SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, RATNAKAR BHENGRA
Rovin Mandal – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahay and Mr. L.K. Sahay, Advocates.
For the State: Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, A.P.P.

JUDGMENT

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

Sole appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC dated 03.07.2001 and order of sentenceto undergo RI for life under Section 302 IPC and RI for 5 years under Section 201 IPC dated 07.07.2001 passed by the learned 2ndAdditional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 183 of 1998.

2.Wife of the appellant, namely, Sumitra Devi was reportedly killed by him, as informed by two co-villagers to the motherof Sumitra Devi. On the basis of fardbeyan of Baul Gope recorded on 24.02.1998, Nala P.S. Case No.07 of 1998 was registered against the appellant on the allegation that he has killed his wife. Aftertheinvestigation, charge-sheet was submitted and charge under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was framed vide order dated 24.03.1999. During the trial, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses; the informant is PW-6 and the Doctor who has conducted autopsy over the dead body of Sumitra Devi is PW-9. The Investigating Officer has examined himself as PW-8.

3.The Doctor has found the following injuries on Sumitra Devi:

“(i) External appearance-dark complexioned; aged 35 years. The body was decomposed and was in pieces. Maggotswer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top