TULESH KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28/09/2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District - Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No.01/2011 whereby and whereunder the appellants as also other accused namely Shesh Narayan, Rajesh Rawat, Madan Lal Sahu, Puran Sahu and Niranjan Yadav have been held guilty of commission of offences as described below - <FRM>JUDGEMENT_206_LAWS(CHH)10_2018_1.html</FRM>

(2.) Prosecution story, as unfolded from the records of the case and impugned judgment is that in the intervening night of 31/08/2010 and 01/09/2010, dacoity took place in the house of the deceased Bhawarlal and next morning, when his son Lalchand Jain (PW1) came, he saw that his father Bhawarlal and daughter - Ku. Akshita were lying dead in blood bath. The articles kept in the room were scattered, box was open and gold and silver ornaments were not there. Intimation of murder of Bhawarlal and Ku. Akshita was received at the spot by the police and recorded in merg intimation (Ex.P/2) and (Ex.P/3). On the spot, dehati nalishi (spot FIR) was also recorded in Ex.P/1 that in the intervening night of 31/08/2010 and 01/09/2010, Bhawarlal and Akshita were murdered by unknown persons and dacoity had taken place in the house in which, gold and silver ornaments were stolen. The dead bodies were sent for post mortem, post mortem was conducted and report was prepared. The post mortem report indicated multiple injuries and according to the doctor, the death was homicidal in nature. The needle of suspicion pointed towards the present appellants (two in number) as also other co-accused and all of them were taken into custody. Further case of the prosecution is that memorandum statement of those persons were recorded in which, the appellants herein and other co-accused stated that they had entered into the house of the deceased, murdered and looted gold and silver ornaments. Further case of the prosecution is that on the basis of disclosure statement given by the other accused, weapons alleged to be used in the commission of offence and looted gold and silver ornaments were recovered in the presence of independent witnesses from the place stated by the accused in their memorandum statement given to the police in presence of the witnesses. In respect of looted ornaments, identification proceedings were also drawn by the Executive Magistrate in the presence of the witnesses and it is said that the witnesses identified those looted articles. During the course of their examination in the Court, this witness stated that they had pledged their gold and silver ornaments with Bhawarlal by way of security for re-payment of loan. The finger prints of the appellants and co-accused were also collected and sent for report of FSL along with seized weapons and clothes. The forensic report of expert showed that in the Almirah kept in the house of the deceased, finger prints of one of the co-accused- Madanlal was found. Further case of the prosecution is that on the memorandum of all the accused, weapons alleged to have been used for commission of offence were recovered. As far as appellant - Tulesh Kumar is concerned, in addition to recovery of weapon alleged to be used by him along with other co-accused, on his memorandum, the looted jewelery and ornaments were also recovered from a hidden place and later on, these articles were identified by number of witnesses who had pledged their ornaments with late Bhawarlal while taking loan. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Learned Trial Court, on the basis of material contained in the charge sheet, framed separate charge against each of the appellants. The appellants abjured guilt and were therefore put to trial.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 24 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence. Each of the appellants were thereafter subjected to examination under Section 313 CrPC in respect of the incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against them in the evidence led by the prosecution. The appellants denied and stated that they have been falsely implicated. No defence witness was examined.