RAJENDRA @ RAJKUMAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.06.2013 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Trial No. 25/2013 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been found guilty of the commission of offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1,000/- or default sentence.

(2.) Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 08.10.2002, at about 5.00 p.m. at village Bodsera near the canal adjacent to the field of Agardas, co-accused Bharat and the present appellant had, in furtherance of their common intention to commit murder of Ramcharan, assaulted him with club and Gandasa (a poleaxe-for chopping fodder). As there was previous animosity between Ramcharan and the family of Bharat and Rajendra on account of murder of Parasram, it is alleged that the present applicant and accused Bharat committed the murder of Ramcharan. As per the postmortem examination conducted by Dr. K.L.Uraon, deceased sustained fractures of parieto-occipital and temporal bone. The doctor opined that the cause of death of Ramcharan was hemorrhagic shock due to homicidal incised wounds resulting in cutting of the scalp bones with damage of the brain matter, cutting of the great vessels and nerves and the death was homicidal in nature. Appellant was declared absconding under Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. and did not face trial. However, on 25.07.2012, appellant surrendered before the court and, thereafter, the court below proceeded for trial. A separate judgment has been passed by this Court vide order dated 17.03.2009 in the CR.A. filed by co-accused Bharat Lal whereby the conviction and the sentence awarded to him was maintained.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined in all 23 witnesses. The appellant was thereafter examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against him in the evidence lead by the prosecution. The appellant denied having committed the offence and pleaded innocence. This apart, One defence witness has also been examined. Relying upon the evidence lead by the prosecution the trial court held the appellant guilty of commission of the offence and sentenced as prescribed above.