CHAMPA LAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the accused/appellants under Sec. 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment impugned dtd. 31/10/2002 passed by learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (Fast Tract Court) in Sessions Trial No. 366/2001 convicting them under Ss. 304-B, 306 & 498-A IPC, and imposing the sentence of 10 years and 7 years RI with fine of Rs.500.00 on each count, plus default stipulations.

(2.) The facts of the case in nutshell are that the deceased namely Kusum @ Ganga was married to accused Champa Lal in the year 1998. Accused/appellants herein are the husband and in-laws of the deceased. On 29/12/2000 the deceased got burnt in the house of the accused/appellants and was first taken to Hospital at Devbhog where Dr. Uttam Singh (PW-12) medically examined her and gave his report Ex. P-33 stating that he found 90 to 100% burns on her body. He thereafter referred her to Hospital at Raipur for further treatment where she was admitted on 30/12/2000 at 12.15 pm, but succumbed to the burns at 8:05 PM on the same day. After inquest, the body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Sanjay Dadu (PW-2). Seizure of certain articles including the half burnt papers and notebook, underwear etc. was made under Ex. P-27, P-28 & P-29. During investigation statements of witnesses were recorded, seizure of letters Ex. P-1 to P-3 allegedly written by the deceased to her sister and father were seized under Ex. P-4 and then on its completion the charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellants under Ss. 498-A & 304-B r/w 34 IPC. Charge however was framed against them under Sec. 304-B, 306 IPC and in the alternative 498-A IPC. The accused/appellants however, denied the charge framed against them and claimed trial.

(3.) So as to establish its case, the prosecution has examined as many as many 16 witnesses. The statements of the accused/appellants under Sec. 313 CrPC were recorded where they pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case.