JAIN KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.11.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in S.T. No.26/2010 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10000/-, plus default stipulation.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that deceased Saraswati Bai was second wife of the appellant and had two daughters out of their wedlock. In the night intervening 31-03-2010 and 01-04-2010 at about 1.30 am, appellant went to Kantu Ram Sahu (PW/1), Laxawantin Bai (PW/6) and Netram (PW/8) and informed them that deceased Saraswati Bai has self-immolated and while he was trying to extinguish the fire he also suffered burn injury over his hand. These witnesses went to the house of appellant and found deceased lying on the floor in burnt condition. Deceased was immediately taken to District Hospital, Mahasamund where primary aid was given and looking to her serious condition, she was referred to Medical College Hospital, Raipur and an information (Ex.P/4) thereof was sent to City Kotwali, Mahasamund. On the request of P.S. Kotwali, Mahasamund, deceased was medically examined vide Ex.P/3 wherein it was reported that deceased had sustained 100 % burn injury. Deceased was brought dead in Dr. B.R. Ambedkar College Hospital, Raipur on 01.04.2010 at 7.00 am. An information Ex.P/17 was immediately dispatched to Police Station, Moudahapara, based on which unnumbered merg Ex.P/15 was recorded on 01.04.2010 at 10.25 (whether it is AM or PM has not been mentioned in the merg). Inquest over the body of deceased was conducted vide Ex.P/18 and dead body was sent for postmortem examination to Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur where Dr. Ulhas Gonnade (PW/9) conducted autopsy on the body of deceased and gave his report Ex.P/20 opining the cause of death to be syncope due to burn injury.

(3.) Charge under Section 302 of IPC was framed against the appellant. Appellant denied the charge and prayed for trial. Prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. On examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances and evidence against him and pleaded innocence and false implication. It was submitted that deceased was mentally retarded and used to quarrel with appellant as he had kept his father with him, which was objected by the deceased and she used to leave him and go to her maternal home very often. In defence, he examined one Vijay Kumar Markandey as DW/1. After affording opportunity for adducing evidence to the parties and hearing arguments, the impugned judgment has been passed convicting and sentencing the appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.