SUBODH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dtd. 2/7/2014/4/7/2014, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2009, "State v. Subodh Kumar Sharma ", by which, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC ") and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.25,000.00 in default of payment of fine, the defaulter convict is directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year. The appellant has been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs.1,000.00 in the offence punishable under Sec. 201 IPC in default of which, the convict is directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution story as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidence on record is that the appellant was the husband of the deceased Smt. Meetu Sharma. The deceased was married with the appellant about 10-11 years before her death. They have two children. At the time of the incident, the appellant was living with the deceased in his in-law's house. The informant and the signatory of the inquest report (Ext. Ka 2) Mr. Mahesh Sharma (PW1) lodged an FIR (Ext. Ka 10) against the appellant through his written report (Ext Ka 1) that her niece Smt. Meetu Sharma had gone to Neelkanth with her husband Subodh Kumar Sharma on 18/5/2009. At around 3 o'clock in the evening, Subodh Sharma came back home alone. Smt. Usha Sharma (PW 11), the mother of the deceased and Divya Sharma (PW 10), the sister of the deceased, asked Subodh Sharma where is Meetu. Subodh Sharma had told that Meetu was missed at some place on the way to Neelkanth. She was searched, but in vain. When Subodh Sharma was asked again, he told that Meetu had got down on the way. In this way, he was changing his statements again and again. On the next day, dtd. 19/5/2009, Subodh Sharma lodged a missing report (Ext. Ka 8) of Smt. Meetu at Rishikesh Police Station. The informant further stated in his report dtd. 20/5/2009 (Ext. Ka 1) that today itself it was learned that Subodh had told someone that he drove Meetu out of his way. He strangled her to death and threw her body in a pit on the way to Neelkanth. The FIR (Ext. Ka10) was registered at 21 : 30 hrs. on 20/5/2009 under Sec. 302 and Sec. 201 of IPC at the Police Station Lakshman Jhula.

(3.) Before the registration of the FIR (Ext. Ka 10), the appellant had lodged a missing report (Ext. Ka 8) of the deceased on 19/5/2009 to the effect that his wife had gone from the house towards Modern School, Jatav Basti on 18/5/2009 at 09 : 30 a.m.