PURAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant stands convicted under Section 307 IPC by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No. 169 of 99 dated 15th January, 2001 and ordered to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment. PW 1, Krishna Kumar Behra lodged a First Information Report on 28.6.1999, Exhibit P/1, under Section 307 IPC naming the appellant alleging that his sister, PW 2, Bilasa Bai, had conceived from the appellant who was her neighbor, a year earlier. She was forced to abort by the appellant. A Panchayat was held, the appellant had agreed to keep her but started relenting soon after. His sister PW 2, then stopped coming home. On 26.6.1999 the appellant gave her milk laced with poison "Phoskill" saying the medicine would help her regain strength. The stink in the milk made it difficult to drink and she spat it out. The appellant wanted to kill her as he did not wish to keep her. His sister was not willing to report to the police saying that if she complained against the appellant where would she live. She was unable to eat for past two days and her voice had been choked since previous night. Her mother was taking her to the hospital for treatment. The witness met them on the way and took her to the police station to lodge a report.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was two days delay in lodging the report giving sufficient time for embellishments. There is no satisfactory explanation for the same. PW 2 herself stated that she was not interested in lodging a report. PW 1 in deposition stated PW 2 had been administered "Democrone" pesticide. The FSL report states the insecticide was "Phoskill". PW 2 had denied that she had any love or affection for the appellant. The alleged signatories to the Panchayat settlement had denied the same. It was lastly submitted that conviction for three years under 307 IPC was not justified. If any offence had been made out conviction ought to have been under 324 IPC for which the maximum punishment was three years. The appellant has already undergone approximately seven months of custody which is sufficient punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) Counsel for the State opposing the appeal submitted that PW 2 was not a stranger to the appellant but his own wife. Her evidence cannot be brushed away lightly. As the victim she is completely reliable for the purpose of conviction.