D.N.UPADHYAY,J. - (1.) Heard the parties.
(2.) This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.07.2009 and 28.07.2009 respectively, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Simdega in S.T. No. 47/2004, arising out of Bano P.S. Case No. 24/2003 corresponding to G.R. No. 274/2003 whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ - and in default in making payment of fine to undergo SI for further period of one month.
(3.) The facts in brief is that during intervening nigh of 17/18 September, 2003 Nauri Mundain, wife of appellant was killed and her dead body was noticed by the informant on 18.09.2003. She noticed injury on the head of the deceased. On enquiry she could learn that her son -in -law Bauka Samad has killed his wife Nauri Mundain by 'causing injury by means of Tangi because she did not provide food to him after he returned home. On the basis of fardbayan of Birsi Mundain (mother of the deceased) recorded on 18.09.2003 at 13:30 hrs., Bano P.S. Case No. 24/2003 under Section 302 IPC against the appellant was registered. The investigation was carried out, the appellant was apprehended, blood stained soil and weapon of offence were seized, inquest report was prepared, witnesses were examined and chargesheet against the appellant was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as S.T. No. 47 of 2004. Charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant was framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to substantiate charge examined altogether 9 witnesses including informant (P.W. -7), Doctor (P.W. -6) who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and proved documents like seizure list, inquest report, postmortem report, fardbayan, formal FIR whereas no witness has been examined by the appellant in his defence. The learned Trial Judge, at the conclusion of trial, placing reliance on the evidence and documents available on record, held the appellant guilty and inflicted sentence as indicated above.;