The court reiterated that a conviction can be upheld based on a single reliable eyewitness, and emphasized proportionality in sentencing, especially when no minimum punishment is mandated by law.

Judgment :

Jai Krishna Upadhyay, J.

1. This jail appeal has been preferred by accused appellant - Baba Vishwakarma against judgment and order dated 2.8.2019 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Allahabad in Session Trial No. 366 of 2014, case crime no. 421 of 2013 convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC for imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- with default clause.

2. Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Ojha and Shri Vinay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Amit Sinha, learned AGA for the State.

3. Facts of case, in nutshell, as unfolded by the informant Smt. Malti Devi in First Information Report (in short 'FIR'), are that she was married to Baba Vishwakarma, son of Hiralal, resident of Jasra Bazar, six months ago. Her first marriage was solemnized with Ramanand Vishwakarma resident of village Badur, who died about two years ago. A daughter, named Kajal, was born from their wedlock and she was one and half years of age and was residing with her. On 12.12.2013, at 8:00 PM, her husband, Baba Vishwakarma in anger picked up Kajal and threw her on the ground and struck her with an iron rod. She was subsequently taken to hospital for treatment, where the doctors referred her to Allahabad, however, she expired on the way.

4. On the basis of written report (Ext. ka-1), chik FIR (Ext. Ka-3) was registered at Police Station concerned on 13.12.2013 at 8.15 a.m. against accused appellant for the offence under Section 304 IPC mentioning all details as had been described in Ext. Ka-.1. G.D. entry Ext. Ka-4 was also made at the same time.

5. Investigation started in the matter. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of witnesses, inspected place of occurrence and prepared inquest report (Ext. ka-4) and site plan (Ext. ka-5). He also prepared other police papers, namely, photo lash (Ext. ka-10), sample seal (Ext. ka-11), letter to CMO (Ext. ka-6), letter to RI (Ext. ka-7), letter to CMO (Ext. ka-8), police paper no. 13 (Ext. ka-9). After conducting post mortem on the dead body of deceased, autopsy report (Ext. ka 13) was prepared.

6. As per post mortem report, following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of deceased:

"(i) Abrasion 1 x 2 cm right side face.

(ii) Abrasion 1 x 2 cm left side face.

(iii) Abrasion 1 cm on chin.

(iv) Contusion swelling 4 x 3 cm on right side forehead.

(v) Contusion swelling 3 x 4 cm on right temporal area.

(vi) Contusion swelling left elbow joints and elbow joints fracture."

7. In the opinion of doctor, cause of death was due to coma as a result of ante mortem injuries to brain.

8. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet (Ext. ka-12) for the offence under Section 304 IPC against appellant. Cognizance was taken on the charge-sheet. The matter, being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Accused appellant appeared and charge under Section 304 IPC was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. Trial proceeded and on behalf of prosecution five witnesses, namely, PW-1 Malti Devi (informant-mother of deceased), PW-2 Sajan, PW-3 Raj Karan, PW-4 H.C. Ashok Kumar Rai, and PW-5 Dr. Lalji Gautam, who conducted post mortem on the dead body of deceased, were examined.

10. In documentary evidence, written report Ex.Ka.-1, inquest Ext. ka-2, chick FIR Ext. ka-3, G.D. entry Ext. ka-4, site plan Ext. ka-5, letter to CMO Ext. ka-6, letter to RI