(1.) APPELLANT -Ram Barat Chaudhary was put on trial on the accusation of committing murder of his wife -Pramila Devi. The trial court having found the appellant guilty of the charge convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide its judgment dated 28.4.2006 passed in Sessions Trial No. 67 of 2003 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life vide order dated 28.4.2006.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as has been projected under fardbeyan (Ext.3) made by the informant -Balmukund Chaudhary (P.W.6), is that Pramila Devi, daughter of Balmukund Chaudhary -the informant (P.W.6), had been married to this appellant nine years ago and was living at her in -laws' place with the appellant at Village -Gangi. On the occasion of Chhath festival, Pramila Devi had come to the place of the informant on 8.11.2002 and returned to her in -laws' place on 11.11.2002 when the festival was over. On 18.11.2002 Anil Chaudhary (P.W.2) -step son of Pramila Devi came to the house of the informant and informed that in the morning at about 6 O'clock his father (appellant) has killed his step mother (Pramila Devi). On getting such information, the informant -Balmukund Chaudhary (P.W.6) rushed to the village along with others and when came to the house of the appellant, he saw the dead -body of his daughter -Pramila Devi outside of the house of the appellant having injuries on her person. There, the villagers had caught hold of the appellant who confessed his guilt before the villagers. Meanwhile, Kumar Saryu Anand, Officer Incharge of Chainpur police station, who had gone to Village -Purwadiha in connection with the investigation of another case, when received information at about 10:15am that one woman has been killed at village -Gangi by her husband (appellant), came to Village -Gangi and recorded the fardbeyan (Ext.3) of the informant -Balmukund Chaudhary (P.W.6) at about 11am, wherein he narrated about the incident, as has been stated above. The motive of the occurrence stated by the informant is that the appellant killed his wife -Pramila Devi, as he wanted to marry another woman. On the basis of such fardbeyan, a formal FIR was drawn and a case was registered against the appellant. P.W.11 -Investigating Officer himself took up the investigation during which he recorded the confessional statement of the appellant which led to recovery of a 'Patti' (wooden part of a cot) a weapon used in the commission of offence of murder, from the field. The said confessional statement leading to recovery of said 'Patti' has been proved as Ext.6. The Investigating Officer upon recovery of the said wooden piece called 'Patti' (part of cot) got it seized under Ext.5/1. The Investigating Officer also seized the earth smeared with blood under Seizure List (Ext.5). Upon holding inquest on the dead -body of the deceased, the Investigating Officer prepared an inquest report (Ext.4) whereupon the dead -body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Ranjan Kumar Singh -P.W.12 who upon holding autopsy on the dead -body of the deceased found the following injuries: -
(3.) THE doctor issued postmortem examination report (Ext.7) with an opinion that the death occurred on account of shock and haemorrhage due to above ante -mortem injuries caused by hard and blunt substance such as some edged weapon like a 'Patti' of a cot.