VIMAL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.10.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Naogaon, district Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No. 12/2004 convicting the appellant for the charge under Section 302, 394 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter be called IPC in short) and directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and ten years for remaining two charges with fine of Rs.1000/- for each charges and with default stipulation.

(2.) The prosecution story in brief is that on 15.10.2003 complainant Om Prakash (PW-1) lodged the FIR to commit loot and murder of his wife Smt. Ashadevi by unknown persons. It is said that he had gone to Mahoba for some work of Gram Panchayat alongwith one Mahendra Singh Yadav. While he left the home, his wife, children and his servant Vimal (present appellant) were at home. When he was coming back in the evening at 7.00 pm, Manoj Mishra and Mahipat Tiwari met and told somebody had murdered his wife whereupon he alongwith them reached at home and saw his wife lying dead on floor. It is also seen that there was electric wire rounded on her neck and bleeding from her mouth. When he saw the almirah of the room, Rs.34,800/- cash and 16 items of jewelery of his wife having value of approximately Rs.1,25,000/- were missing. It is said in the FIR, the half lunch was prepared, however, the incident may be of about 1.00 pm. In case the articles would recover, he will identify them, with the said description, the report was lodged by the complainant alongwith Mahendra Singh Yadav.

(3.) The police completed the investigation and on the next day the accused/appellant was arrested. Upon interrogation, he disclosed about the looted articles, which were seized on his information. On completion of the investigation, challan was filed before the competent Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The trial court framed the charge under Section 302, 394 and Section 449 of the IPC. The accused abjured his guilt and demanded for trial putting his defence of false implication because the complainant was having doubt on the character of deceased and also taken the insurance policy in her name, however, to get the insurance claim, complainant himself committed murder of his wife.