Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, JJ.
Melaram, S/o. Tiharu Ram Sahu - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Police Station Navagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.951 of 2019
Decided On : 23-02-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 307, 450, 460, 323, 506, 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374, 161, 155, 313, 374 – Attempt to murder – Power to examine the accused – Appeal for conviction – Accused convicted for offences present criminal appeal only preferred by his conviction for offences sentences awarded to him by impugned – Held, Court is absolutely justified in holding that it is none else than appellant who has caused murder of deceased and he is only author of crime in question finding so recorded by trial Court is well merited and well reasoned – Court not find any ground to interfere with impugned judgment of conviction recorded and sentences awarded to appellant – Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
[Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.]
1. Three accused persons namely Melaram (A-1), Sitaram (A-2) and Yadram (A-3) were tried by the Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Trial No.55/2017 and after full-dressed trial, Melaram (A- 1) was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 (twice) & 450 of the IPC and acquitted of the charges under Sections 460, 323 & 506 Part-II of the IPC, however, Sitaram (A-2) & Yadram (A-3) were fully exonerated from charges under Sections 302, 307, 460, 323 & 506 Part-II of the IPC.
2. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is only preferred by Melaram (A-1) questioning his conviction for offences under Sections 302, 307 (twice) & 450 of the IPC and sentences awarded to him by the impugned judgment dated 4-5- 2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Trial No.55/2017, by which he has been convicted and sentenced as under: -
| Conviction | Sentence |
| Section 302 of the IPC | Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for two years |
| Section 307 of the IPC (twice) | Rigorous imprisonment for ten years (twice) and fine of Rs.20,000/- (twice), in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for two years (twice) |
| Section 450 of the IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for two years |
Prosecution case: -
3. Before narrating the prosecution version, it would be appropriate to notice the relationship between the deceased, injured eyewitnesses and the accused/appellant herein – Melaram (A-1) and two other accused persons – Sitaram (A-2) & Yadram (A-3), who have been acquitted from the charges by the learned Sessions Judge.
4. Rathram Sahu had two sons Niranjan Sahu & Chandrika Sahu. Acquitted accused Sitaram (A-2) & Yadram (A-3) are sons of Niranjan Sahu and Melaram (A-1) – the appellant herein, is son-inlaw of Niranjan Sahu having married with his daughter Ganga Bai. Absconded co-accused Daniram Sahu is also son of Niranjan Sahu. Chandrika Sahu – second son of Rathram Sahu, is the deceased in the present case and his wife Savita Sahu (PW-14) is injured eyewitness. Complainant Laxminarayan (PW-7) is son of deceased Chandrika Sahu and another injured eyewitness Saraswati Sahu (PW-8) is daughter of deceased Chandrika Sahu. Tanya is the niece of Laxminarayan Sahu (PW-7) being his elder sister’s daughter.
5. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that in the intervening night of 19-6-2017 & 20-6-2017 at 02:30 a.m., at Village Amoda, the appellant herein and the two acquitted accused persons along with absconded accused Daniram Sahu, armed with wooden plank, trespassed into the house of complainant Laxminarayan Sahu (PW- 7) situated at Village Amoda, Tahsil Nawagarh and assaulted deceased Chandrika Sahu, his wife Savita Sahu (PW-14) and his daughter Saraswati Sahu (PW-8) which was witnessed by Laxminarayan Sahu (PW-7) pursuant to which Chandrika Sahu, Savita Sahu & Saraswati Sahu, all were admitted to the hospital where Chandrika Sahu died during treatment on 24-6-2017. Saraswati Sahu (PW-8) was discharged from hospital on 29-6-2017 vide Ex.P-39 and Savita Sahu (PW-14) was discharged from hospital on 23-7-2017 vide Ex.P-62. It is the further case of the prosecution that on the fateful night, Chandrika Sahu was sleeping in his house along with his wife Savita Sahu (PW-14) and in the mid night, the accused persons unauthorizedly trespassed his house and assaulted him and his wife, and on hearing the noise, his daughter Saraswati Sahu (PW-8), who was sleeping in the next room with her elder sister’s daughter Tanya, came out and intervened on which the accused persons assaulted her also. Laxminarayan Sahu (PW-7), who was also sleeping next to his father’s room, on hearing the noise of his father & mother, reached to t
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of intention and knowledge in determining the offence under Section 307 IPC, the principles of vicarious liability under Section 34 ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of witnesses, even if related to the deceased, should not be automatically discarded, and minor discrepancies in the evidence sh....
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt based on consistent and trustworthy evidence, including eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and incriminating cir....
Conviction under IPC 302/34 upheld on reliable sole eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence and witnesses, despite minor discrepancies and non-examination of investigating officer/docto....
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
