Advocates:
['PAWAN SHRIVASTAVA', '', 'PUSHKAR SINHA', 'A G']

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Criminal Appeal No.878 of 2018

Judgment Reserved on : 28.2.

2022

Judgment Delivered on : 17.3.2022

Ramesh Singh Gond, son of Lagan Singh Gond, aged about 40 years,

resident of Village Ramakachar, Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

---- Appellant

versus

State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent

For Appellant : Shri Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate

For Respondent

: Shri Sudeep Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

C.A.V.

JUDGMENT

Per Arvind Singh Chandel, J.

1.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.10.2012

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba

in Sessions Trial No.59 of 2011, whereby the Appellant has been

convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction

Sentence

Under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code

Imprisonment for Life and fine

of Rs.500 with default

stipulation

2.

Deceased Sumitrabai was wife of the Appellant. They had no child.

On 7.5.2011 at 2:45 p.m., brother of the Appellant, namely, PW5

2

Ganesh was at his house. At that time, his daughter PW6 Samrat

informed him that dead body of Sumitrabai was lying down inside

her badi (fence). PW5 Ganesh along with villagers reached the

spot. There they saw that Sumitrabai was lying there. She had

suffered injury on neck and the Appellant was not present at the

house. At about 5-6 p.m., when the Appellant returned home, at

that time, on being asked by PW5 Ganesh, he made a confessional

statement that he committed the murder of Sumitrabai. The

incident was also witnessed by PW3 Radhabai and other villagers.

Next day on 8.5.2011, PW5 Ganesh lodged First Information

Report (Ex.P8). Inquest proceeding (Ex.P2) of the dead body was

conducted. Post mortem examination on the dead body was

conducted by PW8 Dr. Jitendra Singh Porte on 9.5.2011 in which

he found following two injuries:

(1)

Chopped lacerated wound of 15x5x7 cms. below

neck and

(2)

Chopped lacerated wound of 9x5x6 cms. on left side

of neck.

It was opined by him that cause of death was haemorrhagic shock

due to excessive bleeding and the nature of death was homicidal.

Post mortem report is Ex.P9. During the course of investigation,

on the basis of memorandum statement (Ex.P3) of the Appellant,

1 tangiya (axe) was seized vide Ex.P4. Plain soil and blood

stained soil were recovered and seized from the spot.

Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161

Cr.P.C. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was

filed against the Appellant. The Trial Court framed charge against

3

him.

3.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10

witnesses. In examination under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the Appellant denied the guilt and pleaded

innocence. No witness was examined in defence.

4.

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

the Appellant as mentioned in first paragraph of this judgment.

Hence, this appeal.

5.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant argued that the Trial

Court has wrongly convicted the Appellant. There are material

contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses.

The Appellant and the deceased were husband and wife and there

was no motive present on the part of the Appellant to commit

murder of his wife. Therefore, the conviction is not sustainable.

First Information Report has also been lodged after 1 day of the

incident, but the delay has not been properly explained. Seizure

witness of the axe has also not supported the case of the

prosecution. Therefore, in totality, the Trial Court has wrongly

convicted the Appellant.

6.

Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposed the arguments

advanced by Learned Counse