- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28th June, 2008, passed in Sessions Trial No. 1/2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (CG). By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-; and R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- with default sentence of R.I. for 6 months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:-- The appellant is wife of deceased-Mahesh Sidar. On 30.8.2007, Chamrulal Bharati (PW-2), lodged merg intimation (Ex. P/7) that the appellant told him that the deceased was missing since 28.8.2007 and ultimately on 30.8.2007, his dead body was found by her near Everest Cement Factory. On the above merg intimation, the Investigating Officer reached to the place of occurrence, gave notice (Ex. P/5) to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex. P/6) on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was sent for postmortem. Postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. M.K. Manahar (PW-13). The Autopsy Surgeon noticed 2 incised wounds on the neck of the deceased. He opined that the cause of death was shock due to excessive blood loss and it was homicidal in nature. Postmortem report is Ex. P/13. In further investigation, the appellant was taken into custody and her memorandum statement (Ex. P/1) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded on 5.9.2007 and a knife and other articles were seized at the instance of the appellant vide seizure memos Ex. P/2 and Ex. P/3. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Raipur and report was received. According to the FSL report, blood stains were found over the knife and the clothes seized from the possession of the appellant. The prosecution came with the case that on account of some dispute between the appellant and the deceased (husband and wife), the appellant committed murder of her husband (deceased) in her house; kept the dead body for some time and thereafter, threw the dead body at the place, from where, it was recovered.
(2.) Admittedly, there was no eye-witness to the incident and the case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. The learned Sessions Judge relied on the circumstances of memorandum and seizure and has held that on the above circumstances, it was proved that the appellant committed murder of the deceased in her house, and then she threw the dead body at an open place, therefore, she was liable for punishment under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The appellant, thus, was convicted and sentenced as aforementioned.
(3.) Mr. Manoj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant, argued that the above circumstances were not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC; the circumstances were not of conclusive nature and tendency; the circumstances were capable of being explained; though blood stains were found on the knife and the clothes, allegedly seized from the possession of the appellant, but in absence of proof of origin and group of the blood stains found over those articles, the circumstance of memorandum and seizure would not be incriminating against the appellant.;