DEVESHDATT TANDON Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Sec. 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 1/10/2012 passed in Sessions Trial No.81/2011 by the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, C.G., by which the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:-

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in between 10/9/2011 and 13/9/2011, appellant herein assaulted the deceased Ku. Pratibha Koshriya with surgical blade and committed her murder. Appellant in order to conceal the evidence, threw the dead body of the deceased in a dense forest and thereby committed the offence. Further case of the prosecution is that at the time of incident, deceased was aged about 22 years and was pursuing B.A at Raipur. The deceased was missing since 10/9/2011 and on 13/9/2011, her dead body was found in highly decomposed condition having many injuries over her body. Pursuant to this on 13/9/2011, PW-17 Ajay Kumar Sahu registered Dehati merg intimation Ex.P-14 stating that he was informed by the villagers of Sirgidi that a dead body of an unidentified girl is lying in the forest, pursuant to which Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-15 and merg intimation Ex.P-28 were recorded. Identification panchnama and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-8 respectively, whereby dead body of the deceased girl was identified. On the recommendation of the panchas, dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW-15 Dr. Girdhari Chandrakar, who has proved the postmortem report Ex.P-17. In the postmortem report, no definite opinion was given as body was highly decomposed. Thereafter, appellant was arrested vide Ex.P-19. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P-5 consequent to which two surgical blades were seized at his instance vide Ex.P-6 in presence of two witnesses i.e. PW-7 Rajesh Kumar Jangde and PW-16 Kaliram. Vide Ex.P-7 clothes, motorcycle and other articles were also seized. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination but no FSL report has been brought on record.

(3.) After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he has not committed the offence.