LALITABAI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal preferred by the appellants herein under Sec. 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 14/12/2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Balod, in Sessions Trial No.10/2010, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants for offence under Sec. 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and further sentenced to fine of Rs.500.00 , in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months.

(2.) It is admitted fact on record that appellant No.2 Smt.Rajbai is wife of the deceased and appellant No.1 Smt.Lalitabai is daughter of deceased Punitram Tandon. It is the case of the prosecution that two appellants herein being daughter and mother in furtherance of common intention caused death of Punitram Tandon on 16/12/2009 at 5 a.m. and thrown his dead body in the courtyard of their house and thereby committed the offence. It is further case of the prosecution that appellant No.1 Smt.Lalitabai (daughter of the deceased) on 16/12/2009 informed to the Police Station Gurur about death of Punitram Tandon, against which, Merg No.109/2009 was registered. Spot map was prepared by patwari vide Ex.P 8. Investigating officer also prepared spot map vide Ex.P 11. Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P 7 on the recommendation of panchas. Dead body of deceased Punitram Tandon was sent for postmortem to Community Health Center, Gurur, where Dr.T.R.Thakur (PW 10) conducted postmortem vide Ex.P 18 and opined that cause of death was due to multiple head injuries leading to crushing of vital organ and death was homicidal in nature. Thereafter FIR was registered vide Ex.P 21. On the basis of memorandum statement of appellant No.1 Smt.Lalitabai vide Ex.P 1, pestle (musal) was recovered vide Ex.P 2 and also recovered terricot pink sari and one towel vide Ex.P 3. Other articles were also seized. Seized articles were sent for query to Dr.T.R.Thakur (PW 10), who gave his opinion vide Ex.P 19 and recommended for FSL examination to ascertain as to whether seized articles stain blood or not. Though the articles were sent for FSL examination vide Ex.P 24, but FSL report has not been brought on record by the prosecution. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Sec. 161 of the CrPC and after due investigation, the appellant was charge sheeted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balod, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Durg, from where the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Balod received the case on transfer for trial. The accused / appellants abjured the guilt and entered into defence.

(3.) In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents Exs.P 1 to P 25. On behalf of the defence, three witnesses namely, appellants No.1 and 2 and Mehtaruram Jangde (DW 3) were examined and they brought 29 documents as Exs.D 1 to D 29 in their support. They have clearly stated that in their statement that on account of previous dispute between father of appellant No.1 and Heeralal, they have falsely been implicated.