SUNIL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.8.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Pendra Road, District Bilaspur in S.T. No.6/10 whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Life and fine of Rs.100/ -, in default to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month.

(2.) Accused/appellant is the husband of deceased Smt. Laxmin Bai. As per case of the prosecution, on 22.10.2009 the accused/appellant committed murder of his wife Smt. Laxmin Bai by causing injuries to her by belt and thereafter strangulated her by electric wire. On 24.10.2009 at the instance of village Kotwar Bisahin Bai (PW -1), dehati merg (Ex.P -1) was recorded at 10.40 a.m. and after about ten minutes, dehati FIR (Ex.P -2) was also recorded. Based on the Dehati Mergi (Ex.P -1) & Dehati FIR (Ex.P -2), FIR (Ex.P -14) was recorded against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. In the dehati merg (Ex.P -1), it has been alleged that after committing murder of the deceased on 22.10.2009, the accused/appellant kept her body inside the house till 24.10.2009 and on 24.10.2009 based on the disclosure made by the appellant that he has committed murder of his wife, the Sarpanch and other villagers had gone to the house of appellant and had seen the body of deceased lying in the room. Thereafter the information was given to the police. Inquest on the dead body was made on 24.10.2009 vide Ex.P -3. Dead body was sent for post -mortem which was conducted by Dr. M.S. Marko (PW -8) vide Ex.P -9. The doctor conducting the post -mortem examination noticed two contusions on the chin of 3 x 2 cm size, abrasions on the chest and opined the cause of death as asphyxia leading to cardio respiratory arrest. On completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC was filed against the accused/appellant and accordingly the charge was framed against him by the trial Court.

(3.) The prosecution in order to bring home the charge levelled against the appellant had examined nine witnesses in all. Statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence & false implication. He has taken a defence that he does not know as to how his wife died because he had gone to the forest on 21st and on his return only he came to know that his wife has expired.