LAWS(CHH)-2018-8-19

UDAY PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Decided On August 04, 2018
Uday Prakash Appellant
V/S
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment dated 01.12.2011 passed in Session Trial No.34/2011 by the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, on 18.02011 a dead body of one Sahani Das was found lying in the field for which a merg intimation was registered by Ex.P- The case of the prosecution is that Sahani Das, the deceased, went alongwith the appellant Udai Prakash as they were cousin at about 7 A.M. in the morning. Subsequently, dead body of Sahani Das was found at 2:30 in the field and the body when was seen different injuries were found on his head and apprehension was made that Udai Prakash, the present appellant, has committed the offence. Thereafter, on 18.02011 on the report of the complainant, the FIR was registered by Ex.P-1 and crime was registered bearing Crime No.12/2011. Thereafter the dead body was sent for post mortem. The post mortem report also confirmed the fact that the cause of death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and from the spot the cycle, spects and blood stained soil was seized by Ex.P-15. Thereafter, on the basis of memorandum statement of the appellant, an Axe was recovered by Ex.P-9 alongwith shirt & pant, which the appellant was alleged to have wearing at the time of incident by Ex.P-11. The FIR was registered by Ex.P-17. The seized goods were sent for FSL, however, the FSL report was not filed before the trial Court. The police thereafter recorded the statement of the witnesses during the course of trial and the charge sheet was filed under Section 302 of I.P.C.

(3.) During the course of trial, the appellant/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution on their behalf had examined as many as 13 witnesses and the Court below after evaluating the facts and evidence convicted the appellant/accused as aforesaid; hence this appeal.