MANIRAM DEWAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the judgment dated 27th of August, 2001 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (CG) in Sessions Trial no. 215/2001, whereby, appellant Maniram dewar has been convicted under Section 302 ipc and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000 with default sentence of 6 months R. I.

(2.) THE facts, briefly stated, are as under: appellant Maniram Dewar and 4 other persons were charged under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 ipc. It was alleged that they being the members of an unlawful assembly, in prosecution of common object of that assembly, committed murder of deceased Shankar. It was witnessed by 2 eyewitnesses namely Urmila Bai (PW1) and Babloo (PW2 ). Urmila Bai is the maternal aunt of the deceased, whereas, Babloo is the minor son of the deceased. The case of the prosecution was that on 22. 3. 2001 at about 4. 00 p. m. , deceased Shankar came in drunken condition and started abusing the appellant and his other family members (co-accused persons, who are wife, sons and daughter of appellant Maniram dewar ). Brother of the deceased namely Dhiraj took the deceased inside the house. After sometime, the deceased again came out of his house and started abusing the accused persons. The allegations are that on his such conduct, appellant Maniram dewar assaulted the deceased with tangia. . leading to his death. The matter was reported to the concerned police station by Urmila Bai (PW1), on which, a First Information report (Ex. P1) was registered. The f. I. R. contains the names of all the 5 accused persons. During the investigation, inquest on the body of the deceased was prepared under Ex. P8 and the dead body was sent for its postmortem to Primary Health Centre, chakarbhata, where the post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. B. D. Sonwani (PW8), who prepared his report Ex. P11. The Autopsy Surgeon noticed 5 incised wounds on the body of the deceased. He also noticed fractures on fight occipital, parietal, temporal and frontal bones and opined that the cause of death was shock as a result of injury to vital organ-brain and it was homicidal in nature. In further investigation, a memorandum statement (Ex. P4) of the appellant was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act leading to discovery of a tangia which was seized under memo Ex. P5. After completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the 5 accused persons in the Court of judicial Magistrate First Class, bilaspur who in turn committed the matter to the concerned Sessions court, from where, it was received on transfer by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as aforementioned, however, 4 other co-accused persons were acquitted.

(3.) CONVICTION of the appellant is based on the testimonies of 2 eyewitnesses namely urmila Bai (PW1) and Babloo (PW2 ).