ANUJ RAM Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28th September, 2010 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in S.T.No.180/09 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof to undergo additional RI for three months.

(2.) In the present case name of the deceased is Anjorabai, wife of the accused/appellant. It is alleged that on 21.8.2009 at about 2 pm the accused/appellant caused number of injuries on the head of his wife Anjorabai. Upon receiving this information, FIR (Ex.P/6) was lodged by PW-2 Anand Kumar, son of the deceased, based on which offence under Section 307 of IPC was registered against the accused/appellant at Outpost-CIMS, City Kotwali, Bilaspur. The injured was taken to hospital where she died at around 5.20 pm. When the deceased was hospitalized, her medical examination was done by PW-10 Dr. R.K. Upadhyay vide Ex.P/24. Based on the information given by ward boy of the hospital, merg intimation (Ex.P/20) was registered on 21.8.2009. Thereafter, numbered FIR (Ex.P/14) was registered against the accused/appellant under Section 302 of IPC at the instance of PW-2 Anandram. After her death, inquest Ex.P/3 was prepared and postmortem examination on her body was conducted on 22.8.2009 by PW-8 Dr. Ashutosh Tiwari vide Ex.P/11 who noticed multiple injuries on the head of the deceased including linear and depressed fracture over tempoparietal region. In his opinion, the cause of death was coma as a result of subdural hematoma due to head injuries. After investigation, charge sheet was filed under Section 302 of IPC and thereafter, charge was framed against the accused/appellant accordingly.

(3.) So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, he examined one Pinku Masil as DW-1.