LAWS(CHH)-2019-1-261

BILWA ALIAS KANHAIYA SATNAMI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Decided On January 08, 2019
Bilwa Alias Kanhaiya Satnami Appellant
V/S
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment under challenge in this revision petition is dated 15.02.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Baloda Bazar, in Criminal Appeal No. 230/2004 whereby the findings recorded by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar convicting the accused/applicant under Section 326 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for three months with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, plus default stipulation, have been affirmed.

(2.) Accused/applicant and the complainant Gonda Bai (PW-2) happen to be the neighbours and they were known to each other prior to the date of incident. There appears to have arisen some dispute between the members of both the families on account of plinth being dug nearby. On the date of incident when the complainant (PW-2) along with Durpat Bai and Pushpa had gone to the village pond for taking bath, the accused/applicant herein along with the acquitted accused persons namely Tulsibai and Rambai followed her. After reaching near the pond, acquitted accused Tulsibai and Rambai are said to have beaten the complainant with hand and fist whereas the present applicant with axe. On account of axe blow dealt by the applicant, complainant suffered bleeding injury in her right knee. Incident is said to have been witnessed by Kewalbai who at that time was taking bath at some distance. After being brought home by her mother Jankibai, the complainant informed about the incident to Ganga Satnami, Fungu Satnami, Chhutu Satnami etc. Thereafter, the report was lodged, complainant was medically examined and after completion of the investigation, challan was filed by the police.

(3.) After examining the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/applicant u/s 326 IPC but acquitted the other two of the charge levelled against them. The findings recorded by the trial Court have subsequently been confirmed by the lower Appellate Court by the judgment impugned and it is that which is under challenge in this revision.