JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17. 1. 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, in Sessions Trial No. 1/2005 convicting the accused/appellants for the offences punishable under sections 328 and 382 of the indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine of Rs. 500. 00 in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month u/s 328 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay fine of Rs. 500. 00 in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month under section 382 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE judgment of the trial Court is challenged on the ground that without there being any incriminating evidence against the accused/appellants connecting them with the commission of the crime in question, learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an illegality by convicting and sentencing them as mentioned above.

(3.) CASE of the prosecution in brief is that on 20. 8. 2003 complainant Kamlesh Pandey (PW-6) resident of Supela, Bhilai, was going to dongargarh by his Tata Sumo bearing registration No. C. G. 04/4060 for Devi darshan and when he reached near village murmunda accused/appellants stopped the vehicle and asked him for lift to Dongargarh. He gave them lift and on reaching dongargarh, he dropped them at the Vehicle stand and proceeded for the temple to have devi Darshan. When he came back to the vehicle Stand after having Devi Darshan, the accused/appellants again met him near the vehicle and asked for lift back to the place from where they were picked up. Accused Jagdish was sitting beside the complainant whereas accused Maan Singh was sitting at the back seat. When the complainant started the vehicle accused Maan Singh offered Laddu as Prasad and after eating it they started for Bhilai. After some time he became unconscious. When he regained consciousness he found himself in an isolated place. On asking the people of the vicinity about the temple, they mistook him to be in a drunken condition looking to his semiconscious state. Then he went to a nearby hand pump where one woman who was drawing water gave him water to drink. Thereafter, he went to a nearby telephone booth and told his father about the incident. The accused/appellants absconded with the vehicle. He lodged the report Ex. P-7 at Police station Aamgaon. However, the matter was transferred to police station Dongargarh where First Information Report Ex. P-14 was lodged. He was examined by the doctor vide Ex. P-1 who found him in the state of depression. Papers relating to vehicle were seized from the complainant vide Ex. P-3 and documents relating to medical treatment were seized vide Ex. P-4. Spot map ex. P-8 was prepared. Statement of complainant kamlesh Pandey Ex. D-1 was recorded on 26. 8. 2003 under section 1. 61 of the code of Criminal Procedure in which he described the details of the persons who after being provided lift by him gave some intoxicating material mixed in Laddu as prasad. During the course of investigation accused Jagdish was interrogated by the police. He made disclosure statement Ex.-P-5 and stated that Red colour Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. CG 04 ZD 4060 was in possession of one Arun, the owner of Arun Diesel Centre at Vaishali (Bihar ). On the basis of said disclosure statement Ex. P-5 police interrogated accused arun who made disclosure statement Ex. P-12 and stated that Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. CG 04 ZD 4060 which is later changed as BR 06 C-9029 was standing near the house of one Ravindra yadav at Patna. On the basis of disclosure statements Ex. P-5 and Ex. P-12 red colour tata Sumo bearing registration No. BR 06 c-9029, (engine No. 400700587 and chassis no. 385013 AQQ 900131 was recovered at the instance of accused Jagdish and Arun sah. Identification parade was conducted in sub Jail Dongargarh where complainant kamlesh identified accused Jagdish vide Ex. P-6 and accused Maan Singh vide Ex. P-9.