1 CRA No.1378/2021 2025:CGHC:26108-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1378 of 2021 1 - Jai Singh Gond S/o Harihar Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Jalke, Nawamudapara Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pasan, District Korba Chhattisgarh. …..Respondent(s) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 20.06.2025 This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22/09/2021, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District:Korba (C.G.) AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.06.24 10:40:51 +0530 2 CRA No.1378/2021 in Sessions Trial No. 12/2020, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of the IPC Life imprisonment & fine of Rs.100/-, in default, additional R.I. for 2 months. Under Section 201 of the IPC R.I. for 3 years & fine of Rs.100/-, in default, additional R.I. for 2 months. 1. Brief facts of the case is that on 13.08.2019, Vishram Singh (PW- 1), father of the deceased along with Kotwar Kamal Prasad Kashi of Gram Panchayat Jalke, lodged merg intimation vide Ex.P-1 and P-2 at Police Station Pasan under Police Outpost Korbi that his daughter Smt. Sumrita Gond has died by hanging herself in her in-laws' house. On being asked by his son-in-law(accused), the accused, he told that for some unknown reasons, she hanged herself and thereafter, he untied the rope put down the deceased on the floor. Thereafter, police registered an FIR vide Ex.P-19. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-6. After due investigation and on the basis of memorandum statement Ex.P-5, police arrested the appellant vide Ex.P-14. The dead-body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem examination report (Ex.P/9), Dr. Deepak Singh (PW-7) opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to manual strangulation and the nature of death is homicidal. After completing the investigation, the final report was prepared. 3 CRA No.1378/2021 2. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied guilt, however, he examined none in his defence and did not bring any document in his support either. 3. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the deceased is the wife of appellant and there is cordial relation between them and there is no intention to kill his wife. He further submits that there is no eye witness in the present case and the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that there is material contradiction and omission in the statement of witnesses. He submits that the conviction and sentence of the appellant is based on surmises and conjectures. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 4 CRA No.1378/2021 5. Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record and particularly considering the postmortem report (Ex.P/9) which is duly proved by the evidence of Dr. Deepak Singh (PW-7). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/9) and the statement of Dr. Deepak Singh (PW-7) that the nature of death of deceased was homicidal in nature, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court is absolutely justified in holding that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature, as the same is correct finding of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirmed the said finding. 5 CRA No.1378/2021 8. Now the next question would be whether the accused-appellant herein is the author of the crime in question ? 9. Bhagmaniya Bai (PW-2), mother of the deceased stated in her evidence that her daughter(deceased) and the accused/appellant lived in a separate house. They are having one male child, who used to stay with this witness since childhood, however, presently he is staying with his grandmother (dadi). When the deceased sometimes came to her house, she used to tell that the accused/appellant used to fight with her. When she asked the reason of quarrel, the deceased told her that she used to keep the money she earned as a laborer at home because the accused used to spend it and also sell the household goods. She stated that when the deceased used to go to work, the accused used to sell the Mahua kept in the house without informing the deceased. This witness further stated that when on receiving information about the death of her daughter, she reached the spot and deceased was lying dead on the ground. There were marks of strangulation on her neck. She further stated in her evidence that when she asked about the incident to the appellant, he told her that he sold 2 k.g. Mahua kept in the house, due to which, quarrel occurred between them at night when the accused woke up at 4.00 am, he saw that the deceased had hanged herself with a sari in the bathroom of the house and thereafter he kept down the deceased on the floor. She stated that when she asked the 6 CRA No.1378/2021 accused why he brought her down without informing the neighbors, that time, the accused was silent and did not answer her. She further stated that there were some broken plastic chair and a stick in the house, about which the accused did not give any answer when she asked. After some time, the accused hid the said plastic chair and stick. 10. Vishram Singh (PW-1), father of deceased, stated in his evidence that the marriage of deceased and the appellant was solemnized before the ten years from 2020 and out of their wedlock, a son was born and studying in Class-III. In the month of August, 2019, at about 6 a.m., two persons informed him that the appellant called him. When he reached house of the appellant, he saw that his daughter was lying dead and on being asked, the appellant told that she hanged herself. 11. Umend Singh (PW-3), brother of deceased stated in his evidence that when he reached the house of appellant, he saw that his sister/deceased lying dead and the eyes and mouth of the deceased were slightly open and there were marks of strangulation on her neck. 12. Dr. Deepak Singh (PW-7), who conducted the postmortem of deceased and he found that there were some scratch marks below the knees on both the legs of the deceased, the size of which was 3 x 3 cm on the right leg and 3 x 2 cm on the left leg, which could 7 CRA No.1378/2021 possibly have been caused due to rubbing while saving her life. The palms of both the hands of the deceased were in a bent state, which is called clenching pattern of palm in forensic terminology, which comes while defending herself. In his report, he further stated that regarding the external examination of the body of the deceased, he found that her physical condition was normal and there was a parallel noose/trap mark on the neck, which was straight. 13. On the basis of memorandum statement of appellant vide Ex.P-5, which is duly supported by the father and brother of deceased i.e. PW-1 and PW-3 respectively, in which the appellant admitted the fact that regarding the selling of mahua, an altercation took place between the appellant and deceased/wife, due to which, the accused killed his wife by strangulation and to save himself, the accused made knot of one side of saree, so that, it appears that the deceased hanged herself 14. Considering the statements of Bhagmaniya Bai (PW-2), who is the mother of deceased that when the deceased used to come parental home, she used to tell her that the accused/appellant used to fight. She deposed in her statement that when the deceased used to go to work, the accused used to sell the Mahua kept in the house without informing the deceased. On the date of incident, the appellant told her that regarding the selling of mahua, 8 CRA No.1378/2021 a dispute occurred between the accused and deceased and when she asked the accused why he brought down the body of deceased without informing the neighbors, that time, the accused was silent and did not give answer. Hence, we hereby accept the finding recorded by the trial Court that it is the appellant-accused who assaulted deceased by which she suffered grievous injuries and died. As such, the finding recorded by the trial Court that due to altercation took place between the appellant and deceased regarding the selling of mahua, the appellant killed his wife by strangulation, is based on evidence available on record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the appellant-accused is the author of the crime in question. 15. In view of foregoing discussion, we are the of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC. 16. The appellant is stated to be in jail and he shall serve out the remaining period of jail sentence as awarded to him by the learned trial Court. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing the jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon'ble 9 CRA No.1378/2021 Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 18. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court for information and necessary action. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Judge Gowri/ Amardeep