GOMTI SIDAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant/accused herein under Sec. 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the judgment of conviction recorded for offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the IPC and sentence awarded for imprisonment for life and fine of ?500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh by the impugned judgment dtd. 11/9/2014 in Sessions Trial No.145/2010.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 9/3/2010 at 3 p.m. at village Gadgaon, P.S. Punjipathra, District Raigarh the appellant herein murdered her minor son namely Devam aged about 5 years by axe and thereby committed the offence. It is further case of the prosecution that Smt.Gomti Bai, appellant herein, was suffering from mental illness and for which she was being treated in mental hospital. She at the relevant point of time was suffering from unsoundness of mind. On 9/3/2010 she came to his father's place along with younger son Devam, aged about 5 years and her husband Hemsagar had gone to village Munud for collecting money due to him. Hemsagar was informed by his brother-in-law that the appellant herein caused murder of her younger son by axe, he reached to the spot and saw that her son's dead body was lying inside the house with injuries. Hemsagar lodged FIR vide Ex.P-12 and thereafter wheels of investigation started running. Dead body of deceased Devam was sent for postmortem to Primary Health Centre, Libra vide Ex.P-7, where Dr.Dhansingh Paikra (PW-6) conducted postmortem and opined that mode of death was due to hypovolumic shock (excessive blood loss) caused by cardio respiratory arrest. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Raigarh, from where the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh received the case on transfer for trial. The appellant herein abjured the guilt and entered into defence.

(3.) In order to bring home the above-stated offence, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents. However, the accused / appellant has examined none in her defence and no document has been exhibited in her support.