LALJEET PAINKRA 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. 23/9/2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, in Sessions Trial No.117/2015, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for the 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, 3 months' additional rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in short, is that in the intervening night of 14-15/09/2015 at about 10:00 P.M. to 01:00 A.M. at village Maheshpur, Schoolpara, Police Station Sitapur, District Sarguja, the appellant herein assaulted his wife Smt. Balmati (now deceased) by means of Tangi and Lathi, by which, she suffered grievous injuries and died. In the morning, the appellant himself informed the matter to his brother Ramjit (PW-7) and thereafter, Yashoda Singh (PW-8), Sarpanch of the Village, who reported the matter to the police vide merg report Ex.P-5 that the appellant has murdered his wife, pursuant to which, Dehati Nalashi was recorded vide Ex.P-6, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-6A, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-9 and dead body of deceased Balmati was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. S.N.Paikara (PW-1), who proved the post-mortem report Ex.P-1, in which, cause of death was stated to be hemorrhagic shock due to injury on occipital bone of head and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant Ex.P-10, Tangi and Lathi along-with Shirt were seized vide Ex.P-11, which were sent for chemical examination to FSL and as per the FSL report (Ex.P-15B), blood was found on the seized articles. 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 11 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has examined only one witness DW-1, but has not exhibited any document.