LEDURAM LAKDA 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. 30/7/2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sessions Bench Jashpur, in Sessions Trial No.20/2016, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000.00, in default of payment of fine, 5 months additional rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 28/1/2016 in between 6 to 8 p.m. at village Maraguda Pahad in Forest of Gashtidand, Police Station Sanna, District Jashpur, the appellant assaulted his wife Birjhi Bai (now deceased) by hand and fist and inserted sugarcane in her private part, by which, she suffered grievous injuries and died; thereby the offence has been committed. Further case of the prosecution is that on 28/1/2016, appellant and his wife along-with their children had gone to Champa Bazaar at village Amatpani and while coming back to his village, on suspecting the character of his pregnant wife, appellant assaulted her by hand and fist and by stone and inserted sugarcane in her private part, by which, she suffered grievous injuries and died. The appellant himself has reported the matter to the police and Rojnamcha-sanha was recorded on 29/1/2016, merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-18, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-19, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-5 and dead body of deceased Birjhi Bai was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. C.D. Bakhla (PW-3), who proved the post-mortem report Ex.P-9, according to which, cause of death was stated to be hemorrhagic shock due to rupture of uterus and death was homicidal in nature. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL, in which, on the cloths of appellant and other articles also, blood has been found. 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 9 witnesses and exhibited 32 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.