KRISHNA KOMARRA 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. 29/4/2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, in Sessions Trial No. 28/2015, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.200.00, in default of payment of fine, 1 month additional rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 18/1/2015 at 5:30 p.m. at village Mudagaon (Gurujipara), Police Station- Mainpur, District Gariyaband, the appellant herein assaulted his nearest relative Jamunabai by wooden log, by which she suffered grievous injury and died; thereby, offence has been committed. Further case of the prosecution, is that, on 18/1/2015 at 5:30 p.m., the appellant was shouting near the house of Jamunabai (near relative) under the influence of liquor, which she asked him not to do that, but, all of a sudden, the appellant gave single blow of wooden log to Jamunabai (now deceased), by which, she suffered grievous injury and died. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police, pursuant to which, merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-1, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-5, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-3 and dead body of deceased Jamunabai was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. Anju Sonwani (PW-9), who proved the post-mortem report vide Ex.P-11, in which cause of death was due to cardio respiratory arrest as a result of hemorrhagic shock due to head injury and death was homicidal in nature. The weapon of offence i.e. wooden log has been seized from the spot, which was sent for chemical examination to FSL along with other seized articles. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence under Sec. 302 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 11 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has not examined any witness but has exhibited one document Ex.D-1.