UDERAM PATEL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Sec. 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dtd. 26/10/2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, in Sessions Trial No.41/2016, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Ss. 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500.00, in default of payment of fine amount, 6 months additional rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in short, is that in the intervening night of 18/8/2016 to 19/8/2016, at village Kodwa Godan, Police Station Kukdur, the appellant herein assaulted his wife Tijan Bai (now deceased) by bamboo stick on her head, by which, she suffered grievous injuries and died; thereby the offence has been committed. Further case of the prosecution is that Shyam Lal Patel (PW-1) on 19/8/2016 reported the matter to the Police Station Kukdur, pursuant to which, merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-1, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-25, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-3 and dead body of deceased Tijan Bai was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. B.L.Raj (PW-6), who proved the post-mortem report vide Ex.P-14, according to which, cause of death was stated to be coma caused by injuries to skull bone and bleeding inside the brain and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant Ex.P-9, bamboo stick was seized vide Ex.P-10, which was sent for chemical examination to FSL along-with the other seized articles and as per the FSL report (Ex.P-29), blood was not found on the seized bamboo stick. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence to the jurisdictional criminal court and the case 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 12 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has not examined any witness but has exhibited the documents Ex.D-1 to D-3.