RAM DULARI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28th February 2007 passed in S.T.No. 140/2006 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir has convicted each of the appellants under Section 307/34 of IPC for attempting murder of PW-3 Bhuvneshwar, under Section 323/34 for causing injuries to injured Tujela and under Section 323/34 for causing injuries to injured Jitendra and sentenced them to undergo RI for 7 years, pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, RI for 1 year, RI for 1 year, respectively and in default, to undergo RI for 3 months each. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 17.01.2006 at about 9.00 in the night injured Tujela was standing before his house in the lane, at that time appellants Dileshwar and Ramdulari were passing from the lane using abusive language. They were stopped by Tujela saying that why they are using filthy language as womenfolk also reside there, on this, the appellants Dileshwar and Ramdulari went to their house, brought iron rods and started assaulting Tujela over his head and eyes. When Jitendra and Bhuvneshwar came there to intervene, Dileshwar and Ramdulari also assaulted them and threatened them that they shall kill them. In the meanwhile, appellant Balram also reached there and assaulted Jitendra on his head.

(2.) REPORT of the incident was lodged by Tujela (PW-1) on the sane day at about 23.15 hours naming all the appellants. Injured persons were sent for medical examination to Civil Dispensary, Shivarinarayan where Dr. Anvita Dhruv (PW-9) examined them and gave injury report of Jitendra (Ex.P/14), injury report of Bhuvneshwar (Ex.P/15) and injury report of Tujela (Ex. P/ 16). Further query was sent to the doctor vide Ex.P/17 whether injuries present over persons of the injured, were sufficient to cause their death in the ordinary course of nature and in reply to the above query, Dr. Anvita Dhruv (PW-9) submitted his report of Ex. P/17. Bhuvneshwar was also sent for radiological examination and report of the radiologist is Ex. P/19. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge and the same was received on transfer by learned Additional Sessions Judge for trial. During trial the prosecution examined 14 witnesses in all. Thereafter, statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. in which they denied the evidence appearing against, them in the prosccution case and pleaded innocence and false implication. Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the records as also the impugned judgment. Conviction of the appellants is based on the statements of injured eyewitnesses Tujela (PW-1), Bhuvneshwar (PW-3) and Jitendra (PW-7). The Court below considering the evidence of the above witnesses, which is also corroborated from the evidence of PW-2 Nathram, PW-6 Jeetram and PW-8 Firatram, has drawn an inference regarding involvement of the appellants in the crime in question. Further, replying upon the evidence of Dr. Anvita Dhruv (PW-9) and Dr. Anil K.P. Singh (PW-13), the Court below has held that the injuries present over the person of Bhuvneshwar were sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature. PW-1 Tujela is the complainant who has lodged the report of Ex.P/ 1. His evidence is to the effect that the appellants Dileshwar & Ramdulari enraged by his advice not to use filthy language as womenfolk also reside in the locality, went inside their house, brought iron rod from their house and started assaulting him. When his father Bhuvneshwar and brother jitendra came and intervened, Dileshwar, Ramdulari and Balram also assaulted his father, as a result of which he became unconscious and fell on the ground. They also assaulted Jitendra. However, from perusal of the FIR Ex. P/1 it is noticed that this witness, who has lodged the FIR, has mentioned therein that Dileshwar and Ramdulari assaulted his father, who fell on the ground after becoming unconscious and thereafter, Balram came there armed with danda and assaulted Jitendra over his head and hand. There is no allegation in the FIR that the appellant Balram assaulted Bhuvneshwar. PW-2 Nathram has also named Ramdulari and Dileshwar as the persons who participated in the assault and he has denied the presence of Balram on the place of incident. He has been declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. However, in the cross-examination also no suggestion was given to this witness that Balram was present at the time of incident or he participated in beating injured Bhuvneshwar.