Lodha @ Mansingh Manjhawar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1580 Chatt

                                                                              NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                   CRA No. 340 of 2017

   • Lodha @ Mansingh Manjhawar S/o Vidur Say Aged About 50 Years R/o
     Village- Ghonchal Bhojpur Police Station Kapu, District Raigarh,
     Chhattisgarh.

                                                                     ---- Appellant

                                      Versus

   • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Kapu, District- Raigarh,
     Chhattisgarh.

                                                                  ---- Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

Judgment on Board 05/08/2021

1. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. By the impugned judgment dated 28/12/2016 passed in S.T. No.

64/2016 by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh,

District Raigarh(C.G.), the Appellant has been convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.

1,000/-, with default stipulation.

3. According to the case of prosecution on 26.02.2016 at around 12 PM,

when complainant Satyabhama was sitting in her shop at that time

the Appellant came to her and demanded Rs. 50 when she refused, a dispute was taken place between them and the Appellant assaulted

the complainant with the help of axe due to which she sustained

injuries. On the basis of above, the matter was reported by

complainant Satyabhama. Later on statement of the complainant and

other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After

completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and the Trial

Court has framed the charges. To prove the guilt of the Appellant, the

prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. No defense

witness has been examined by the Appellant. Statement of the

Appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he

has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter.

4. After trial, the Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the Appellant

as mentioned in paragraph two of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would submit that without

being any clinching and reliable evidence available on record the Trial

Court has convicted the Appellant. He further submits that there are

material contradiction and omissions occurred in the statement of the

witnesses and by ignoring these facts, the Trial Court has wrongly

convicted the Appellant. Therefore, conviction of the Appellant is not

sustainable.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposed the appeal and

supported the impugned judgment of conviction.

7. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused

the record to assess the correctness of the impugned judgment of

conviction. I have also gone through the statements of the witnesses.

8. In her Court statement complainant Satyabhama (PW-4) supported the

entire case of prosecution and deposed accordingly. She categorically

stated that at the time of incident, the Appellant came to her and

demanded Rs. 50 and when she refused to give money, the Appellant

assaulted her with the help of axe due to which she sustained injuries

on her neck. This witness remain firmed during her cross-examination.

Immediately after the incident, she narrated the entire incident to

Mamta Behra (PW-2) and Sudarshan Behra (PW-7), both these

witnesses have supported the statement of Satyabhama (PW-4).

Hourishankar (PW-10) also supported the statement of Satyabhama

(PW-4) and deposed that when he reached the spot, he saw that

Satyabhama was lying on ground in injured condition and the

Appellant was present on spot. According to this witness, immediately

after the incident, the Appellant was fled away from the spot. The

above statement of this witness has not been duly rebutted during his

cross-examination. The medical evidence of Satyabhama (PW-4) also

corroborated her statement.

9. From the evidence available on record and looking to the entire case

of prosecution there is sufficient evidence available on record against

the Appellant and the crime has duly proved against him. In my

considered view, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant.

10. Consequently, the appeal has no merit and the same is liable to be

and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Shubham