AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appellants have filed this appeal challenging their conviction and sentence as ordered by the Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 11.07.2013.
Appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:-
Appellant-Raghuveer Sahriya
Under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860: Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
Appellant-Prakash Sahriya
Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860: Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of the report lodged by complainant-Mahaveer Yadav, son of deceased Mangi Lal. On the basis of the report Exhibit-P-1 lodged by the complainant, formal FIR Exhibit-P-13 bearing No.345 dated 18.08.2011 was registered at Police Station Kunadi, District Kota City for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').
Prosecution story, in brief, was that on 17.08.2011, complainant-Mahaveer Yadav was present in his fields alongwith his father Mangi Lal. At about 8.00 p.m. Mangi Lal told his servants Raghuveer Sahariya and Prakash Sahariya that they should not consume liquor. Complainant was proceeding towards the room and suddenly he heard cries of his father. When complainant turned back, he saw that Raghuveer Sahariya had caught hold of Mangi Lal, whereas, Prakash Sahariya was giving Axe blows on the head and face of Mangi Lal. As a result, Mangi Lal fell down and started bleeding. Appellants Raghuveer Sahariya and Prakash Sahariya fled away from the spot. He took his father alongwith Jamna Lal to the hospital for treatment, where he was declared dead by the doctors.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellants.
Charge was framed against the appellants by the trial court under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Appellants did not plead guilty to the charge framed against them and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 11 witnesses, during trial. Appellants when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in this case.
Appellants did not examine any witness in their defence.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants have been falsely involved in this case. So far as appellant Raghuveer Sahariya is concerned, there was no allegation against him with regard to the infliction of any injury to deceased Mangi Lal.
Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal.
Present case relates to murder of Mangi Lal. Case rests on eyewitness account.
Complainant-Mahaveer Yadav while appearing in the witness box as PW-1 has deposed as per the contents of the FIR.
PW-5 Jamna Lal, the second eyewitness to the incident has corroborated the statement of PW-1.
Thus, as per the eyewitness account, Mangi Lal had been caught hold by appellant-Raghuveer Sahariya and he had been inflicted Axe blows by appellant-Prakash Sahariya. Mangi Lal was telling the appellants not to consume liquor at his farmhouse.
PW-6 Doctor Arun Sharma deposed that on 18.08.2011, he had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Mangi Lal. He proved the post-mortem examination report of deceased Mangi Lal Exhibit-P-11.
As per the post-mortem examination report Exhibit-P-11, following injuries were found on the person of deceased Mangi Lal:-
"1. Incised wound 12 cm x 4 cm bone deep with fracture of mandible on right mandible, face and cheek up to angle of mount and transversely and slightly oblique.
Incised wound 5 cm x 1.5 cm bone deep with fracture of parietal bone on anteriors parietal region obliquely placed.
Incised wound 5 cm x 1.5 cm muscle deep on right arm upper laterally.
Linear deep abrasion 6 cm size on mid of upper back of chest."
The cause of death of deceased Mangi Lal was opined as head injury and cumulative effect of antemortem injuries.
PW-10 Rameshwar Parihar, Investigating Officer has deposed with regard to the investigation conducted by him. He deposed that on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by appellant-Prakash Sahariya, vide Exhibit-P-9, blood stained Axe was recovered at the instance of appellant-Prakash Sahariya.
Thus, in the present case, ocular version is duly corroborated by medical evidence. Deceased Mangi Lal had suffered four injuries with a sharp edged weapon. Hence, the intention of the appellants is clear that the injuries had been inflicted to deceased Mangi Lal with an intention to commit his murder by the appellants. Appellant-Raghuveer Sahariya had caught hold of Mangi Lal, whereas, appellant Prakash Sahariya had given Axe blows to him. It is evident that both the appellants had common intention to commit the murder of deceased Mangi Lal. Eyewitnesses were cross-examined at length during trial, but their testimonies with regard to the manner of occurrence and involvement of the appellants in the crime could not be shaken.
In these circumstances, learned trial court had rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellants vide impugned judgment/order dated 11.07.2013. No ground for interference by this court is made out.
Dismissed.