Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Pritinker Diwaker and Inder Singh Uboweja, JJ.
Ram Chandra Dubey - Appellants
Vs.
State of C.G. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 694 of 2009
Decided On : 29-09-2015
Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 395, 396 - judgment of conviction – Offence of Murder – Injury - Has stated that he knew accused/appellant - On date of incident he was sitting in his hotel, six persons came there, out of them two were carrying 12 bore one rifle one stain-gun, they asked him to keep quiet and fired in his hotel. At that time around 25 trucks were standing near his hotel, some of them were taking their meals, they were picked by the accused persons and were looted and abused. He has stated that those persons who refused to give amount were also beaten by the accused persons and they also fired aiming the truck and one person who was sleeping inside the truck did not open the door as a result of which some of the accused persons fired at him and he sustained injury – Held, So far as dock identification of the accused/appellant is concerned, when the incident had occurred in the dark night at a place where there was not sufficient light, the question of seeing the accused/appellant by PW-11 Anil does not arise. in para-1 of his deposition has stated that during the incident when one small vehicle came from other side, then in the light of that vehicle only he that the accused persons are dacoits otherwise he was under the impression that they were meaning thereby that light was not sufficient at the place of occurrence to identify someone - As regards memorandum of the accused/ and PW-8 Kumar have not supported the prosecution case. Likewise, seizure (Ex. P/12) by which Rs. 500/- was seized from the possession of the accused/appellant is also of no help to the prosecution and the same cannot be used against the appellant because the prosecution has not established the fact that the notes seized from the accused/appellant were the same which were looted in the incident - On the basis of aforesaid analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove guilt of the accused/appellant beyond all reasonable doubt trial Court was not justified in holding the appellant guilty under Section 396 of IPC on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution - Being so, the judgment impugned, insofar as it relates to the accused/appellant, is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal of the charge under Section 396 of IPC by extending him benefit of doubt. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence of the accused/appellant under Section 396 of IPC are set aside. He is acquitted of the said charge by giving him benefit of doubt - Appeal is allowed
Pritinker Diwaker, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.9.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Pratappur, Distt. Surguja in S.T. No. 250/07 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 396 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to suffer additional R.I. for two months. Brief facts of the case are that on 31.12.2006 deceased Raju Yadav and his cousin Jagdish Yadav were transporting some articles from Korba to Delhi. On the way near one Ashok Line Dhaba they stopped the truck, at about 10 p.m. when deceased Raju Yadav and Jagdish Yadav were about to sleep, deceased Raju Yadav sustained gunshot injury in his abdomen. It is alleged that the said gunshot injury was caused by co-accused Chhatrapal (since deceased). Further case of the prosecution is that the deceased was subjected to gunshot injury as number of dacoits had gathered there and were threatening to take money from the truck. It is said that after committing dacoity six dacoits fled from the spot. Injured Raju Yadav was taken to Wadrafnagar Hospital but he was declared brought dead. On 1.1.2007 unnumbered merg (Ex. P/22) and unnumbered Dehalti Nalishi (Ex. P/23) were recorded at P.S. Pratappur, Camp Wadrafnagar, and thereafter numbered merg (Ex. P/18) was recorded at P.S. Pratappur, Distt. Surajpur and then F.I.R. (Ex. P/17) was registered at the instance of Jagdish Yadav (PW-19) against 10-15 unknown persons under Sections 302, 395, 396 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27of the Arms Act. Inquest over the body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex. P/25. Postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted by PW-3 Dr. R.B. Prajapati, vide Ex. P/3 wherein he noticed rupture of lung, liver, stomach, fracture of ribs caused by firearm and opined that the cause of death was excessive bleeding due to shock and the death was homicidal in nature. The appellant was arrested on 22.1.2007 whereas co-accused Chhatrapal and Teju were arrested on 5.1.2007. On 22.1.2007 memorandum of the accused/appellant was recorded vide Ex. P/9 in presence of PW-6 Mohd. Aajam and PW-8 Sushant Kumar Paikra. Based on the memorandum of the accused/appellant seizure Ex/12 of Rs. 500/- was effected. Identification parade was conducted on 22.1.2007 by PW-20 Jageram, Tehsildar, vide Ex. P/2 in which PW-11 Anil Pandey, Dhaba owner, identified the accused/appellant. Other co-accused namely Chhatrapal and Teju were also identified vide Ex. P/6 by Anil Pandey (PW-11) and Uttam Chand (PW-12). After investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant and two other convicted accused persons namely Chhatrapal and Teju under Sections 395, 396 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate whereas in relation to three other juvenile co-accused trial was conducted before the Juvenile Board and charges were framed accordingly against them.
2. So as to hold the accused persons guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.
3. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant under Section 396 of IPC whereas other two accused persons were held guilty under Sections 396 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act also.
4. Convicted co-accused Teju had preferred a criminal appeal i.e. Cr. A. No. 102/10, however, the said appeal stood abated on 30.8.2013 after death of Teju. Similarly, Cr. A. No. 731/09 preferred by co-accused Chhatrapal also stood abated on 3.9.2013 after his death.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:
(i) that the accused/appellant has been c
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
