SANTOSH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 14.3.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multai, District Betul in ST No. 2/2005 whereby, he has been convicted of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/; in default of payment of fine, one year's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE prosecutions case, in short, is that on 20.12.2004 the appellant had lodged the FIR Ex.P/24 at Police Station Saikheda, District Betul that he was a farmer of Village Dehgud, he was married with the deceased Urmila on 13.5.1995 and had two sons and one daughter in the family. On 19.12.2004 at about 7.00 p.m he reached his house and started listening his radio. The deceased Urmila quarreled with him that he had to bring some books and copies for the children and he was not performing his duty towards his children. At 9.30 p.m when the deceased Urmila did not provide any food to him he beat the deceased Urmila and threw her on the ground. He then placed his foot on her neck (throat) until she expired. He thereafter, went to his field. After some time he came back to his house and intimated about the incident to his parents, Kotwar Anandidas (PW1) and Patel Jhabburao (PW5). Thereafter, he went to the Police Station Saikheda along with Kotwar Anandidas and lodged FIR Ex.P/24. The case was registered. The dead body of the deceased Urmila was sent for post mortem. Dr. Udenia (PW14) performed post mortem on the body of the deceased Urmila and gave his report Ex.P/23. He found six abrasions and contusions on the face and neck of the deceased. There was swelling in the wind pipe and muscles of the neck. He opined that the deceased died due to suffocation caused by pressing her throat. Death was homicidal in nature. After investigation a charge sheet was filed before JMFC, Multai who, committed the case to the Sessions Court, Betul and ultimately it was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Multai.

(3.) AFTER considering the prosecutions evidence the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.