Dismissed

Budu Udiya Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Aug 2018CRA/632/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An oral judgment dismissing a criminal appeal against a conviction for an attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. The High Court upheld the conviction relying on medical reports and witness testimonies regarding the injury caused by an axe.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal dismissed. Appellant to suffer no further consequences as fine is already deposited and remission granted.

Budu Udiya Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL No 632/2012

¶4

(Arising out of judgment dated 25-5-2012 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in ST No. 64/2009)

¶5

Budu Udiya Yadav, son of Dukhu Udiya, aged about 45 years, R/o. Village Kuligaon, Police Station Rajakhariyar, Distt. Kuapada (Orissa) presently Om Krishi Farm, Khudmuda, Police Station Patan, Distt. Durg (CG) ------ Appellant

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station Patan, Distt. Durg (CG) ------ Respondent

¶8

For Appellant : None For Respondent : Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶11

11-8-2018

¶12

In this criminal appeal the challenge levied is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25-5-2012 passed by the 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Durg in ST No. 64/2009 whereby and whereunder he convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (in brevity 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional RI for six months.

¶13

In brief, prosecution story is that on 26-1-2009 at about 7.30 am complainant Narottam Bhai was present in his farm house at village Khurmuda. Accused came there and demanded

¶14

¶15

remaining Rs. 2,500/- out of fixed advance amount Rs. 5,000/-. Thereafter the accused caused a blow on his bod y which hit on back of his head. His nephew Akash Khodiyar lodged the FIR on the very day at 13.05 hours. After completing the investigation a charge sheet under Section 307 of the IPC was filed against the accused. The trial Court framed charge against the accused under section 307, IPC. Accused abjured the charge and faced trial. To bring home the charge, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Accused did not examine any witness in his defence.

¶16

After conclusion of the trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as above. Being aggrieved, the accused preferred this criminal appeal.

¶17

As per the MLC report Ex. P-10, P.W. 7 Dr. S.N. Madhariya examined complainant Narottam Bhai Khodiyar on 26-1-2009 and found one lacerated wound on his occipital region size 5 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm. He found fracture in occipital bone after examining the CT report. He opined that injury was grievous in nature and may be caused by hard and blunt object.

¶18

As per the query report Ex. P-11, Dr. D.G. Hinduja (since deceased) had opined that aforesaid injury can be caused by the sent axe, injury was grievous in nature and depressed fracture was found on right parieto-occipital bone, the injury could be fatal if not treated.

¶19

There is no evidence on record on the strength of which it could be said that Ex. P-10 and Ex. P-11 are not believable.

¶20

¶21

Thus, this Court believes on Ex. P-10 and Ex. P-11.

¶22

As per the RFSL report Ex. P-15 blood was found on the axe marked as 'C'.

¶23

There is no such evidence on record on the strength of which it could be said that Ex. P-15 is not believable. Thus, this Court believes on Ex. P-15

¶24

P.W. 1 Narottam Khodiyar says in para 3 that accused caused injury on his head by axe.

¶25

P.W. 2 Akash Khodiyar says in para 2 and 4 that he had seen the injury on the back of the head of P.W. 1 Narottam Khodiyar and P.W. 1 Narottam Khodiyar had told him that accused had caused injury on his body.

¶26

P.W. 3 Ramesh God says in para 2 that he had seen that accused had caused the injury to the complainant by axe.

¶27

P.W. 4 Narayan Sonkar says in para 3 that complainant had told him that accused had caused injury to him by axe.

¶28

P.W. 8 Niranjan Bhai Khodiyar says in para 3 that one labour had intimated him that accused had caused injury to his brother.

¶29

There is no such evidence on record on the strength of which it could be said that aforesaid statements of P.W. 1 Narottam Khodiyar, P.W. 2 Akash Khodiyar, P.W. 3 Ramesh God, P.W. 4 Narayan Sonkar, P.W. 8 NiranjaN Bhai Khodiyar are not simple, not natural, not normal.

¶30

As per the alleged memorandum Ex. P-8, accused had

¶31

¶32

given the information that he had concealed one axe in his room and he will get it recovered.

¶33

As per the seizure Ex. P-6 one axe was seized from the accused.

¶34

There is no such evidence on record on the strength of which it could be said that aforesaid part of Ex. P-8 and Ex. P-9 are not believable. Thus, this Court believes on aforesaid part of Ex. P-8 and Ex. P-9.

¶35

Looking to the above mentioned facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the trial Court has not committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the accused as aforesaid.

¶36

In view of above discussion, this Court finds that the appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶37

As per the report of office of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, accused has already deposited fine and released on 15-8-2017 by extending remission to him. Therefore, no further order is required.

¶38

Sd/(Sharad Kumar Gupta) Judge

¶39

pathak

Budu Udiya Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budu Udiya Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Chhattisgarh and Another Vs Anil Kishore Mishra

Banshilal Vs Smt. Gangotri Bai

D.K. Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Denesh Kumar Dhruv Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gopal Prasad Vs Munna Lal and Others

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sushil Bhonde and Ors.