CHHUNU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Sec. 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 18/3/2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.89/2014 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surguja, Ambikapur, by which, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_33_LAWS(CHH)8_2023_1.html</FRM>

(2.) In this case, name of the deceased is Smt. Sindhu @ Sindu Kumhar, who was the wife of the appellant.

(3.) According to the case of the prosecution, on 17/1/2014, on the occasion of festival, namely, Chherta, wife of the appellant ' Sindhu @ Sindu Kumhar had prepared mutton curry. When the mutton curry prepared by his wife became insufficient, at around 8.00 pm, a dispute ensued between the appellant and the deceased. This dispute was informed by Ambikesh, son of the appellant, to neighbours Babulal Nagesiya (P.W.1) and his wife Sunita Bai (P.W.2). When Babulal Nagesiya, on receipt of such information, reached to the spot along with his wife Sunita Bai (P.W.2), at that time also the appellant assaulted his wife Sindhu. Thereafter, Babulal and his wife returned to their house. On morning of 18/1/2014, Sunita Bai (P.W.2), wife of Babulal (P.W.1) went to the house of the deceased and found that deceased was lying dead in her house and appellant was also present there, the deceased sustained various injuries on her body and blood was oozing. P.W.2 Sunita Bai informed the same to her husband Babulal Nagesiya, who also went to the house of the appellant and saw Sindhu in dead condition. Babulal (P.W.1) lodged the report in the concerned Police Station, on the basis of which, F.I.R. was registered vide Ex.P.1. Merg intimation was also recorded vide Ex.P.2. Inquest proceedings was initiated vide Ex.P.7. Dead body of Sindhu was sent for post-mortem examination to Primary Health Center, Darima, where Dr. Jeneshwar Singh (P.W.12) conducted the post-mortem examination, who gave post-mortem report vide Ex.P.11, according to which, death of deceased was haemorrhagic shock due to rupture of left lobe of lung with multiple injuries and death was homicidal in nature. During course of investigation, on the basis of memorandum statement of the appellant recorded under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P.04), one piece of wooden stick and one piece of brick were seized from the appellant vide Ex.P.5.