GHANSHYAMDAS MANIKPURI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 18/3/2015 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (CG), in Sessions Trail No. 36/2013 whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty of commission of offence and convicted and sentenced as described below:-

(2.) The prosecution case, as unfolded from the impugned judgment and the records of the case is that, Sukul Das (PW-1), father of the deceased, received a phone call from his son that he was surrounded by the appellants and was being assaulted. It is said that after receiving the call, Sukul Das (PW-1) went out in search of his son and, later on, his dead body was found. A merg intimation in Ex. P-1 was given in the police station, which was followed by registration of FIR in Ex. P-2. In the two informations given, it was divulged that the informant's son Mayadas gave a call to his father Sukul Das (PW-1) that he has been surrounded by appellants Ghanshyam Das, Sevak Das and Santosh Das, and thereafter, his mobile was switched off. Upon suspicion, he informed his son-in-law Feku Das and other members of the family and went out to search his son and then, near Ghonga river culvert, dead body of his son Mayadas was found. The injuries appear to have been inflicted by a sharp edged weapon. Motorcycle was lying there and Pannalal Pali (PW-10) was not present at the spot. His younger son-in-law Dhanadas, who was going towards Chanadongri, happens to see Ghanshyam Das, Sevak Das and Santosh Das escaping towards Ganiyari. In the report, it was disclosed that Mayadas had eloped with the wife of Ghanshyam Das and when they came back to village, Mayadas started living with Suruchi, wife of Ghanshyam Das and due to this episode, relations between two families were strained. The police arrived at the place where the dead body was lying and inquest over the dead body was prepared and, thereafter, it was sent for postmortem. Dr. (Smt.) K. Patnayak (PW-11) conducted postmortem and prepared postmortem report in which she found large number of incised wounds in and around the neck, so much so that it was almost detached from the main part of the body. Later on, the three appellants were arrested, and it is the case of the prosecution that from the possession of appellant Santosh Das, blood stained clothes were seized, from Sevak Das mobile of deceased Mayadas and from possession of Ghanshyam Das 'Gandasa' (an axe), alleged to be used while inflicting injuries, were also seized. The police also collected call details. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants and they were tried for commission of offence under Sec. 302 IPC and other offences. The prosecution came out with the eye-witness account of Pannalal Pali (PW-10) who is said to have gone along with the deceased and present at the time when the appellants arrived at the spot and assaulted the deceased. In addition, the evidence of call details as also FSL report, evidencing presence of human blood in the clothes seized from Santosh Das and 'Gandasa' seized from Ghanshyam were also led. The appellants were also examined under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. in respect of incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against them in the evidence led by the prosecution. The appellants denied having committed the offence and said that they are innocent. Pannalal Pali (PW-10) who has also been examined as prosecution witness was, however, again examined at the instance of the defence as one of the defence witness.

(3.) The learned trial Court relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly that of Pannalal Pali (PW-10), the eyewitness, held the appellants guilty of commission of offence and sentenced as described above.