OMPRAKASH DEVANGAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 17/5/2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District ' Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in S.T. No. 412/2004 whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_61_LAWS(CHH)7_2023_1.html</FRM>

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 27/9/1997, the marriage between the appellant and deceased Durga Dewangan was solemnized. After marriage, the deceased was tortured on demand of dowry by her husband and mother-in-law. The appellant assaulted the deceased Durga Dewangan at her in-laws' house and also at her maternal home, due to which the deceased was mentally and physically tortured. On the intervening night of 28/29/9.2004, the appellant went to sleep on the veranda after having meal and his wife Durga was cleaning the utensils. The next day morning when the appellant weak up and saw that the door of the room of her wife was not opened, he opened the door and saw that her wife was hanging with the help of a saree. Thereafter, the appellant called the neighbours and lodged a merg intimation report. During the course of the investigation, S.D.O. - S.L. Salam summoned the Panch-witnesses and prepared the Panchayatnama of the dead body vide Ex.-P-3 and sent the dead body for postmortem. Dr. K.P. Rathore and Dr. H.S. Chandel performed the postmortem, and gave postmortem report vide Ex.-P-6, according to them the cause of death was suffocation which was caused by hanging and visra was preserved and opined for chemical examination of the visra. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the appellant along with the co-accused arrested and charge sheet was filed against them.

(3.) So as to hold the accused/applicant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. The statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. The appellant has examined one witness in his defence.