DOURAM ALIAS DAUAA SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
LAWS(CHH)-2015-7-53
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Decided on July 14,2015

Douram Alias Dauaa Sahu Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.2.2011 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur in S.T.No.24/10 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default thereof to undergo one year's additional R.I.
(2.)In the present case, name of the deceased is Santoshi Bai, who was first wife of the accused/appellant. It is alleged, that as the accused/appellant did not have any issue from his first wife Santoshi Bai, he performed second marriage with Sunita, from whom he was having two issues. On or about 18.4.2010 second wife of the appellant Sunita had gone to her parent's house and only the appellant and Santoshi Bai were there in the house. It is said that on 18.4.2010 at about 3 am the appellant committed murder of Santoshi Bai by throttling her. Brother of the appellant namely Chhedi informed the incident to Village Kotwar Shivkumari (PW-1) and in turn, the Village Kotwar went to house of the appellant and then lodged merg intimation Ex.P/1. At the time of lodging merg intimation, PW-1 had gone to the police station along with the appellant and one Kamlesh Sahu. Unnumbered FIR (Ex.P/12) was first recorded and thereafter, numbered FIR (Ex.P/9) was recorded against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. Postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted on 18.4.2010 by PW-6 Dr. BL Raj vide Ex.P/10 wherein he noticed seven injuries on her body and opined that the cause of death was throttling leading to asphyxia and that the death was homicidal in nature. After investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant under Section 302 of IPC and charge was framed accordingly.
(3.)So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.


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