BHAGWANTI BAI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This present appeal is against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 11/2/2020 passed by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Sessions Trial No.115/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below:- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_69_LAWS(CHH)7_2023_1.jpg</IMG>

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Purnima Sarthi had lodged a report on 23/7/2017 that when she along with her husband-deceased were sleeping at their house, at 11 PM, she saw that her husband was being assaulted by her mother-in-law Bhagwanti Bai on his head and having seen the assault, she fled away from the place of occurrence. Due to assault, her husband fell unconscious. Thereafter, she went to her relative-Ravindra and Gajadhar, Uncle-inlaw and thereafter, injured husband was taken to the hospital at Lakhanpur and after that, he was referred to District Hospital at Ambikapur. The injured was then admitted to the Mission Hospital, Ambikapur and eventually, he was referred to hospital at Raipur. On the report of the complainant, offence under Sec. 307 of the IPC was registered and from the spot, soil, clothes and gaiti were seized. During the course of treatment, Ajay Sarthi died on 2/8/2017 and therefore, the offence under Sec. 302 of the IPC was registered. According to the postmortem report, the death was caused due to the injury caused on the head and was homicidal in nature. As the appellant was absconding, on enquiry, the police caught hold her from the house of one Ramapati Pandey and on her memorandum, the clothes wearing at the time of commission of offence were seized vide Ex.P-13. After recording the statement of witnesses, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge. During the course of trial, the appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and after evaluating the evidence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the conviction of the appellant is based on presumption as statement of the alleged eye-witness would show that she has completely disowned that she has seen the incident. He further submitted that other witnesses examined by the prosecution would show that they are hearsay witnesses and the seizure witnesses in this case have also not supported the case of the prosecution, which is alleged that bloodstained clothes were seized from the accused. He would further submit that the alleged clothes were seized, but the statement of the doctor would show that when it was given, the seal were opened, therefore, there has been interpolation of the evidence, for which, the benefit of doubt should have been given to the accused.