SANJEET KUMAR DEEWANGARI Vs. STATE OF CHHATISGARH
LAWS(CHH)-2008-8-10
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Decided on August 04,2008

SANJEET KUMAR DEEWANGARI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

K RAMACHANDRA REDDY VS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [REFERRED TO]
P V RADHAKRISHNA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10. 1. 2003 passed by the 3rd Additional Session Judge (FTC), kanker in Sessions Trial No. 461/2001, whereby, the appellant has been convicted. under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 3 months.
(2.)THE brief facts are that the deceased namely Vimla Bai was wife of the appellant. She was married with the appellant in February, 2001. On 6. 6. 2001, she received burn injuries to the extent of 90%. She was taken to Primary Health Centre, Charama, from where a report was sent to the concerned police station through the vaccinator of the hospital which was reduced into writing vide rosnamchasahna No. 189 dated 6. 6. 2001. Looking to her critical condition, her dying declaration Ex. P15 was recorded by the executive Magistrate, Charama. Vimla Bai made statement that she has been burnt by her husband after pouring kerosene oil on her. The investigation was conducted and half burnt cloths, chimney containing kerosene oil, match-box and other articles were seized under Ex. P3, P4 and P5. Since the condition of Vimla Bai was deteriorating, she was taken to Mashih hospital, Dhamtari, where another dying declaration Ex. P20 was recorded by another Executive Magistrate on the same day i. e. 6. 6. 2001. Vimla Bai succumbed to those injuries on 16. 6. 2001. After her death, her dead body was sent for post-mortem examination and a report Ex. P26 was obtained. The Doctor opined that the cause of death was toxemia due to 90% burn injuries.
(3.)AFTER usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of C. J. M. , Kanker who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Kanker from where it was received on transfer by the 3rd Additional sessions Judge (FTC), Kanker who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant, as aforementioned.
;


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