Back
2016 Supreme(Chh) 17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
PRITINKER DIWAKER, CHANDRA BHUSHAN BAJPAI, JJ.
Sarita Bai Mohan Suryavanshi – Appellant
Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 697 of 2008
Decided On : 18-01-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Suresh Kumar Verma and A.K. Yadav
For the Respondents: Vivek Sharma, Govt. Adv.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Section 302/149/147 - Life imprisonment – Offence of murder – Injury - After their trial trial Court vide judgment dated 10-8-2006 acquitted all the above six accused persons of the charges as the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Against said acquittal in the first round of sessions trial No. 151/2005, revisionist father of deceased has preferred a Criminal Revision No. 618/2006, which is being disposed of by a separate order. At the time of trial of above six accused persons, other co-accused were absconding. After the judgment dated 10-8-2006 all the above 5 accused persons surrendered and they were tried in the same and the trial Court convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above – Held, They are hardly literate and the contradictions are very minor and overall not fatal to the prosecution. Both the appellants are not sentenced to assault Prasad has not supported his medical examination, even then the same is not fatal to the prosecution case. No manipulation in the FIR is proved. If at all, in the time of incident, there is an overwriting in the minute part and if no initials is put, even then this cannot make the FIR doubtful. The arguments that the witnesses who turned hostile in the first phase of trial were not examined in the second phase of trial is not of any help to the prosecution as statements of the witnesses examined in the second phase of trial have to be appreciated on their own strength and the injured eye-witness and other eye-witnesses have shown and proved their trustworthiness and credibility remained very firm in her entire statement. Other eye-witness are also duly corroborated and supported the MLC, PM report, query report and multiple fractures noticed by the autopsy surgeon. As per statement of the witnesses, common object and motive of the appellants along with other co-accused to kill the deceased is proved in the light of earlier dispute and on the date of incident, the appellants trespassed in the house of the deceased, dragged him outside and assaulted by sharp edged weapon. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no illegality, impropriety in the impugned judgment and accused have rightly been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court – Appeal Allowed
Chandra Bhushan Bajpai, J.
1. By this common judgment, Cri. A. No. 679/2008 and Cri. A. No. 713/2008 are being disposed of as both the appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18-6-2008 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in S.T. No. 151/2005 convicting and sentencing the appellants as under:--
Sarita Bai
S. 147, IPC
SI for 1 year with fine of Rs. 200/-
In default of payment of fine to undergo 1 month SI
S. 148, IPC
SI for 1 year with fine of Rs. 200/-
In default of payment of fine to undergo 1 month SI
S. 323, IPC
SI for 1 year with fine of Rs. 200/-
In default of payment of fine to undergo 1 month SI
S. 452, IPC
SI for 1 year with fine of Rs. 200/-
In default of payment of fine to undergo 1 monthly SI
Sharad and Chhota Ramdayal
S. 147, IPC
1 year with fine of Rs. 200/-
In default of payment of fine to undergo 1 month additional imprisonment
S. 148, IPC
2 years with fine of Rs. 200/-
In default of payment of fine to undergo 2 months' additional imprisonment
S. 452, IPC
3 years with fine of Rs. 200/-
In default of payment of fine to undergo 1 month additional imprisonment
S. 302/149, IPC
Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-
In default of payment of fine to undergo 2 months' additional imprisonment
The substantive jail sentences are directed to run concurrently.
The Court below also convicted co-accused Smt. Sita Bai and Smt. Devki Bai under Sections 147, 148,452 of IPC and sentenced them to the period already undergone by them with fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 452, IPC. They not preferred any appeal against their conviction and sentence.
2. Earlier to the impugned judgment, the trial Court also tried accused Mohan, Ramkushal, Darash Lal, Narad Suryavanshi, Ganesh and Guddu alias Shivdayal in the same S.T. No. 151/2005 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 452/149, 302/149, 323/149, IPC. After their trial, the trial Court vide judgment dated 10-8-2006 acquitted all the above six accused persons of the charges as the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Against said acquittal in the first round of sessions trial No. 151/2005, revisionist Badri Prasad Gadhewal, father of deceased Ramu alias Ramkumar has preferred a Criminal Revision No. 618/2006, which is being disposed of by a separate order. At the time of trial of above six accused persons, other co-accused Sharad, Chhota alias Ramdayal, Smt. Geeta Bai, Devki Bai and Sarita Bai were absconding. After the judgment dated 10-8-2006 all the above 5 accused persons surrendered and they were tried in the same ST No. 151/2005 and the trial Court convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 26-11-2004 at about 8 p.m. near Jatia Talab, Jarhabhata, P.S. Civil Lines, Bilaspur, all the above 11 accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon axe, hockey stick, steel plate and other arms on account of earlier dispute and entered into the house of Ramu alias Ramkurnar, dragged him out, assaulted him by axe and other weapons. They also caused injuries to P.W. 5 Ku. Naina (P.W. 1 in second round of trial), P.W. 6 Dev Kumari (P.W. 2 in second phase), P.W. 7 Badri Prasad (P.W. 3 in second round of trial) and Vinay Kumar Injured Ramu alias Ramkurnar was taken to CTMS, Bilaspur and thereafter while shifting to a nursing home, Ramu alias Ramkumar succumbed to his injuries. P.W. 5/1 Ku. Naina, sister of injured Ramu alias Ramkumar lodged FIR (Ex. P-8) before Civil Lines police which in turn registered the Crime No. 1038/04 under Sections 307, 147, 148, 1
