RAMSATTA PATEL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.3.2003 passed in Sessions Trial No.381 of 2002 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar convicting the accused/Appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him with rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 7.5.2002 at about 2:00 a.m., Complainant/injured Ramkirtan (PW1) was sleeping with his family in his house at Village Jhabadi. At that time, some unknown person came there and assaulted him as well as his wife Samund Kunwar. They sustained injuries on their head. Blood oozed out from the injuries. First Information Report (Ex.P2) of the incident was lodged against some unknown person in Police Station Kasdol by Bharatlal (PW3). Ramkirtan was medically examined by Dr. R.S. Joshi (PW10). He gave his report (Ex.P13A) in which he found two lacerated wounds, one measuring 5 cms x 1 cm x bone deep caused on the left parietal region, clotted blood was present and the other measuring 1 1/2 cms x 1 1/2 cms x 1/2 cm caused on the fore head, clotted blood was present. He opined that the injuries could be caused by a hard and blunt object. Samund Kunwar was also medically examined by Dr. R.S. Joshi (PW10). He gave his report (Ex.P14A) in which he found two lacerated wounds, one obliquely placed, measuring 5 cms x 1 1/2 cms, bone deep, caused on the left side of the fore head and the other vertically placed, measuring 2 cms x 1/2 cm x 1 1/2 cms caused on the mid parietal region. He opined that the injuries could be caused by a hard and blunt object. A 51 inches lengthy bamboo of babool was seized from the front place of the house of Ramkirtan vide Ex.P12. Plain and blood stained soil were also seized from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P12 itself. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination vide Ex.P7. FSL Report is Ex.P9 in which it is reported that blood was found on all the articles other than the plain soil. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant under Section 307 IPC. Charge was framed against him under Section 307 IPC.

(3.) In order to rope in the Appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the Appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him. He claimed to be innocent and false implication in the case. No defence witness was examined by him.