JAG MOHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 19.2.2003 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Karauli in sessions case No. 113/2001 whereby Jagmohan appellant herein, was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that a written report was lodged by informant Mangtu Ram (PW-1), resident of Karauli to the S.H.O., PS-Karauli on 8.8.01 wherein he reported that at 10.00 am, he had gone to the market leaving behind his wife Meera who was preparing meals at his house. Suddenly accused-appellant Jagmohan came from behind and inflicted knife blows on her back, hand and abdomen causing her to fall down. She was lifted by Sheela, Raju and Guddi. When the informant came back from the market, the incident was narrated to him by his family members. Deceased Meera was taken to the hospital and there she succumbed to the injuries.

(3.) On the basis of aforesaid report, a case under Sectons 302 IPC was registered against the accused-appellant and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, Panch-nama of dead-body and site inspection were prepared. Blood stained soil from the place of occurrence was also seized. Accused-appellant was arrested and on his information, the weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered from his house. Post mortem of the dead body was got done. After collecting the necessary evidence, accused3 appellant was challaned in the court. In due course, case came up for trial before the trial court. The accused-appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 302 IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In his explanation, accusedappellant stated that he was falsely implicated and he had no knowledge of the incident. However, no witness in defence was examined.