Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2000. Case: Sanwal Ram Sonkar and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh. Chhattisgarh High Court

Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 66 of 2000
CounselFor Appellant: Indira Tripathi, Advocate and For Respondents: Shobha Kashyap, Panel Lawyer
JudgesRajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J.
IssueCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 161, 313, 437A; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 307, 325, 34
Judgement DateFebruary 28, 2017
CourtChhattisgarh High Court


Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J.

  1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 4.12.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 58 of 2000 by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Durg convicting the Appellants under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/- each with default stipulation.

  2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 25.9.1999, at about 3.00 pm, Appellants came to the place of Gajanand (P.W. 3) and asked for liquor. Gajanand denied having liquor but the Appellants started arguing with him. Complainant Rekhram (P.W. 2) was present who intervened in the argument at which both the Appellants with intention to cause death of complainant assaulted him with club and stones and caused various injuries. First Information Report (Exhibit P/4) was lodged at Police Station Patan, District Durg. Rekhram (P.W. 2) was medically examined vide Exhibit P/11 by Dr. Lal Mohammad (P.W. 9) reporting about the incident. X-Ray examination was conducted by Dr. G.S. Thakur (P.W. 10) vide X-Ray report Exhibit P/13, in which it was found that grievous injury was caused to the complainant Rekhram (P.W. 2). At the instance of Appellant No. 2-Santosh Sonkar, vide memorandum (Exhibit P/1), one club was seized vide Exhibit P/2. Blood stained soil, plain soil and pieces of stones were seized from the spot vide Exhibit P/3. Seized articles were sent for FSL examination vide Exhibit P/10. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 CrPC. First Information Report (Exhibit P/4) was recorded and offence under Section 307/34 IPC was registered against the Appellants. Investigation was conducted and on completion of the investigation, Appellants were charge sheeted.

  3. The Appellants were charged under Section 307/34 IPC by the trial Court. The Appellants denied commission of offence. The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. On examination under Section 313 CrPC, the Appellants denied all the incriminating evidence against them, pleaded innocence and false implication. One witness namely Tukaram Sahu (D.W. 1) was examined in defence. The impugned judgment was passed by the trial Court by which the Appellants have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

  4. The grounds in this appeal are that the Court below has passed an erroneous judgment of conviction against the Appellants without any basis. There had been no legal admissible evidence against the Appellants. There is no evidence of the prosecution to make out a case...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT