NARMADA PRASAD THAKUR Vs. RAJKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment passed by Sessions Court Koriya, (Baikunthpur), in S.T. No.5 1/2006 dtd. 28/12/2006, whereby the respondents No. 1,2 and 3 have been acquitted by the trial Court of the charge under Sec. 302, 201/34 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The facts of prosecution case are, that deceased Sangeeta is wife of respondent No. 1, sister- in-law of respondent No.2 and daughter-in-law of respondent No. 3, they all resided in the same household at V.T. C. Colony, Charcha, District Koriya. On 25/ 11/2005, at 23.30 hours in the night the respondent No. 1 gave information to Police Station, Charcha, that on the same day at about 4 p.m. in the evening his wife deceased and mother respondent No. 3 ha d dispute between them, due to which the respondent No. 3 suffered high blood pressure and she was taken for treatment to doctor. Further he went to market for some purchase s and came back to his residence at 8 p.m. His brother Rahul told him that deceased was inside the room, her door was bolted from inside and she was not opening the door. The respondent No. 1 could not get the door open then he peeped from the ventilator and saw, that deceased was hanging with the rod of ceiling fan. After informing respondents No. 2 and 3 he broke open the door and brought down the deceased from the noose. They carried the deceased to doctor, who after doing the checkup informed that she was dead. Merg intimation (Ex.P/18) was recorded. Inquest was conducted as per (Ex.P/17) on 26/11/2005. On the advice of inquest witnesses postmortem was conducted by Dr. (Smt.) Kalawati Patel (PW-19) vide postmortem report (Ex.P/15), in which it was opined that cause of death was asphyxia, due to strangulation, hence the death of homicidal in nature. On the basis of inquest and postmortem report, FIR (Ex.P/21) was lodged on 01/12/20 05 registering the offence under Ss. 302, 201, 203, 34 of Indian Penal Code against the unknown persons. During investigation Panchnama statement was recorded vide (Ex.P/2) of respondent No. 2 and (Ex.P/3) of respondent No. 1 which was a confessional statement given by the respondents No. 1 and 2. Further in the investigation the cloth used for hanging was seized vide (Ex.P/1). The scratched paint from the rod of the fan was collected and preserved for Forensic Science Laboratory Examination vide (Ex.P/7) on the spot. Crime Unit (Mobile) District Surguja inspected vide (Ex.P/11) the spot. Spot map was further prepared vide (Ex.P/13) by Patwari Shyam Lal Mishra (PW-12). Further a qu ery report was obtained (Ex.P/16) from the Dr. Rameshwar Sharma (PW- 16). Seized articles the traces of paint found on the hanging cloth were examined by FSL and report was given vide (Ex.P/25), that the sample of paint from fan rod and on the hanging cloth did not match. On completion of investigation respondents No. 1,2, and 3 were charge-sheeted.

(3.) Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 were charged under Sec. 302 and 201/34 of IPC. They denied the charge and pleaded innocence. Prosecution examined 20 witnesses. Defence has not examined any witness in their support. It was pleaded that the respondent-accused persons were falsely implicated it was them who tried to get treatment and save the life of the deceased when they found her hanging. After completion of trial, impugned judgment was passed, whereby the respondents-accused persons were given benefit of doubt and acquitted from all the charges against them.