Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
1. The Appellant in the instant Appeal has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide the judgment and order of sentence dated 09.08.1999 passed in Sessions Case No. 78/99 by the Sessions Judge Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon.
2. The prosecution story in brief, is that on 26.04.1999, it is said that at around 6.00 AM the Appellant took his wife Savitri Bai to his field on his cycle for doing some field work. It is said that there the Appellant took an iron pick axe (Gaiti) and assaulted his wife resulting in her death. The FIR in this regard was lodged on the very same day at the instance of Phooldas Kotwar PW-1 of the said village at around 8.40 AM which has been marked as Exhibit P/1 and the body of the deceased was sent for postmortem on the same date which is marked as Exhibit P/18 and has been proved by Dr. S.K. Agrawal, PW-9 in the course of the postmortem Doctor has found the following injuries on the body of the deceased:-
(8) which is going deep in abdominal wall injuring the intestines size 2''x ½'' x 6'' in depth. Hemorrhage present in abdominal wall cavity. In the opinion of the Doctor, the death of the deceased was due to injuries on the vital parts of the body like heart, lungs, liver and spleen.
3. As per the lodger of the FIR on the date of incident at around 07.00 AM when he was sitting at his home, the Appellant is said to have reached PW-1's house and has informed him that someone has killed his wife in the field and he has therefore, come to report to the Kotwar. Accordingly the Kotwar along with the Appellant is said to have reached the place of incidence and found the deceased Savitri Bai lying dead in the field of the Appellant with gruesome injuries on the stomach which the Kotwar reported to the Police registered as FIR in Crime No. 33/99 under section 302 of IPC. In the course of the investigation the Police authorities found that there was blood stains on the clothes worn by the Appellant and on interrogating the Appellant by the Police, he disclosed the fact that it was he who had assaulted the deceased causing her death.
6. Counsel for the Appellant further contended that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the conduct of the Appellant in as much as, it was he himself who had gone to the Kotwar of the Village PW-1 ( as is evident from the FIR) to report the matter. If the Appellant would have been the person guilty of having assaulted his wife to death he would not have gone to the Kotwar himself for reporting the matter. Secondly, she contended that if at all the Appellant intended to report the matter to the Kotwar then he would not have gone to the Kotwar with the blood stained clothes
13. Counsel for the State also submitted that according to the defence it could be the intruders who had killed the deceased and if that be so, the Appellant being present in the field along with his wife he would have said so firstly to the Kotwar and then to the Police at the time of lodging of the FIR when he had accompanied the Kotwar but the prosecution witnesses clearly disclose the fact that the Appellant had not said anything to the Police in this regard nor has he said anything in this regard in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thus, the conduct of the Appellant right from the beginning was suspicious which leads us to infer that it was he who had assaulted his wife.