumit Ghosh (PW-9) and Khushbu Wadhvani (PW-12) was also medically examined by Dr. Sumit Ghosh. Appellant was apprehended at 2 a.m. before morning of 22/02/2011 in Railway Station, Pendraroad and from his possession the jeweleries of gold, clothes on the body of appellant whichwere blood stained and one blood stained knife, all these articles were seized vide Ex.P/5. On completion of investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted.

(3.) Appellant was charged under Section 394 read with Section 397 of IPC and Section 450 of IPC. Appellant denied the charges and demanded for trial. Prosecution examined 14 witnesses. On examination under Section 313 of CrPC, appellant has denied all the circumstances against him in the prosecution evidence and has taken this defence, that he had love affair with Khushbu Wadhvani, daughter of complainant, due to which he has been falsely implicated. No witness was examined in defence.