HEM CHANDRA LOHANI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hem Chandra Lohani has filed this appeal against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Almora dated 18th Dec., 1987 passed in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 1986 convicting him under Sec. 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to death and 5 years' R.I. respectively.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that Hem Chandra Lohani appellant committed murder of his wife Smt. Chandrakala deceased between 30-6-82 and 6-7-82 in village Lohana, Patti Melia Syonara l'ehsil, District Almora and concealed the dead body of the deceased in Maharkhali jungle of village Lohana with the intention of screening himself from legal punishment. On 2-7-82 report Ext. Ka 3 was lodged by Damodar Lohani, father of the Appellant, with the Patwari of Kabetra Amkoli regarding the disappearance of the deceased. On 4-7-82 at 12 noon First Information Report (Ext. Ka 1) was lodged by Anand Ballabh Pant (P. W. 7) father of the deceased with the Patwari, Kabetra Amkoli. The body of the deceased was recovered by Ramesh Chandra (P.W. 3) on 6-7-82 from the jungle of village Lohana. The post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. S.C. Bhootania on 7-7-82 at 2.35 P. M. and undermentioned post mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased :

(3.) As no opinion could be given by Dr. viceraa regarding the cause of death of the deceased the viscera of the deceased was preserved and was sent to the Chemical Examiner. The report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex. Ka 26) shows that alcohol poison was found in the viscera of the deceased. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses to connect the appellant with the crime, namely, Sri Prakash Chandra Pathak, Hand Writing Expert (P.W. 1), Mathura Datt (P.W. 2), Ramesh Chandra (P.W. 3), Basant Ballabh (P.W. 4), Dr. S. C. Bhutania (P.W. 5), Dinesh Chandra (P.W.6) Anand Ballabh (P.W. 7) and Iushal Singh Koranga Investigating Officer P.W. 8). The appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that he was implicated falsely. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned earlier.