DANVIR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 4/1/2016 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No.7 of 2013, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

(2.) Name of the deceased is Jyoti. The Appellant is her second husband. Earlier, Jyoti resided with her first husband for a period of 12 years and out of their wedlock a girl child was born. From the Appellant, she gave birth to a boy child. Both the Appellant and Jyoti along with their son were residing in a rented house of R.P. Jaiswal (PW1). Case of the prosecution is that the Appellant was insisting Jyoti to come along with him to his ancestral house situated at Pilibhit (Uttar Pradesh) and live there, but she was not agree. On 6/5/2012, the Appellant informed his father-in-law Ranjit Kumar Poramanik (not examined) that he killed Jyoti and she was lying dead at home and he was going away along with his son. Ranjit immediately informed the incident to his other daughter Poonam and her husband Balbir (both not examined). Thereafter, Ranjit reached the spot along with owner of the house where they found that Jyoti was lying dead. First Information Report (Ex.P16) and Morgue Intimation (Ex.P17) were lodged by Ranjit. Inquest Proceeding (Ex.P2) was conducted. Post mortem examination over the dead body was conducted by Dr. P. Akhtar (PW7). His report is Ex.P12 in which he opined that cause of the death was asphyxia which took place due to strangulation and nature of the death was homicidal. During the course of investigation, on the basis of disclosure statement (Ex.P4) of the Appellant, one Nokia Mobile handset of Jyoti, through which the Appellant informed the incident to his father-in-law and made extra judicial confession of killing Jyoti, was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P15. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Sec. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant. The Trial Court framed charge against him.

(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. In examination under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellant denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. No witness was examined in his defence.