ANIL KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant Anil Kumar Yadav has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order, dated 13.2.1996 and 1.3.1996 respectively in Sessions Trial No. 235 of 1996/Tr. No. 21 of 1995, whereby, he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of his wife Smt. Chanchala Devi.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as would appear from the fardbeyan of Savitri Devi (PW 6), recorded on 28.3.1993 at about 10.00 a.m., in brief, is that her daughter Chanchala Devi (deceased) was married with the appellant about two years ago and thereafter, she was residing with her husband. About one and half month prior to the date of occurrence, the appellant took Chanchala Devi to her fathers residence at Sahebganj where he was in service. Later the husband of the informant took Chanchala Devi to his village home since she was carrying pregnancy of four months. It is alleged that the appellant always used to pressurise her for the abortion of the child but she was not prepared. On Sunday, i.e., 27.3.1992, the appellant arrived at the house of the informant and stayed there. During the night, the informant, her daughter Chanchala Devi (deceased) and the other daughter Kalyani Kumari (PW 1), younger sister of the deceased, were inside the room, since the informant was not feeling well. It was alleged when Chanchala Devi came out of the room to urinate, this appellant asked her to go with him to Ranchi but Chanchala Devi did not agree and called her mother to see what the appellant was doing. On hearing the protest of Chanchala Devi, her younger sister Kalyani Kumari (PW 1) and the mother Savitri Devi (informant) came out of the room. In the meantime, this appellant gave dagger blows on the hand and right chest of Chanchala Devi, as a result of which she fell down and died at the spot. PW 3 (Murli Mohan Yadav), uncle of the deceased, also arrived there and witnessed the occurrence. On the basis of the above statement of the informant, the police registered a regular case and after recording the statements of the witnesses and observing necessary formalities, submitted charge -sheet whereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

(3.) THE case of the defence as would appear from the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the trend of cross -examination of the prosecution witnesses appears total denial. A plea was also taken that on the day of occurrence this appellant had not gone to the in -laws house. Therefore, entire allegation against him was false and concocted.