ANUKUL DAS Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant feels aggrieved by his conviction for offence punishable under section 302, I.P.C. and sentence of life imprisonment by judgment dated 23/11/1987 passed by Shri M.P. Maher, Sessions Judge, Bastar in S.T. No. 231/87 and has preferred this appeal challenging legality and validity thereof.

(2.) The appellant is alleged to have committed murder of his own wife deceased Sautandas on 24/2/1987 by throttling or strangulating her. The prosecution alleges that the appellant was married to the deceased about 8 months before the date of the incident and was going with her on a bicycle to village Chandrapur. It is alleged that he reached Chandrapur and informed Jagdish (P.W. 2) that when he was coming to him with the deceased, few persons met him in the jungle and threatened to assault him. His bicycle was left in the jungle. Jagdish is said to have accompanied the appellant to the spot but found neither the deceased nor the bicycle. Several other persons of the village; searched the deceased and the bicycle in the nearby area but failed to find anything. The appellant is also said to have told the same thing to Dukalu (P.W.1). The appellant also lodged the report at Police Station Kondaga on as per (Ex. P8). It appears that the appellant was-suspected to be involved in murder and therefore was taken in custody. Thereafter at his instance bicycle was got recovered. The dead body was recovered earlier and was sent for post mortem examination which was performed by Dr. S.K. Rao who gave his report (Ex. P-6) and opined that the death was due to asphyxia caused by throwing or strangulation. Doctor also found four ribs of the deceased fractured besides several other injuries. After investigation the accused was charged as above and was put under trial.

(3.) Learned Sessions Judge relying on the evidence of Dr. Rao and the post mortem report, Ex. P-6 held that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were ante-mortem and that she die4 because of asphyxia caused due to throttling or strangulation. The learned judge however found no direct evidence of appellant's involvement with the killing. He therefore, relied upon the. circumstances which according to him formed a chain connecting the appellant with the crime. The most important conduct which according to the learned Sessions Judge gave rise to that conclusion, was the statement of the appellant leading to the discovery of bicycle. The learned judge, therefore, held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.