PUNEETRAM (DEAD) AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH P.S. BEMETARA DISTRICT DURG NOW BEMETARA CHHATTISGARH, DISTRICT : BEMETARA, CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.05.2002 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Bemetara, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No. 08/1999 whereby the appellants has been convicted under Section 326/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for four years and fine of Rs. 3000/- with default stipulation. Accused/appellant namely Punit Ram (dead) had been convicted under Section 326/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for four years and fine of Rs. 3000/- and to pay fine of Rs. 700/- under section 323 IPC with default stipulation.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 22.08.1998 complainant Vedram (PW-7) and Jagmohan (PW-1) were going to Bemetara court on a motorcycle. At about 11:00 am when they reached the Court, they came to know that on that day it was holiday. Then they went to the hotel had their meals and while returning for their village, they were stopped by the accused/appellants accused/appellants namely Punitram (dead) and Naresh Kumar, who were armed with Lathi and crow bar (tabbal), gave a lathi blow to Jagmohan on his back as a result of which he fell down, at that time, accused/appellant Naresh asaulted Vedram with tabbal and he got injured and fell down. Thereafter the appellants ran away from the spot. Jagmohan (PW-1) lodged FIR vide Ex. P-1 at the nearby police station, on the basis of which offence under Section 307/34 IPC was registered against both the accused. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, who, in turn committed the case to the Session Court.

(3.) In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellants, prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellants were recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973 in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the crime in question. This apart one defence witness was examined.