JASRAM Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 preferred by the accused/appellant is directed against a Judgment dated 9 th February 2009 delivered in Sessions Trial No. 134/2008 by the Sessions Judge Guna (M.P.), convicting thereby the appellant for causing murder of his own wife Kasumalbai, which is an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default of payment of which to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment of one month.

(2.) BRIEFLY narrated the prosecution case is that on 2 nd December 2007 at about 12 in the noon, at village Banskedi, Police Station Bamori, district Guna accused Jasram in his in -law's residence, was compelling his wife Smt. Kasumalbai to return back to his house at village Simarnia but she was refusing because the accused had no work in his village, on the other hand, she was maintaining her children by doing labour work in her parental village. On dispute between the couple, the accused inflicted injuries on the head and face by using an Axe, resultantly, she died on the spot. Mangi Adiwasi, brother of the deceased lodged the F.I.R. at Police Station Bamori. The investigation was set in motion. Postmortem was conducted on the person of Smt. Kasumalbai. The case -diary statements of the eyewitnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. The weapon of crime (Axe) was recovered from possession of the accused. The weapon was chemically examined in the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar. A Marg was also registered. After inquiry and investigation, the charge -sheet was filed. On committal, the Sessions trial commenced and after recording the evidence, the accused -appellant was convicted and sentenced for commission of offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., hence this appeal.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Judge is against the peculiar facts, evidence of the case and the law, hence, same is liable to be set aside. It is pointed out that eyewitness Smt. Ajudhhibai (PW -4) who is mother of deceased was an old and infirm lady whose eyesight and hearing capacity gave already answered. Thus, her statement according to the learned counsel is not worthy of credence. Apart from it, the statements of other related witnesses cited by the prosecution do not inspire confidence since they contained so many omissions and contradictions. It is further pointed out that the prosecution in this very case examined only interested witnesses and no independent witness was produced and examined to prove the guilt against the accusedappellant. Lastly, it is contended that the trial Judge has erred to follow the settle proposition of law that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted as true, the guilt of the appellant, at the most, would be covered by culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Hence, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal, the accused be acquitted of the charge.