CHHOTELAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The incident is said to have taken place on 27.04.2008 at about 10-11 PM where victim (PW-1) namely Anil was beaten by the accused/applicants. It is said that when the victim on the date of incident went to the betel shop of accused Chhotelal, the coaccused Vinesh and 3-4 other persons were already present there. When the victim asked for the betel, accused Chhotelal first insisted for payment of the old outstanding amount and only then he would give him the betel. On this, victim (PW-1) complained to accused Chhotelal saying that he should not have insulted him before the people present there. On hearing this, accused Vinesh starting beating with fists and kicks. The other accused Chhotelal also did so with the like weapon. On account of injuries the victim is said to have fallen down and suffered number of injuries on eye, jaw, neck, hand etc. and regained consciousness 8-10 days thereafter. FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged by father of the victim namely Jaikaran (PW-2) on 01.05.2008. The delay for the same is attributed to refusal of admission of the victim in the hospital. On the basis of this report, offences under Sections 341, 294, 506, 323 and 34 IPC were registered against both the accused/applicants. The charge-sheet was also filed under the same sections by adding the one under Section 325 IPC, followed by framing of charge.

(2.) Learned trial Court by its judgment dated 17.09.2009 passed in Criminal Case No.210/2008 found the accused/applicants guilty under Section 325/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.1000/-, plus default stipulations. The findings recorded by the learned Magistrate have been affirmed by judgment impugned dated 12.08.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.57/2009. Hence this revision.

(3.) Counsel for the accused/applicants submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of Anil (PW-1), Jaikaran (PW-2) and Rambai (PW-3) and therefore, the accused/applicants cannot be convicted based thereon. They submit that if the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 is seen, number of exaggerations on material particulars find place therein and therefore, the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside.