POYAMI BIJJU Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15th of November, 2000 passed in Session Trial No. 21/98 by the Session Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE facts, briefly stated, are as under: - Gangi (PW-6) is wife of deceased- Manka. They were residing together in village Kotrapal. On 29.10.97 at about 16:00 hours Mandvi Hunga (PW-1) lodged merg intimation (Ex.-P/10) and F.I.R. (Ex.-P/6) that Gangi (PW-6) told him that in the night of 28.10.97, the appellant came to their house and assaulted the deceased who sustained multiple serious injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The incident took place on account of denial by the deceased to give chhindhrus (a local toxicant drink) to the appellant which he was repeatedly demanding from the deceased. The Investigation Officer reached to the place of occurrence, gave notice to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.-P/1) on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was sent for post-mortem to PHC Bhairamgarh. The post-mortem examination was conduct by Dr. Amar Singh Sendram (PW-5). He noticed multiple contusions and incised wounds (total 7 injuries) on the dead body of the deceased. On internal examination, it was found that there were fractures over 2nd, 3rd & 4th right ribs. Right lung was also damaged. There were fractures over both the forearms below injury nos. 6 & 7. The Autopsy Surgeon opined that injury nos. 1 to 4 were caused by sharp edged weapon and the remaining injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. Injury nos. 1 to 4 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The cause of death was cardiorespiratory arrest due to injury nos. 1 to 4 and the death was homicidal in nature. The post-mortem report is Ex.-P/13. In further investigation, the appellant was taken into custody and a danda and knife was seized from his possession on 29.10.97 vide seizure memo Ex.-P/3. Though seized articles were sent for their chemical examination to F.S.L., Raipur, but the F.S.L. report could not be filed.

(3.) IT was argued before the Session Court that the yersion of Gangi (PW-6), as recorded in examination-in-chief, was not admissible in evidence because no opportunity was granted to the defence to cross-examine her. The learned Session Judge did not accept the above argument and held that the version of Gangi (PW-6) recorded in her examination-in-chief was admissible u/s 33 of the Evidence Act. The learned Session Judge thus relied on the sole testimony of Gangi (PW-6) and convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned.