SUNDERLAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.20.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, Distt. Bilaspur convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof to undergo additional RI for two years. In the present case, name of the deceased is Hajari. As per prosecution case, on 16.10.1997 wife of the accused/appellant namely Rajkumari (acquitted accused) asked PW-21 Mograbai, wife of the deceased, to send her husband/deceased to her house in the night at about 9 p.m. It is alleged that in the said night, deceased Hajari had gone to the house of the accused/appellant and when he did not return till 2 am, on the next morning she (PW-21) went in search of him to the house of the accused/appellant, knocked his door, which was not opened and when she entered the house of the accused/appellant from backside of the house she found dead body of her husband Hajari lying there in the kitchen garden of the accused/appellant. Merg intimation (Ex.P/1) was recorded on 17.10.1997 at around 10 am at the instance of village Kotwar Firdas (PW-1). Postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted on 18.10.1997 by Dr. R.D. Gupta (PW-20) who prepared postmortem report (Ex.P/30) wherein it was mentioned that three ligature marks were found on the neck of the deceased and cause of death is asphyxia due to strangulation. After merg inquiry and receiving the postmortem report, FIR (Ex.P/21) was registered against the accused/appellant on 20.10.1997 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant and acquitted accused Rajkumari under Section 302/34 of IPC and accordingly, charge was framed against them.

(2.) In order to hold the accused persons guilty, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, they examined one Jhangluram as DW-1.

(3.) The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment while acquitting accused Rajkumari of all the charges, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment.