Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 100
CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
J. K. M. M. Jha, J
Manoj Budheshwar Prasad Yadav and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh
S.T. No. 4/2009
For the Appellants/Petitioners: [Counsel for accused]
For the Respondents: [Counsel for the State]
The court emphasized that the presence of direct eyewitnesses and evidence of intention in homicide cases are crucial for upholding convictions.
Headnote:This case concerns the conviction of the appellants for homicide under Section 302 IPC and Section 302/34 IPC due to a violent altercation that resulted in the death of the deceased. The court analyzed the circumstances surrounding the crime, including the eyewitness accounts and the nature of the injuries sustained, leading to the finding that the appellants acted with intent to kill. The central issues included the credibility of witness testimonies and the applicability of other sections of the IPC. Ultimately, the court upheld the convictions, concluding that the evidence presented established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, and dismissed the appeal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. key details of the case leading to the appellants' conviction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by both sides regarding credibility and implications. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on the evidence and witnesses' reliability. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. court's rationale for confirming the convictions. (Para 21) |
| 5. final ruling on the appeal. (Para 22) |
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25-6-2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Koriya (Baikunthpur) in S.T. No. 4/2009 convicting appellant No. 1 under S.302, IPC and appellant No. 2 under S.302/34, IPC and sentencing them to undergo RI for life with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, plus default stipulation.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13-12-2008 at about 10.30 p.m. Bhaiyalal (since deceased), Amarnath (PW - 1) and Santosh Kumar (PW - 5) had gone to Welcome Dhaba, Dharamnagari, Podi to have their dinner and there some dispute took place between accused / appellant No. 1 and the deceased and therefore when they came out from dhaba after having their meals, the accused persons assaulted them with stick and club and caused several injuries. Further case of the prosecution is that Amarnath and Santosh Kumar managed to flee from there, however, the accused persons could catch hold of deceased Bhaiyalal, forcibly took him on their motorcycle to the house of accused Manoj and assaulted him there also as result of which he died. Thereafter the accused persons threw the body of deceased on Street No. 44 near Jagannath Temple. Next morning when Amarnath (PW - 1) and Santosh Kumar (PW - 5) went in search of the deceased, they found him lying dead beside Street No. 44. On 14-12-2008 Merg Intimation was recorded vide Ex. P - 1 and FIR was registered vide Ex. P - 2 against four accused persons i.e. present appellants and two others namely Kailash and minor Punjabi. On 14-12-2008 injured Amarnath (PW - 1) and Santosh Kumar (PW - 5) were medically examined by the doctor (PW - 10) vide Ex. P. - 25 and Ex. P - 26 respectively. Inquest was conducted on the body of deceased vide Ex. P - 4 and thereafter dead body was sent for post - mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Jagat Yadav (PW - 9) on 14-12-2008 vide Ex. P - 23. The doctor conducting post - mortem examination noticed following injuries and symptoms: -
0 Abrasion on both the auxiliary area laterally of eyebrow.
0 Abrasion on inferior lateral aspect of mandible left side.
0 Abrasion on chest at the left nipple
0 Abrasion below the right eye.
0 2nd, 5th, 6th and 7th ribs of left side were fractured.
0 Both the lungs were paled and notice fracture in it.
0 Rigor mortis was present in the entire body.
He opined that cause of death and the death was homicidal in nature. Ad / After completion of investigation, challan was filed under S.307, S.302, S.201 and S.23 of IPC, however, the trial Court has framed the charges under S.307/34, 302/34 and 201 of IPC against present appellants and charge under S.307/34 of acquitted accused Kailash.
3. In order to prove the complicity of accused persons in the crime in question, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. Statements of accused persons were also recorded under S.213, Cr. P.C. in which they denied their guilt, pleaded innocence and false implication.
4. After hearing the parties, the Court below while acquitting co - accused Kailash of the charge under S.307/34, IPC and present appellants under S.201 of IPC, convicted and sentenced the accused / appellants herein in the manner as described above.
5. Counsel for the accused / appellants submits that;
â - ? there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of Amarnath (PW - 1) and Santosh Kumar (PW - 5) and therefore these witnesses do not appear to be trustworthy.
â - ? Though on the basis of memorandum of accused / appellants certain recoveries have been made but in absence of report of FSL, the same are of no consequence.
â - ? The appellants had no in
