Sanjay Kumar @ Guddu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Mr. P.P. Sahu andAditya Kumar, counsel for the appellant. Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. JUDGMENT (Delivered on 02nd January, 2012) ^ PerT.P.Sharma,J.:-

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 22.03.2006 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Kanker, in Sessions Trial No.477/2005, whereby & whereunder learned Sessions Judge after holding appellant guilty for commission ofculpable homicide amounting to.murder of his wif^ Sonabai (since deceased) and for concealing the evidence of crime, convicted the appellant under the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Sections 302 & 201 imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, R.l. for sevenyears and fine . of Rs.500/-, in default of payment offine to further undergoR.I. for two months and .R.l. for one months, respectively. t .,5sar ;'s. ^'

2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence, convicted & sentenced the appellant the trial Court aforementioned and ther^by committed illegality.

3. As per case of prosecution, unfortunate deceased Sonabai, wife of appellantwas residing with appellant. On 26.10.2005 between 11.00 am to 1.00 pm, appellant strangulated the neck of deceased & caused her instantaneous death and informed to his uncle Kanahiya Ram (PW/2) that his wife has committed suicide by hanging herself. On the basis of -. - . . said information, Kanahiya @sm (PW/2) went to police station and lodged merg vide Ex.P/2. F.I.R. Ex.P/15 was registered on the basis of .-...-. -ii merg. Investigating officer left for scene of occurrence, after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P/7, inquestover the dead body of deceased was prepared vide Ex.P/8. Dead body of deceased was lying in the house of Injury has been noticed at the time of appellant covered with saree. inquest. Dead body of deceased was sent for autopsy to K.D.H, Hospital, Kanker vide Ex.P/14. Autopsy was conducted by Dr. Balkrishna Verma (PW-10) yide Ex.P/21 and found following injuries over fhe body of deceased: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Eyeball radish in colour. Abrasion over outer part of right eye of 3 x 4 cm. Abrasion over left chin of 7 x 3 cm. Bleeding from right ear. Injury of ante-mortem in nature. 1 x 2 cm over region. frontal Injuries were (vi) , Echymosis present over the neck. (vii) No ligature mark or mark of knot was found over the neck. (viii) Fracture of hyoid bone and cornua ofthyroid bone were found, (ix) (x) Echymosis over chest of 7x 3 cm. Trachea and throat were congested.

4. Mode of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation and the death in nature. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/16 and was homicidal Ex.P/17. Sealed clothes of deceases^ivere seized vide Ex.P/13. During the course 6f investigation, appellanfwas taken into custody. He made disclosure statement vide Ex.P/4.

5. 'Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the 'Code').After completion investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (forshortthe f^- ^ ^ Magistrate, Kanker, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Bastar. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kanker received the case on transfer for trial\

6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, prosecution has examined as many as 1 O witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Sectioo 313 of the Code where he denied the circumstances appearing against him and innocence and false implication in the crime in question is claimed. t 7. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Ist Additional convicted - & sentenced Sessions appellant Judge, aforementioned.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court.

9. Shri Aditya Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that virtually this is a case of no evidence. Prosecution has not proved the culpability of appellant although dead body of deceased was found inside the house and prosecution has utterly failed to prove the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. Therefore, appellant deserves to be acquitted.

10.0nthe other hand, Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned Panel Lawyerforthe State opposed the appeal and submits that conviction is substantially based on evidence of Kanahiya Ram (PW/2), uncle of the appellant and medical evidence of Dr. Balkrishna Verma (PW-10). She also submits that this is a case of house murder where appellant has strangulated the neck of deceased and has given false explanation to his uncle that deceased has committed suicide by hanging which was found false. These evidences are sufficient for conviction of appellant and Court below has rightly convicted and gentenced appellant aforementioned. T'

11.1n order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, w&have examined the evidence adduced on behalfofthe prosecution. . ^ ^y^ws^, -^ ,^- ^w^

12.1n the present case, homicidal death of deceased Sonabai has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant; even otherwise same is also established by the evtdence of Dr. Balkrishna Verma (PW-10) and autopsy report Ex.P/21, which clearly reveal that death was homicidal nature and not suicidal. Np-ligature mark was noticed, inter-alia there were ante-mortem injuries over the face, neck and chest along with fracture of thyroid cartilage and cornua hyoid bone. The death was homicidal in nature.

13.As regard complicity of the appeflant in crime in question is concerned, as per the evidence of Kanahiya Ram (PW/2), uncle of appellant, appellant informed hirn that his wife has committed suicide by hanging thereafter he lodged -merg intimation vide Ex.P/2. Defence has also >''i satisfied this witness in para 11 of his cross-examination that appellant has informed him that his wife has committed suicide. But as per autopsy report Ex.P/21 and medical evidence of Dr. Balkrishna Verma (PW/10) deceased Sonabai has not committed suicide, death of deceased was hornicidal in nature. As per inquest report Ex.P/8, dead body of deceased was lying'in the house of appellant, there inter-alia the was no sign of hanging of deceased. Appellant has not offered any explanation that how he has informed to Kanahiya Ram (PW/2) that deceased has committed suicide, inter-alia deceased was found dead in the house of appellant. Appellant was under obligation to offer an explanation that how his wife died but instead of offering explanation appellant has made false explanation that deceased has committed suicide, which has been patently found false on the basis of medical If these circumstances are considered together then only evidence. inference would be possible that appellant has caused homicidal death of deceased & has given false explanation and concealed the evidence of criminal case. He has misinformed and given false statement Kariahiya Ram (PW/2) that his wife has^mmitted suicide.

14.After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the appel.lant under Sections 302 and 201 ofthe IPC. §> 3<? '^.•^''. ..--^ [.-!•.• li;r-:t .jnfi'":: .- ""^ %. 11111 I li%^' !^j3y ^

15. On close scrutinyof the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in convicting and sentencing the appellant. ^

16. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Vijay Sd/- . T.P. Sha^na •^udge •'<, 'f.5_ Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Hl H