DEVPRAKASH 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. 16/4/2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Atrocities), Rajnandgaon, in Sessions Trial No.59/2013, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Ss. 302 and 324 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28/5/2013 at about 11:30 p.m. at village Tedesara, Police Station- Somni, the appellant assaulted his wife Shakun Bai (now deceased) by axe, by which she suffered grievous injuries and died and he also caused grievous injury to his son Lokesh (PW-6); thereby, offences have been committed. Further case of the prosecution is that, on 28/5/2013, appellant quarreled with his wife on the issue of partition and money and assaulted her by axe, by which she suffered grievous injuries and died. The appellant also assaulted his son Lokesh (PW-6) by axe, which is sufficient to cause death. The deceased Shakun Bai was admitted to Durg hospital from where she was referred to Sector-9 hospital, Bhilai and during treatment, she died. The FIR was lodged by the complainant Lokesh Sahu vide Ex.P/16, Naksha Pachayatnama was prepared vide Ex.P/13, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P/12 and dead body was sent for post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. N.C.Rai (PW-13), who proved the post-mortem report Ex.P/17A, in which cause of death was due to head injury and internal injury in the brain and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant Ex.P/1, axe was seized vide Ex.P/4 along-with other articles, which were sent for examination to FSL and in the FSL report, human blood was found on the seized articles. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence to the jurisdictional criminal court and the case 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 13 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has not examined any witness but has exhibited the documents Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-3.