ANANT DUTTA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal preferred under Sec. 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) by which the appellant has been convicted for offences under Ss. 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100.00, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100.00, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, respectively.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 7/5/2012 at 3 p.m., in Village PV-II, Police Station Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker, the accused strangulated his wife namely, Dullu Dutta by saree and knowing well that she is dead, in order to cause disappearance of evidence and to screen himself, hanged the dead body in the room and fled away from the open area reserved for ventilation after widening that area and thereby committed the above-stated offences. On 8/5/2012, brother of the appellant herein namely, Dhruva Dutta informed Jatin Vishwas (PW-1) that Smt. Dullu Dutta has committed suicide by hanging. Thereafter, Jatin Vishwas (PW-1) on 8/5/2012 got registered morgue intimation (Ex.P-1) stating that his elder sister Smt. Dullu Dutta was married to the appellant and out of their wedlock, they have three children (two sons aged about 12 years and 9 years and one daughter aged about 7 years) and on being informed that she has committed suicide, he visited the house of the appellant and the appellant was treating his sister with cruelty and also assaulting her for last one year and on account of that she has committed suicide. Thereafter, after morgue enquiry, it was revealed that she has not committed suicide and inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-6 and dead body was sent for postmortem. According to the postmortem Ex.P-14, cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling and nature of death was homicidal. The postmortem report is proved by Dr. Sukhdev Shende (PW-14). Thereafter, on being enquired from the appellant, it was found to be a case of throttling by sari and in order to cause disappearance of evidence and to screen himself from the offence, the appellant has hanged the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-16 was registered against the appellant for offences under Ss. 302 and 201 of the IPC and FIR was also registered vide Ex.P-17.

(3.) Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Sec. 161 of the CrPC. After usual investigation, the accused/appellant was charge-sheeted for offences under Ss. 302 and 201 of the IPC and charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions from where the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), North Bastar, Kanker received the case on transfer for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.