CHINTARAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.9.2001 passed in Sessions Trial No.373 of 1992 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bemetara convicting and sentencing the accused/Appellants as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_22_LAWS(CHH)12_2017_1.html</FRM>

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.8.1992 at about 5:00 p.m., Complainant Santram (PW3) was at his house along with his family members. The accused/Appellants came there, abused him in front of his house. Complainant Santram came out. Appellant No.1 Chintaram with Tangiya and Appellants No.2 and 3 with Lathi assaulted him. Komal (PW7), son of Complainant Santram came there. They assaulted him also. First Information Report (Ex.P11) was lodged by Complainant Santram. Both Santram and Komal were examined by Dr. S.M. Pandey (PW6). Ex.P22 is the report in respect of medical examination of Santram and Ex.P23 is the report in respect of medical examination of Komal. During investigation, vide seizure memo (Ex.P1), a Tangiya made of iron was seized from Appellant No.1 and vide seizure memo (Ex.P3 and P5), 2 bamboos were seized from Appellants No.2 and 3. Dr. S.M. Pandey (PW6) examined these 3 articles also and vide his reports (Ex.P24, P25 and P26), he opined that the injuries suffered by Santram and Komal could be caused by these articles. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellants for offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were framed under Sections 307, 324, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Appellant Chintaram, under Sections 307/34, 324/34, 323 of the Indian Penal Code against Appellant Tilakram and under Sections 307/34, 324/34, 323 of the Indian Penal Code against Appellant Jeevan.

(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. Statements of the Appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication. 3 witnesses have been examined in their defence.