PREM RAM @ PREM Vs. STATE OF C.G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.12.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur, in Sessions Trial No. 125/1998 whereby the said Court held the Appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the deceased namely Manpati Bai was the second wife of the Appellant. She was daughter of Hero Ram Yadav (P.W. 1). THEy were residents of the same village namely Palepakhna Dumariya. THE accused has brought the second wife in the life time of his first wife, who was also residing with him alongwith her two children. Initially the relations between the accused and the deceased were cordial, however, after some time, the accused started beating her and pressurizing her to leave his house and to go to her parents place. On 14.4.1998, the deceased had gone to the Sarpanch of the village namely Sitaram Paikra (P.W. 6) and a complaint was reduced into writing by the Sarpanch on the instructions of the deceased that on 12.4.1998 at about 10-11 a.m., when the accused returned to the house, after picking Mahua fruits, he prepared and offered tea to the deceased, but the deceased saw that some black powder like substance was floating in the tea and she suspected that poison was mixed in it. On asking to the accused, the accused said that it is milk powder and he snatched the tea from her hand and threw it. THE deceased saw that in the bottom of the glass of tea some residual part of alleged poisonous substance was there which she had shown to one Sukhal Sai. THEreafter, in the intervening night of 14th -15th of April, 1998 at about 2 a.m., the elder brother of the accused namely Dharam Khadia went to the house of father of the deceased and informed him that in the morning at about 2 a.m., his daughter (the deceased) has died on account of Haiza, vomitting and loose motions. Since the father of the deceased Hero Ram had seen the deceased hale and hearty just one day prior to the said information and there was some quarrel between the deceased and the accused on the said day, he doubted the information and he went to Sarpanch, Kotwar and other persons in the village including Bhadarsai Kanwar (P.W. 4) and Bhim Yadav (P.W. 2) and told them the story and all of them went to the house of the accused to see the dead body. When they reached to the house of the accused they saw that the accused and other family members have kept the dead body inside a room and they have locked the room from out side and they were not allowing any person to see the dead body. Ultimately when much pressure was created by the villagers, then, at about 3 a.m., in the intervening night of 15th-16th April 1998, they opened the door and allowed the villagers to see the body. On the next day i.e., 16.4.1998, the other persons also saw the dead body and thereafter the father of the deceased namely Hero Ram (P.W. 1) lodged a merg intimation to the Police Station vide No. 8/1998 (Ex. P. 1) at about 8.30 a.m. After recording the merg intimation, the Investigating Officer M.S. Thakur (P.W. 9) left for the scene of occurrence and reached there at about 11 a.m. on the same day. He prepared inquest on the body of the deceased under Ex. P-7 and sent the body for post mortem examination to Primary Health Center, Farsabahar, on the same day, on which Dr. (Smt.) Kiran Kerketta (P.W. 7) conducted the autopsy on 17.4.1998 and prepared her report vide Ex. P-5. In the postmortem report, it revealed that the cause of death was Asphyxia due to throttling which was homicidal in nature. On the basis of such report, the Investigating Officer registered an offence vide Crime No. 24/1998 on 24.4.1998 under Ex. P.8. After completion of the enquiry, the charge sheet was filed in the Court of C.J.M., Jashpur on 17.7.1998, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 31.7.1998 and ultimately the case was received by the Addl. Sessions Judge on 24.9.1998, who conducted the trial.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge has based the conviction on the following circumstantial evidence :