SANTRAM Vs. STATE OF C G
LAWS(CHH)-2003-4-10
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Decided on April 03,2003

SANTRAM Appellant
VERSUS
State Of C G Respondents

JUDGEMENT

L.C.BHADOO, J. - (1.)THE accused appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28-2-2000, awarded to him by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 177/1999 holding the accused/appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of his own wife and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
(2.)THE relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that : on 29-1 -1999 at about 10.00 a.m. Kotwar of Village Kunwa namely Sukhidas gave a Merg intimation (Ex.P/1) to the Officer-In-Charge of Police Station Takhatpur, that today in the morning at about 6-7 a.m. Shailendra Sahu came to my house and informed that his mother Birij Bai is lying dead in a room in his house. On this information, after taking Roshan Mishra along with him I reached the house of Shailendra and saw that the dead body of the Birij Bai is lying in a room on the floor and blood is coming out from the nose. Blood is also found on the floor. The body of the deceased is covered by a cloth up to the neck. I am directly coming from the spot of the incident. Upon receiving this information PW-12 V.K. Mishra, after registering the report (Ex.P/1) left for the spot and after giving notice (Ex.P/2) he prepared the Panchanama (Ex.P/3) of the dead body in the presence of the witnesses. On the same day through Ex.P/4 he took into possession three burnt buds of the Bidi. Thereafter he sent the requisition (Ex.P./22) to the doctor for conducting postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He also prepared Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/ 13) under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and that Nalishi was sent to the Police Station along with Constable Mahendra Singh for giving its number. He also took into possession a sample of simple earth as well as blood smeared earth and coloured Sari. Through Ex.P/23 he took into possession the clothes of the deceased which were sent by the doctor after conducting post mortem. On 4-2-1999 he took into possession an In-land letter (Ex.P/21) which was produced by Jagat Ram through Ex.P/5. Through Ex.P/6 he took into possession the previous letters sent by the accused. On 23-4-1999 he took into possession the Bidi buds through Ex.P/20, after getting them smoked by the accused/appellant in his presence. On 23-4-1999 the accused/appellant while in Police custody gave the information Ex.P/16 regarding the recovery of stone and knife - the weapons of offence. These two articles were recovered through Ex.P/17 on the information given by the accused. The clothes, stone and knife were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar for their examination through Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur. The In-land letter was also sent for examination to the handwriting expert through Ex.P/28 who in turn sent his report (Ex.P/43) saying therein that the writing of the letter (Ex.P/21) is similar to the undisputed handwriting of the accused/ appellant on the other papers. The report Ex.P/29 of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar was received and after completing the investigation the Police filed the charge-sheet against the accused/appellant.
The learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur framed the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/appellant and it was read over to him which he denied.

(3.)THE prosecution in order to prove the offence produced in all thirteen witnesses at the trial. Thereafter the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Presiding Officer. In his statement the accused denied the circumstances which were appearing in the prosecution evidence against him. He also denied the statements of the witnesses and said that on the date of the incident he was in Delhi with his elder son. He denied the recovery of stone and knife on his information.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.