JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.02.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 79/2014 by the learned Sessions Judge Balod, District: Balod (C.G.), by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 03.08.2014, at about 09:00 pm, the appellant caused death of his wife Rambai by strangulation and thereby committed the offence. The further case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the appellant was solemnized with Rambai (now deceased) and they were residing together along with their father PW-1 Ramdayal Markandey and mother PW-7 Bishobai. On the date of the offence, father and mother of the appellant had gone to village: Bhatagaon to borrow money from one of their relatives and they were informed to return back immediately to their house and when they returned, they found the dead body of their daughter-in-law Rambai lying dead on the bed. Since, the appellant used to suspect the character of his wife and on 03.08.2014, the appellant and deceased both were quarreling, on that count, on 03.08.2014, the appellant strangulated the deceased with the help of a rope by which she died, pursuant to which Merg Intimation vide Ex. P/18 was registered at the instance of PW-1 Ramdayal Markandey. Dehati Nalshi was registered vide Ex. P/18-A and FIR was registered vide Ex.P/18-B. Spot Map was prepared vide Ex.P/5. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant vide Ex. P/9 rope was recovered from the possession of the appellant vide Ex.P/8. Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-3 and the dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW-4 Dr. Geeta Mishra, who has proved the postmortem report Ex.P-12 and her query report is Ex. P/13. According to postmortem report, cause of death of deceased was due to strangulation which was homicidal in nature.

3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case 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.

4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and brought on record 18 documents. The defence has examined none and not exhibited any document.

5. The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced as above against which the present appeal has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC as there is no evidence on record to convict the appellant for the aforesaid offence. More particularly, Ex.P/1 i.e. Dehati Merg Intimation has been relied upon by the Trial Court to hold that the appellant and deceased both were together in the house and no other persons were there in the house, but the Dehati Merg Intimation which was recorded under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/1) is not a substantive piece of evidence unless there is other evidence on record to hold that the appellant and deceased were together in the house, therefore, conviction of the appellant is unsustainable in law.

7. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the Trial Court is absolutely justified in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and Ex. P/1 (Dehati Merg Intimation) has rightly been relied upon to base the conviction and as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

8