Criminal Appeal No. 2035 of 1998. Case: Rajendra Sahu Vs State of Madhya Pradesh. Chhattisgarh High Court
|Case Number:||Criminal Appeal No. 2035 of 1998|
|Party Name:||Rajendra Sahu Vs State of Madhya Pradesh|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate and Priya Mishra, Advocate and For Respondents: Suryakant Mishra, Panel Lawyer|
|Judges:||Anil Kumar Shukla, J.|
|Issue:||Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 125, 313, 374, 437A; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 113A, 113B, 4; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 107, 306, 498A|
|Judgement Date:||April 04, 2017|
|Court:||Chhattisgarh High Court|
Anil Kumar Shukla, J.
This appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the accused against the judgment dated 4.9.1998 delivered in Sessions Trial No. 375 of 1994 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, whereby the Learned Trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/Appellant as under:
Under Section 306 IPC
Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year
Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Keshavram Sahu (P.W. 6) lodged First Information Report (Ex. P-7) in Police Station Bhatapara (Urban) on 7.4.1994 that marriage of his daughter Sushila alias Kaushalya was performed with the Appellant 4-5 years back. Due to torture by her husband/Appellant, Sushila came back to her paternal home at Bhatapara and lived with her father. She gave birth to a son, namely, Lokesh during her living at paternal home at Bhatapara. Sushila had made a report against her husband/Appellant in Police Station Bhatapara, a case of which is pending in the Court at Baloda Bazar. The Appellant, who was living at Village Mopar, Police Station Bhatapara (Rural), along with his friends used to go to Sushila, who was living with her father at Bhatapara and threaten her, as a result of which Sushila remained disturbed and remained under fear while going alone to the market and to attend the call of nature. Police Station Bhatapara (Urban) was informed about this many times. Sushila had also filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar for grant of maintenance. When her father Keshavram Sahu (P.W. 6) had gone out of station for a domestic purpose, she, due to the mental torture being given by her husband/Appellant and consequent fear, committed suicide along with her son Lokesh. When Keshavram Sahu (P.W. 6) returned home, he found a suicidal note (letter) written by his daughter Sushila, which he submitted in the police station for appropriate action. Crime No. 105 of 1994 [FIR (Ex. P-7)] was registered against the Appellant in Police Station Bhatapara (Urban) for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. During investigation, the dead body of Sushila was sent for post mortem examination. The post mortem examination report is Ex. P-1. No definite opinion has been given about the death of Sushila in Ex. P-1 because the dead body had been decomposed. Viscera was sent for chemical examination, but no report of examination of viscera is available on the record. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Spot-maps (Ex. P-6A and P-10) were prepared.
After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baloda Bazar from where the case was committed to the Court of Session at Raipur. The First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar received the case on transfer from the Court of Session.
The Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the Appellant under Section 306 IPC. The Appellant denied the guilt. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Appellant took a defence that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case because at the time of death Sushila was residing at her paternal home. The Trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant argued that no case is made out against the Appellant under Section 306 IPC. The Trial Court did not consider that identity of the poison was not established. The doctor, who did post mortem examination on the dead body of Sushila, has given opinion of suspected poisoning only. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the Court below has committed error in not considering that the marriage between Sushila and the Appellant had already broken and Sushila had left her...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL