Point of Law: It is completely unbelievable that after committing murder, accused remained wearing same shirt for 4-5 days so that police can recover shirt for matching button recovered from spot.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.07.2012 delivered by learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 63/2011 whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for one year.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that between 28.03.2011 to 31.03.2011 at village Kahgaon, the appellant strangulated deceased Ku. Kuleshwari Bai and caused her death thereby he committed offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Further case of the prosecution is that on the date of offence, deceased Ku. Kuleshwari Bai, aged about 16 years, was staying with her mother Sulochani Bai (PW/1) and father Sujani Ram (PW/2). On 28.03.2011, at night, she went outside the house to answer the call of nature all alone but could not reach home in time and then Sulochani Bai (PW/1) having not noticed her, started tracing around but could not trace her. At that time, the deceased was already engaged with Gajendra Singh (PW/13) and her father had went to other village to invite the guests for their marriage. On the next day, Sujani Ram (PW/2) father of the deceased, reached back to the village and started searching the deceased and ultimately her dead body was recovered on 31.03.2011 under the sand of Kotri River where some parts of the body were visible and accordingly, mother of the deceased, Sulochani Bai (PW/1) informed the police vide Ex.P/1. Thereafter, A.S.I. B.L. Nagvanshi (PW/11) on 01.04.2011 reached to the spot and conducted panchnama in presence Panchas vide Ex.P/2-A and the dead body of the deceased was in decomposed condition. Pursuant to the Panchas recommendation, the dead body was sent for postmortem to the Bhimrao Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur, where postmortem was conducted by Dr. R. K. Singh (PW/14) and he prepared postmortem report (Ex.P/25), in which cause of death could not be ascertained on account of decomposed condition of the body, however, the doctor noticed ligature mark on the neck and injuries near ears of the deceased.

3. It is also the case of the prosecution that during merg, it was revealed that the appellant, who was neighbour of the deceased, had illicit relationship with the deceased though she was engaged with Gajendra Singh (PW/13) and the appellant had threatened Gajendra Singh (PW/13) and his family members not to marry deceased Ku. Kuleshwari Bai on which, village meeting was convened, in which the appellant is said to have admitted his mistake and promised not to repeat such act in future and executed Ex.P/3. Thereafter, the First Information Report (Ex.P/1-A) was registered against the appellant, he was taken into custody and during interrogation his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P/6. Pursuant to his memorandum statement, from the spot, Article-C (Plastic Box) and appellant’s shirt in which blood like stains were recovered vide Ex.P/10 and two broken buttons were recovered on the way to the spot, vide Ex.P/11. Investigating Officer obtained certificate vide Ex.P/17 from the tailor namely, Sanat Kumar (PW/10) who said that the seized buttons are similar to the shirt of the appellant which was seized. Thereafter, all the seized articles were sent for chemical analysis and the F.S.L. report has been filed as Ex.P/24, in which blood was found on Articles-C1, C2, C4, D and E. However, in the viscera preserved, no poison was found on Articles-A, B and C vide Ex.P/23.

4. After due investigation, the appellant/accused was chargesheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court and it was committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he has not committed the offence.