NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Criminal Appeal No. 713 of 2015

• Shivkumar, S/o Laxman Bhuihar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Masjidpara,

Dharamjaigarh, Police Station- Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh,

Chhattisgarh.

---- Appellant

Versus

• The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Office, Police Station-

Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

For Appellant

:

Shri C.R. Sahu, Advocate.

For State/Respondent :

Shri Sudeep Verma, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Judgment on Board

Arvind Singh Chandel, J.

07/12/2021

1.

This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated

30.10.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) District –

Raigarh, (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.58/2011 wherein appellant has

been convicted and sentenced as under :-

Conviction

Sentence

U/s 302 of the I.P.C.

For life imprisonment and fine of

Rs.2,000/- with default stipulations.

U/s 323 of the I.P.C.

R.I. for six months.

Both sentences to run concurrently.

2.

In the present case, name of the deceased is Radha Bai, who is the

wife of the appellant. Sant Kumar (PW11) is the son of the appellant

and the deceased who stay with them. According to the case of

prosecution, on 02.01.2011 at around 8:30 PM, when deceased Radha

Bai returned after attending call of nature, the appellant doubting upon

the character of her wife and for the reason of late return, a quarrel

took place between both of them, and appellant assaulted her with the

help of club. When son of the appellant Sant Kumar (PW11) tried to

intervene, then appellant also assaulted him with club. Then Sant

Kumar called the neighbours where the incident was witnessed by

Parsuram (PW9), Amar Sai (PW1), Rajni Bai (PW2), Gopal Sarthi

(PW6), Fattu. Thereafter, injured Radha Bai was taken to the hospital

and during course of treatment, at about 10:15 PM, she died.

Complainant Sant Kumar (PW11) lodged the First Information Report

(Ex.P16) and merg intimation (Ex.P17). Inquest proceeding was

conducted vide Ex.P1. Post-mortem of the dead body was conducted

by Dr. B.L. Bhagat (PW4). His report is Ex.P9. During course of

investigation, disclosure statement of the appellant under Section 27 of

the Evidence Act was recorded vide Ex.P3. On the basis of the said

report, club was seized vide seizure memo vide Ex.P4. Statements of

the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After

completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. Trial Court

framed the charge. To prove the guilt of the accused/appellant,

prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. No defence

witness has been examined. Statement of appellant under Section 313

of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein accused/appellant has pleaded

innocence and false implication in the matter.

3.

On completion of the trial, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced

the appellant as mentioned in first paragraph of this judgment. Hence,

this appeal.

4.

Shri C.R. Sahu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

submits that trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant without

there being sufficient and clinching evidence against him. He further

submits that there was no motive or intention on the part of the

appellant to kill his wife (deceased). Therefore, conviction of the

appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. is bad in the

eyes of law. Material independent witnesses Amar Sai (PW1), Rajni

Bai (PW2), Budhan Sarthi (PW5), Gopal Sarthi (PW6), Banjare Sarthi

(PW7) have not supported the case of the prosecution and have

narrated different story. Therefore, whole prosecution story becomes

suspicious. The trial Court without any material on record, has erred in

convicting the appellant for the alleged offence only on the extraneous

consideration of documents and evidences produced before it. The

jud