GANESHI PODDAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9.2.1998 and order dated 10.2.1998 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa, in Sessions Trial No. 37/1997 convicting and sentencing the sole appellant to undergo imprisonment of life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof to undergo another term of RI for three months Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code {for short, I.P.C.).

(2.) The case of prosecution as disclosed in the Fardbayan of informant Ram Bharosi Sharma, the then Choukidar (P.W. 9), in short, is that on 23.9.1996 at 4 p.m. informant heard Hulla raised in his Mohalla that appellant after assaulting his wife with fists and slaps pressed her neck as a result of which she died in the house. When the informant went to the house of appellant, Umda Devi (P.W. 5), mother of appellant told him that on the day right from 10 a.m. there was altercation between the appellant and his wife on account of grinding Marua and on that account in the evening scuffle between the two had taken place. The Fardbayan of informant was recorded by SI Harendra Singh (P.W. 8) on 23.9.1996 at about 9 p.m. at the place of occurrence and in the Fardbayan the informant stated that because mother of appellant was not intending to give her statement, therefore, he gave information of the occurrence. On the basis of Fardbayan a case Under Section 302, I.P.C. was instituted against the appellant and after investigation charge-sheet against the appellant Under Section 302, I.P.C. was submitted and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter charge Under Section 302, I.P.C. was framed against the appellant. As the appellant denied the charge he was put on trial and after trial he was found guilty Under Section 302, I.P.C. and was accordingly convicted and sentenced as indicated above. No witness on behalf of the appellant has been examined but from the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses the case of appellant appears to be of his complete innocence.

(3.) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. Ram Bharosi Sharma (P.W. 9) is the informant. Dr. Shankar Pd. Bishwas (P.W. 10) is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased. Harendra Singh (P.W. 8) is the IO Shukhdeo Poddar (P.W. 3) is a formal witness who has proved signature (Ext. 1/1) on the inquest report. Chandra Kishore @ Chando Poddar (P.W. 1), brother of appellant, has said nothing about the occurrence and he has been declared hostile. Rajendra Pd. Yadav (P.W. 2) has although proved his signature (Ext. 1) on the inquest report but has said that he did not see anything except the dead body but inquest report (Ext. 3) was not prepared by the police in his presence. Chhatari Paswan (P.W. 4) had gone to the house of appellant along with informant. Umda Devi (P.W. 5), mother of appellant has not supported the case of prosecution and she has been declared hostile. Dinesh Poddar (P.W. 6) and Rabia Devi (P.W. 7) are parents of deceased.