KARAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal under Sec. 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment dtd. 9/4/2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, in Sessions Trial No.13/2013, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offences under Ss. 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.1000.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant/accused on 13/1/2013 at 4 p.m. committed murder of his wife Baijantibala by strangulation and caused disappearance of the evidence by falsely informing the police that she died by electrification. It is further case of the prosecution that the appellant along with his two daughters Rameshwari and Chandani had visited village Lalpur on 18/12/2013 to Ghasidas mela organized therein and from where the parents of the deceased namely Rohit Kumar (PW-1) and his wife Smt.Shail Bai (PW-5) also met them and thereafter they had gone to the house of Rohit Kumar (father of the deceased) at village Baigakapa, wherein the appellant herein demanded money from his wife, which she refused to give and the appellant also assaulted to her and thereafter the appellant came back to village Chhata along with his daughters on 19/12/2012. Thereafter on the understanding given by Golu and Govind from village Chhata, Baijantibala (deceased) came back to stay with the appellant on 1/1/2013, but on 13/1/2013, Rohit Kumar (PW-1) (father of the deceased) received information that his daughter became unwell and thereafter also received information that Baijantibala has died, then he came to village Chhata along with other 4-5 persons and on being asked, the appellant informed to him that Baijantibala is said to have died by electrification. Rohit Kumar (PW-1) reported the matter to Police Station Lalpur vide merg intimation (Ex.P-1) and thereafter First Information Report was registered vide Ex.P-10. Jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate First Class was informed about the incident. Thereafter the Station House Officer, Police Station Lalpur reached to the spot and served notices to the witnesses. Naksha panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-3. Spot map was prepared by investigating officer vide Ex.P-5. Dead body of deceased Baijantibala was sent for postmortem to Government Hospital, Mungeli vide Ex. P-11, where postmortem was conducted by Dr.Deepak Dhritlahre (PW-9) vide Ex.P-14 in which he opined that cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. Thereafter the accused was arrested, he was given memorandum statement on 12/2/2013 (Ex.P-7), but no recovery pursuant to memorandum statement was made. However, sari was recovered from possession of the appellant on 14/1/2013 vide Ex.P-4. The appellant was charge-sheeted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, who was committed the case to the Court of Session, Mungeli, from where the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli received the case on transfer for trial. The accused/appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence.

(3.) In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents Exs.P-1 to P-14. Statement of the accused/appellant under Sec. 313 of the CrPC was recorded in which he denied guilt. However, the accused took a plea of alibi and examined 4 witnesses to prove his defence and brought out statement of Shail Bai in his favour as Ex.D-1.