BRIJESH @ BALLU SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused-appellant herein has preferred this criminal appeal under Sec. 374(2) of Cr.P.C. calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 6/2/2013, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in S.T. No.19/2012 (State of CG vs. Brijesh @ Ballu Sahu), whereby though he has been acquitted for the offence under Ss. 304-B and 498-A of IPC, but convicted for offences: under Sec. 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.200.00 and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 month and under Sec. 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 03 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100.00 and, in default of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused-appellant herein on 26/9/2011, round 06:00 AM in the morning, at Village Amarpur, committed murder of his wife, namely, Sarita Sahu (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") by strangulation and further, in order to escape/screen himself from the said offence, burned the dead- body of deceased and, thereby, committed the offence under Sec. 302, 201, 304-B and 498-A of IPC.

(3.) The further case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that: marriage of deceased was solemnized with accused-appellant 01 year 05 months prior from the date of incident; accused-appellant and his brother- Shivkumar Sahu (PW-01) both used to reside in one house; accused-appellant alongwith his wife (deceased) used to reside on the first floor of the said house and his brother used to reside in the ground floor; accused-appellant used to quarrel with his wife (deceased) as he has suspicion that deceased was having illicit relationship with some other person and, on 25/9/2011, at about 11:00 PM in the night, on the same issue of illicit relationship, the appellant and deceased was quarreling, on which, appellant's brother, namely, Shiv Kumar Sahu (PW-01) and mother- Chandrwati Sahu (PW-02) made both of them understood and intervene to stop such quarrel; thereafter, on the next day i.e. on 26/9/2011, in the morning at about 06:00 AM, appellant's neighbour, namely, Gouri shouted and informed Chandrwati Sahu (PW-02) that smoke is coming out from the Gallery situated beside appellant's shop, pursuant to which, Shiv Kumar Sahu (PW-01) and mother- Chandrwati Sahu (PW-02) ran and saw that deceased was burning in fire; thereafter, accused-appellant came with water and poured on the deceased, but she succumbed to death and immediately thereafter accused-appellant absconded from the spot; thereafter, on the same day at about 08:30, brother of accused-appellant, Shiv Kumar Sahu (PW-01) informed about the said incident to Police Station Pendra and, pursuant to which, Marg. No.66/2011 (Ex.P/01) was registered; spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/03 and inquest was conducted vide Ex.P/05; summons were sent to the witnesses vide Ex.P/10 and FIR was registered as Ex.P/11; the dead-body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem examination report (Ex.P/09), conducted by Dr. Mohan Singh Kawar (PW-13) alongwith Dr. J.S. Lakra (PW-08), it was opined that the cause of death of deceased is asphyxia due to throttling and nature of death is homicidal in nature; thereafter, appellant-accused was arrested vide Ex.P/14 and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P/06, pursuant to which a blouse, used by the appellant in the crime in question has been seized vide Ex.P/07; the aforesaid seized blouse was subjected/sent to FSL examination alongwith other seized articles vide FSL memo (Ex.P/15), but no FSL report has been brought on record by the prosecution for the reasons best known to the prosecution; thereafter, statement of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road (CG) and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by submitting that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.