Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 262 (CHH)

BED KUMARI v. RAMESH KUMAR @ UMESH KUMAR SAHU

2009-10-07

RAJEEV GUPTA, SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2009
ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. :- 1. Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on admission. 2. Petitioner Bed Kumari, widow of deceased Rajesh Kumar Sahu has filed this revision petition against the impugned judgment dated 29.06.2007, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District Surguja in Sessions Trial No.178/2006, whereby the trial Court while recording the conviction of accused Dasarath and Naresh Kumar Sahu, acquitted accused persons Ramesh Kumar Sahu @ Umesh Kumar Sahu and Rakesh Kumar Sahu of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 3. Police Surajpur disnict Surguja after completion of the investigation of the case registered on the report of informant Bed Kumari, widow of deceased Rajesh Kumar Sahu charge-schemed accused persons Dasarath, Naresh Kumar Sahu, Ramesh Kumar Sahu @ Umesh Kumar Sahu and Rakesh Kumar Sahu for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC on the accusation of their having committed murder of deceased Rajesh Kumar Sahu in the morning of 06.02.2006. 4. The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication to the charges framed by the trial Court under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 5. The trial Court on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial found the above charges proved against accused persons Dasarath and Naresh Kumar Sahu and therefore, convicted and sentenced them under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. with sentences of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and RI for three months and fine of Rs. 1,000/each respectively. The trial Court found the remaining two accused persons i.e. Ramesh Kumar Sahu @ Umesh Kumar Sahu and Rakesh Kumar Sahu entitled to benefit of doubt as their names were not mentioned in the First Information Report. The trial Court, therefore, acquitted these two persons vide impugned judgment dated 29.06.2007. 6. Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant vehemently argued that the trial Com1 has erred in giving un-due weight to the omission of the names of accused persons Ramesh Kumar Sahu @ Umesh Kumar Sahu and Rakesh Kumar Sahu in the First information Report. 7. 6. Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant vehemently argued that the trial Com1 has erred in giving un-due weight to the omission of the names of accused persons Ramesh Kumar Sahu @ Umesh Kumar Sahu and Rakesh Kumar Sahu in the First information Report. 7. The unfortunate incident of murder of deceased Rajesh Kumar Sahu took place at about 9 - 9.30 am on 06.02.2006 in the presence of his wife, petitioner Bed Kumari, who also claims to have sustained injuries in the same incident. The First Information Report about the incident was lodged by petitioner Bed Kumari within two hours of the incident at 10.40 am. In this First Information Rep0l1, details of the entire incident were mentioned by the petitioner including the individual overt acts of accused persons Dasarath and Naresh Kumar Sahu. In this First Information Report, admittedly, the informant did not mention the names of accused persons Ramesh Kumar Sahu @ Umesh Kumar Sahu and Rakesh . Kumar Sahu as the assailants of deceased Rajesh Kumar Sahu. The Text and tenor of the First Information Report also indicates that in the entire incident, only two accused persons participated, whereas at the trial, the prosecution through its eye-witnesses projected that all the four accused persons actively participated in the assault on deceased Rajesh Kumar Sahu. 8. The omission of the names of accused persons Ramesh Kumar Sahu @ Umesh Kumar Sahu and Rakesh Kumar Sahu in the First Information Report in view of the above mentioned broad features of the case assumes more importance as the names of the two other accused persons Dasarath and Naresh Kumar Sahu were specifically mentioned by the informant as the assailants of deceased Rajesh Kumar Sahu. 9. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner / complainant; the reasonings given by the trial Court in paras 12 to 17 of the impugned judgment for extending benefit of doubt to accused persons Rarnesh Kumar Sahu @ Umesh Kumar Sahu and Rakesh Kumar Sahu and recording their acquittal, we do not find any good ground warranting interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal at the behest of the complainant. 10. The revision petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Revision Dismissed.