RAMESHWAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of impugned judgment and order dated 23.3.2011 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ambikapur, District Sarguja in Sessions Trial No. 314/2006 convicting the appellants under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and Section 201/34 sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation.

(2.) In the present case, name of deceased is Budhanram, brother of accused/appellant No.1 Rameshwar, accused/appellant No. 2 Ratiya and accused/appellant No.3 Chikaru is a cousin brother of two other appellants and the deceased. Case of the prosecution is that Bandhani Bai (PW-8) was the sister-in- law of deceased Budhanram and was residing with him. This apart, Dasmi Bai (PW-2), mother of Budhanram was also residing with him. On 20.4.2006 some ritual function was there in the house of Budhanram which was organised by Bandhani Bai. The said function was attended by PW-10 Sukwari Bai, wife of Bisun, and PW-11 Bisun. All the persons were present in the function including accused persons and who had consumed liquor. PW-11 Bisun was beaten by his wife PW-10 Sukwari Bai which was objected to by Bisun saying that though he has been invited but is being beaten by a female. During this quarrel, accused Rameshwar asked PW-10 Sukwari Bai not to beat her husband. Thereafter, deceased Budhanram also intervened and caused injury to Rameshwar by the handle of the axe. The present appellants/accused persons i.e. Rameshwar, Ratiya and Chikaru in retaliation caused injuries to Budhanram by axe and club, as a result of which Budhanram died. Further case of the prosecution is that after sustaining injuries, Budhanram went towards jungle where he succumbed to his injuries. His body was noticed by PW-8 Bandhani Bai, but, on the second day, it was not there and it is said that all the three accused persons took the same near the brook and burnt off. After seeing the body of the deceased, Bandhani Bai (PW-8) lodged the Dehatinalishi Ex.P/22 on 23.4.2006 at 1.00 PM. Immediately thereafter Dehati merg Ex.P/23 was recorded at 1.20 PM and in both Dehatinalishi and Dehati merg names of the accused persons find place. On 23.4.2006 itself at 8.30 PM after inquiry, First Information Report (FIR) Ex.P/24 was registered against all the accused/appellants under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. At the same time, merg intimation Ex.P/30 was also recorded. On 24.4.2006, memorandums of accused persons were recorded vide Ex.P/9, Ex.P/10 and Ex.P/11, based on that from Rameshwar, one loongi has been seized vide Ex.P/14; from Ratiya, one club and loongi have been seized vide Ex.P/13 and from Chikaru, one club, loongi and baniyain have been seized vide Ex.P/12. As per FSL report Ex.P/30, blood has been found on loongi (Article-D) of accused Rameshwar and baniyain (Article-F) of Chikaru. However, there is no serological report confirming blood group and the origin of the blood. On 24.4.2006, though certain bones have been seized from the place of occurrence i.e. near the brook vide Ex.P/18. But, no DNA profiling has been conducted by the prosecution and thus, it is not established beyond all reasonable doubt that the bones so collected were of the deceased or even human bones. The bones were sent for medical examination which was conducted on 24.4.2006 vide Ex.P/5 by PW-3 Dr. B.L. Kaushal. However, nothing could be ascertained by Autopsy Surgeon on the basis of bones produced before him. While framing the charges, the trial Judge framed the charge against the accused persons under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of IPC.

(3.) So as to hold the accused persons guilty, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.