SAHEBDAS MANIKPURI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal preferred under Sec. 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dtd. 28/11/2016, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Trial No.83/2016, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500.00, in default of payment of fine, 2 months additional simple imprisonment.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31/12/2015, the appellant herein assaulted her sister-in-law Rinky Manikpuri by grinding stone, by which, she suffered grievous injuries. The said fact was informed by her husband Jawahar Manikpuri (PW-4) to Smt. Prabha Manikpuri that Rinky Manikpuri was undergoing treatment at Mekahara Hospital, Raipur then she reached to Mekahara Hospital and she was informed by Sukhsagar (not examined) that appellant has assaulted Rinky Manikpuri. Then, the matter was reported to the police, pursuant to which, dehati nalishi was registered vide Ex.P-4, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-18 and during course of treatment, Rinky Manikpuri (now deceased) died on 4/1/2016 and then merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-11, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-7 and dead body of deceased Rinky Manikpuri was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. M.Nirala (PW-12), who proved the post-mortem report vide Ex.P-16, in which cause of death was stated to be cardio respiratory failure as a result of head injuries and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant Ex.P-9, grinding stone was seized vide Ex.P-10, which was sent for chemical examination to FSL along-with other seized articles and as per the FSL report Ex.P-24, human blood was found on the seized grinding stone. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence under Sec. 302 of I.P.C. before the jurisdictional criminal court, which 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 16 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has not examined any witness but has exhibited one document Ex.D-1.