BAISAKHU RAM RAWATE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 24-12-2013 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in S.T. No. 40 of 2012 convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Ramdayal (PW-10) was sleeping in his agricultural field while guarding his crops on 02-05-2012. At about 12-00 in the night, the appellant who happened to be brother of the complainant came to the spot armed with a trident and assaulted the complainant on his abdomen and the elbow of left hand. Complainant raised alarm. On arrival of the witnesses on the spot, the appellant ran away. FIR (Ex. P-13) was lodged by Ramdayal Rawte in Police Station Manpur, District Rajnandgaon. An offence was registered under Section 324 of the IPC against the appellant. Ramdayal (PW-10) was medically examined by Doctor Mohan Tikam (PW-11). Vide his report Ex. P-11, stab injuries were found on the abdomen of Ramdayal (PW-10). Dr. Mohan Tikam (PW-11) further opined vide his query report Ex. P-12-A that death was possible from the injuries caused to the complainant. While conducting investigation, spot map Ex. P-1 was prepared by Revenue Officer and spot map (Ex. P-2) was prepared by Investigating Officer (IO). The appellant was apprehended and interrogated. He made statement vide Ex. P-5 for getting recovered the trident and at his instance, the trident was recovered and seized vide Ex. P-6. Blood stained clothes of Ramdayal were seized vide Ex. P-7. Seized weapon and clothes were examined by the doctor and further sent for FSL examination. FSL Report Ex. P-20 is submitted on record. On completion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted before the trial Court.

(3.) Charge under Section 307 of the IPC was framed against the appellant. He denied the charge and demanded for trial. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. On examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating evidence against him, pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. No witness has been examined in defence. The impugned judgement was passed in which the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as mentioned in first paragraph of this judgement.