MANIRAM DIMAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Sec. 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dtd. 7/10/2016, passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, in Sessions Trial No.48/2015, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000.00, in default of payment of fine, 1 month's additional rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant herein along-with two other accused persons (now acquitted) on 8/7/2015, at about 7:30 p.m., at village Kauhakuda Chowk in front of house of Tuluram Diwan, assaulted Dashrath Sahu (now deceased) by bamboo stick, by which, he suffered grievous injuries and died. The matter was reported to the police by Gayaram Patel (PW-1), pursuant to which, wheels of investigation started running and thereafter, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-1, merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-2, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-4 and dead body of deceased Dashrath Sahu was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. Smt. Tara Agrawal (PW-11), who proved the post-mortem report Ex.P-16, in which, cause of death was stated to be coma due to injury to skull and brain and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant Ex.P-6, bamboo stick was seized vide Ex.P-7, which was sent for chemical examination to FSL, but no FSL report has been brought on record. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence under Sec. 302 of I.P.C. before the jurisdictional criminal court, which was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated.

(3.) In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has not examined any witness, but has exhibited the document Ex.D-1.