Shashi Kant, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Anand Dubey, learned Amicus Curiae and Smt. Madhulika Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
(2.) This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 28.08.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Lucknow in Session Trial No. 78/2011, State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ajju Ram, Case Crime No. 332/2011, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Ghazipur, District Lucknow, whereby the accused appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for punishment of life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation clause.
(3.) Brief facts related to this appeal are that : 3.1.One Udaibhan Singh, P.W.1 submitted a written report (Exhibit Ka-1) on 16.05.2011 at about 6:00 P.M. to the Police Station Ghazipur stating therein that when on above day he was sitting in office of brick kiln, then at about 4:30 P.M., labourers Nand Kumar and Sant Ram informed him that due to domestic dispute the accused appellant Ajju Ram gave axe blow on right side of neck of his wife Smt. Munni Bai on the above information he reached to the spot and saw that due to excessive bleeding from the above wound, Smt. Munni Bai was died on the spot. He has informed about the incident to Sunil Kumar Agarwal, owner of the brick kiln and also informed the Police. On the basis of above report, Case Crime No. 332/2011, under Section 302 IPC was registered, against the appellant and the Chik FIR (Exhibit Ka-5) has also been prepared. 3.2.Entry about reregistration of the case was made in the General Diary (G.D.) dated 16.05.2011 at 6:05 P.M. and investigation of the case was taken over by S.H.O., S.I. Ajay Kumar Singh P.W.-5. He rushed to the spot and after copying the Chik FIR and report, recorded the statement of the complainant Udaibhan Singh, prepared site plan (Exhibit Ka-7) on his pointing out, recorded the statement of the other witnesses to verify the incident, collected samples of blood stained and plain-clay from the spot, got the inquest report prepared at 7:00 P.M. by accompanying S.I. Ajay Kumar Singh under his instructions and sent the dead-body for post mortem examination. On 17.05.2011, he arrested the accused appellant and recovered the blood stained axe on his pointing out, recorded the statements of the inquest witnesses. After completing all formalities of investigation, submitted the charge sheet (Exhibit Ka-9) against the appellant. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 3.3.The Trial Court, on 28.09.2011 framed the charge under section 302 IPC against the appellant and read it over to him who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 3.4.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined the complainant Udaibhan Singh, P.W.1, Sunil Kumar Agarwal, P.W.2, Dr. A.K. Singh, P.W. 3, Sawal Prasad P.W.4, and Investigating Officer of the Case, S.I. Ajay Kumar P.W.5 along with Written Report (Exhibit Ka-1), Inquest Report (Exhibit Ka-2), Memo of recovery of axe (Exhibit Ka-3), Post Mortem Report (Exhibit Ka-4), FIR (Exhibit Ka-5), General Diary (G.D.) for registration of the case (Exhibit Ka-6), Site Plan (Exhibit Ka-7), Memo of recovery of blood stain and plain clay (Exhibit Ka-8), Charge Sheet (Exhibit Ka-9), report of Forensic Laboratory (Exhibit Ka-10) as documentary evidence and material Exhibits 1 to 8. 3.5.In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied committing murder of his wife, told the evidence of Udaibhan Singh false, he also stated that after death of his wife, he was not fled away rather present on the spot, recovered axe belongs to him, Investigating Officer has conducted wrong investigation and filed charge sheet against him, he was suspecting on character of his wife and he was wrongly roped in this case. However, in support of his defence, no oral and documentary evidence adduced by him. 3.6.After evaluating the evidence available on record, the Trial Court reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubts and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant, as referred above. 3.7.Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the appellant has filed the present Jail Appeal.;