BHAIYARAM YADAV Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 16.02.2009 in Session Trial No. 121/2008 by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur. Whereby, the appellant was held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- in default of fine further six months R.I.

(2.) The fatual matrix giving rise to this appeal in short is that on 06.02009, at 7 O'clock in the evening, Sanjay Dixit (PW-3) was going to his farm. When he reached. In front of appellant's house at that time Santu, the son of appellant aged about 4-5 years, told him that his father is beating her mother by babool stick and she has fallen down on the ground. Sanjay Dixit (PW-3) reached in side the house of the appellant and saw that appellant was beating deceased (Mamta) with babool stick. Sanjay Dixit (PW-3) tried to restrain the appellant but he did not. Sanjay Dixit (PW-3) came out the house of appellant and shouted to call some persons. Then Pappu @ Ramdeen (PW-9), Kalyan (PW-10) and Ramautar Yadav (PW-11) reached the spot while appellant poured kerosin oil over the body of the deceased and burnt her due to which she had died. On the information received from Sanjay Dixit (PW-3), Investigation Officer Sub Inspector-Satish Singh (PW-13) had lodged the FIR Ex.P-5, Marg intimation Ex.P-6 and prepared Naksha Panchnama Ex. P-14. He issued notice Ex.13 under Section 175 of Cr.P.C. to witnesses to remain present in Shav Panchanama Karyawahi. Dead body of the deceased was then sent to the Hospital for postmortem vide Ex. P-11. Dr. S.P. Shakyawar (PW-6) had performed the postmortem of deceased Ex. P-11. The babool wooden stick and appellant's trouser was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-3. Statements of witnesses had been recorded, seized articles were sent to Forensic Sicence Laboratories vide memo Ex. P-2 and FSL report Ex. P-21 was received. After investigation challan had been filed under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant.

(3.) The trial Court framed the charge against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. Appellant abjured his guilt. According to him, he was falsely implicated in this case. He was not in the house at the time of incident. Thereafter appellant was tried and prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Defence did not produce any witness on its behalf.