Judgment on Board

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.03.2008 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Session Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.) in Session Trial No.94/2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years with default stipulations.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the deceased Kiran in the year 1997 and out of their wedlock, two children namely Khushbu, aged about 6 years and Vikas, aged about 3 years, were born and they lived happily for 2 years but after sometime of the marriage, the appellant started torturing the deceased and he also used to consume liquor and thereafter beat her, as a result of which she committed suicide. Thereafter a case was registered against the appellant. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused before the Magistrate concerned.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and did not consider omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The ingredients of Section 107 of IPC are missing, hence prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matters of Kashibai and others vs The State of Karnataka, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 149, Mariano Anto Bruno and another vs The Inspector of Police, reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 834, Ramesh Kumar vs State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 and M. Mohan vs State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626

4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant, as such no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 306 of IPC against the appellant. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

7. It is not disputed before the learned Trial Court that the deceased Kiran Sahu was wife of appellant and she committed suicide on 26.09.2005 by consuming poison.

8. PW-1 father of deceased stated that deceased Kiran was his daughter who died on 26.09.2005. The marriage of Kiran and accused was solemnized in the year 1997 and they lived peacefully for 2-3 years but thereafter the accused started torturing his daughter and consumed liquor and beat her, as a result of which his daughter committed suicide by consuming poison. In the cross-examination, he admitted that daughter of Kiran is aged about 6-7 years. He admitted that at the time of inquest memo, he was present but he did not make any complaint. He admitted his signatures on inquest memo (Ex-P/2) on A to A part of the same. He denied this suggestion that his daughter was stubborn in nature. In reply of the question asked by the the Court, he replied that daughter of deceased namely Varsha is aged about 6-7 years and her son Vikas is aged about 4 years and they both are presently with the appellant.

9. PW-2 Uma Bai Sahu, mother of deceased also stated that the accused used to assault her daughter and consumed liquor but as to why her daughter consumed poison she does not know. The prosecution declared her hostile and cro