DILA RAM MANJHI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Sec. 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dtd. 21/12/2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No.84/2015, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000.00, in default of payment of fine, 1 year additional rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17/4/2015, at about 1:00 p.m., at village Auraimuda, Police Station Gharghora, District Raigarh, the appellant herein assaulted his wife Gulapi Bai (now deceased) by burnt wood and axe, by which, she suffered grievous injuries and died and in order to screen himself from the offence, the appellant hide the burnt wood from the place of incident; thereby, offence has been committed. The matter was reported to the police, pursuant to which, merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-1, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-12, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-3 and dead body of deceased Gulapi Bai was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. A.K.Minj (PW-8), who proved the post-mortem report Ex.P-13, according to which cause of death was due to cardio respiratory arrest as a result of hemorrhagic shock due to excessive blood loss and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant Ex.P-7, burnt wood was seized vide Ex.P-8, which was sent for examination to FSL, but FSL report has not been brought on record. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence under Sec. 302 and 201 of I.P.C. before the jurisdictional criminal court, which was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated.

(3.) In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor has exhibited any document.