The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence, including the dying declaration, medical evidence, and witness statements, to establish the guilt of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

RAMESH SINHA, J.

Heard Mr. A.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent/State.

2. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.04.2022 passed by the learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 30 of 2019 by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of deceased, namely, Ramshila was solemnized before 25 years of the date of incident and after marriage, accused/appellant was regularly assaulted to the deceased. After consuming the liquor and on the date of incident i.e. 04.02.2019 about 3.00 p.m. the accused/appellant was assaulted to the deceased and sprinkling petrol on the body of deceased and set fire due to which the deceased receive the burn injury and during treatment she has died. On the basis of dying declaration of deceased (Ex.P/14), Police registered the alleged offence under Sections 307 & 302 of the IPC against the accused/appellant and arrested the appellant and after completing the investigation, the Police filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court.

4. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Raipur, where Dr. Arun Kumar Jaiswani (PW-18) conducted postmortem over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P/31 and found following injuries:-

Dead body of an average built female. Rigor mortis present and generalized. Burnt, Eyes closed, cornea hazy, mouth partially open, teeth intact, tongue inside mouth. No oozing from nostrils, mouth or ears.

Injuries:

1. Superficial-deep burns present over the body surface in an area of 93% extent. Head, Neck, Face-08%, Chest-09%, Abdomen-09%, Back-18%, Right Upper Limb-09%, Right Lower Limb-15%, Left Upper Limb-09%, Left Lower Limb-15%, Genitals-1%, Total-93%.

Singeing of scalp hairs, eyebrows, eyelashes, axillary and pubic hairs present, Signs of vital reaction in the form of line of redness around burnt margins present.

2. Surgical intervention seen as punctured wound of diameter 0.1 cm present over right cubital fossa region (s/o iv puncture mark).

Injuries mentioned above are ante-mortem.

Dr. Arun Kumar Jaiswani (PW-18) opined that cause of death was due to burns and its complications with head injury. Inquest was prepared vide Ex.P/29. Appellant-Narayan Sahu was arrested on 04.02.2019 vide arrest memo Ex.P/27.

5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After investigation, it was found that deceased Ramshila died on account of burns injuries and its complications with head injury by accused/ appellant Narayan Sahu. The accused was arrested for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and arrest/court surrender memo was prepared vide Ex.P/27. Thereafter, charge-sheet was filed before the learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

6. The accused/appellant abjured the guilt and entered into witness. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents. The defence has neither examined any witness nor has exhibited any document.

7. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and considering that it is the appellant who has committed the murder of his wife, convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 of the IPC, against which the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred.

8. Mr. A.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the appellant has been fal