JITENDRA SEN Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Sec. 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 17/12/2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 16/2019 whereby the trial court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_18_LAWS(CHH)10_2024_1.jpg</IMG>

(2.) Facts of the case in nut shell are that on 25/12/2018, deceasedIndira Bai was in the house along with her Aunt Sabana Bai & Grandmother Baisakhin Bai. On the same day Mantruram returned to his home and enquired about the deceased- Indira Bai and then he came to know that she was not at home. During search, he came to know that his daughter- Indira Bai was lying dead at Neelgiri farm. The appellant was chasing the deceased for last one year for which Mantruram & his wife restrained them for talking to each other. On the date of the incident, the appellant called the deceased at Neelgiri farm and strangled her by her scarf. On the basis of morgue intimation, inquest memo was prepared and thereafter, the postmortem of the body was conducted. One mobile and bicycle were seized from the place of the incident. Spot map was prepared. On the basis of information of Mantruram, FIR bearing Crime No. 146/2018 was registered against the respondent. On 26/12/2018, the accused/appellant was taken into custody and his memorandum statement was recorded. After completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC followed by framing of charges, to which appellant abjured his guilt and prayed for trial.

(3.) So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. The appellant did not adduce any evidence in his defence.