Page 1 of 21

(Cr. A. No. 1884 of 2018)

2024:CGHC:30148-DB

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1884 OF 2018

(Arising out of Judgment dated 31.10.2018 passed by

Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District Jashpur in

Sessions Case No.30 of 2018)

Beer Singh, S/o Fulchand Lohar, aged about 32 years,

Sendrimunda, Police Station Narayanpur, District

Jashpur (C.G.)

... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, through: Police Station

Narayanpur, District Jashpur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellant :- Mr. Vikas Pandey,

Advocate.

For Respondent/State :- Mr. Ashish Shukla,

Additional Advocate

General, along with

Mr. Sharad Mishra,

Panel Lawyer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Division Bench

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal

Judgment on Board

[09.08.2024]

Page 2 of 21

(Cr. A. No. 1884 of 2018)

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1.Assail in the present criminal appeal, under Section

374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC,

in brief) is to the Judgment dated 31.10.2018 passed

by learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District Jashpur

(Trial Court) in Sessions Case No.30 of 2018, by which

the appellant has been convicted for offence under

Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(IPC, in brief) for committing murder of his wife

Heeramuni (deceased) by assaulting her with axe

(tangi) on 18.2.2018 and further for causing the

evidence of her murder to disappear by hiding the axe

used in the commission of murder of deceased

Heeramuni in order to screen himself from legal

punishment, and has been sentenced thereunder as

mentioned in the chart given below:-

Conviction Sentence

1.Under Section 302 IPC.1. Imprisonment for Life.

2. Fine of Rs.1000/-.

3. Rigorous Imprisonment

for 3 months, in default

of payment of fine.

2.Under Section 201 IPC.1. Rigorous Imprisonment

for 5 years.

2. Fine of Rs.1000/-.

3. Rigorous Imprisonment

for 3 months, in default

of payment of fine.

With a direction to run both the sentences

concurrently.

Page 3 of 21

(Cr. A. No. 1884 of 2018)

2.A brief factual backdrop of the prosecution case is that

the appellant, who used to work as Driver and live at

Mumbai, often used to doubt the character of his wife,

deceased Heeramuni, soon after their marriage and

despite all efforts made by the deceased to live happily

together with the appellant at Mumbai, the behaviour

of the appellant did not change towards her which

ultimately compelled her to stay at her uncle (fufa)

PW-1 Dasru Ram’s house. It is said that on 16.2.2018,

the appellant had come to the house of PW-1 Dasru

Ram and forced the deceased to come with him to

which she did not ready. Subsequently, on the date of

offence, i.e., on 18.2.2018, at about 4:00 pm, when the

deceased Heeramuni was grazing cattle and her

nephew PW-8 Shiva was playing nearby her, the

appellant came armed with axe and assaulted the

deceased with axe by which she suffered grievous

injuries and died and thereafter the appellant ran away

from the spot. The said incident of the assault made by

the appellant to his wife, deceased Heeramuni, with axe

was witnessed by PW-8 Shiva, who was along with her

at that time, as well as by PW-2 Kripashankar,

neighbour PW-1 Dasru Ram, who was also present at

the place of incident at that point of time. PW-2

Page 4 of 21

(Cr. A. No. 1884 of 2018)

Kripashankar and PW-8 Shiva both immediately

informed about the said incident to PW-1 Dasru Ram.

3.Immediately thereafter, on the information of PW-1

Dasru Ram, Merg Intimation (Exhibit P-1) was recorded

and on that basis, FIR (Exhibit P-2) was registered

against the appellant at Police Outpost Jashpur for

offence under Section 302 of IPC. Crime details

form/sketch map of the place of incident was prepared

vide Exhibits P-3 & P-4. Vide Exhibit P-5, witnesses

were summoned as required under the provisions of

175 of CrPC and the inquest proceeding was conducted

vide Exhibit P-6. Dead-body of deceased Heeramuni

was subjected to post-mortem examination which was

conducted by PW-10 Dr. Usha Lakda vide Exhibit P-17

in which cause of her death was opined to be

hemorrhagic shock due to head injury. After post-

mortem examination of the deceased, her clothes were

seized vide Exhibit P-16. Dead-body supurdnama

proceeding was conducted vide Exhibit P-7. Seizure of

blood mixed earth and control earth was made from the

spot vide Exhibit P-8. Memorandum statement of the

appellant was recorded vide Exhibit P-10 pursuant to

which, an iron axe affixed with wooden handle was

recovered vide Exhibit P-11. Arrest of the appellant was

made vide Exhibit P-12. Subsequently, vide Exhibit

Page 5 of 21

(Cr. A. No. 1884 of 2018)

P-18, on a query sought for by the police in respect of

the nature of death of deceased Heeramuni, PW-10 Dr.

Usha Lakda opined the nature of death of the deceased

to be homicidal and similarly vide query report (Exhibit

P-19), Dr. Lakda opined that the injuries inflicted on

the deceased resulting to her death could be caused by

the seized axe and further advised for chemical

examination of the seized axe for presence of

blood/human blood. Spot Map was prepared by

Patwari vide Exhibit P-9. Statement of the witnesses

were recorded under Section 161 of CrPC and the

statement of PW-2 Kripashankar was also recorded

under Section 164 of CrPC. As per Forensic Science

Laboratory (FSL) report, which is Exhibit P-28, on

chemical examination of the seized articles, except for

control earth (Article ‘A’) seized from the spot, human

blood of ‘O’ group was found on the axe (Article ‘C’)

seized pursuant to the memorandum statement of the

appellant as well as on the blood mixed earth (Article

‘B’) seized from the spot and on the clothes (Articles ‘D’)

of the deceased.

4.On completion of the investigation, the appellant was

charge-sheeted before the concerned Magistrate who

took cognizance on the charge-sheet and the case,

being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, was

Page 6 of 21

(Cr. A. No. 1884 of 2018)

committed to the court of Sessions for trial. The

appellant appeared before the Trial Court where

charges were framed against him for the offence

punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC to

which he denied and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the

prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses as

PW-1 to PW-12 and exhibited 34 documents vide

Exhibits P-1 to P-34. After closure of the prosecution

evidence, statement of the accused appellant was

recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied

the circumstances appearing against him in the

evidence of the prosecution, pleaded innocence and

false implication and took a defence that it is PW-2

Kripashankar who had killed the deceased with axe

and not him. In defence, statement of PW-1 Dasru Ram

and PW-2 Kripashankar recorded under Section 161 of

CrPC has been relied on vide Exhibits D-1 & D-2.

6.After conclusion of trial, the Trial Court, by impugned

judgment dated 31.10.2018, on appreciation of the

evidence available on record, held the appellant guilty

of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201

of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him

thereunder as mentioned at the chart given in

paragraph-1 of this judgment, which led to filing of the

Page 7 of 21

(Cr. A. No. 1884 of 2018)

present appeal by the appellant calling in question the

legality, validity and correctness of the impugned

judgment passed by the Trial Court.

7.Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant, would submit as follows:-

(i)That PW-2 Kripashankar could not have been

accepted by learned Trial Court as an eye-witness in

view of the contradictory statement made by him in

paragraphs 2 & 15 of his statement which has been

clarified by the Court by putting question in exercise of

its power under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act,

1872 (the Evidence Act, in brief) which is totally

uncalled for and therefore the testimony of PW-2

Kripashankar is not reliable and trustworthy.

(ii)PW-8 Shiva, another alleged eye-witness in the

instant case, has also not seen the incident and

therefore his statement also cannot be said to be

credible and authentic.

(iii)PW-1 Dasru Ram and his wife PW-4 Kamla Bai

though are res gestae witnesses but in absence of

corroboration, their statement also could not have been

relied upon by learned Trial Court.

Page 8 of 21

(Cr. A. No. 1884 of 2018)

(iv)Though pursuant to the memorandum statement

of the appellant, the alleged recovery of axe was made,

but PW-2 Kripashankar and PW-9 Bhupendra Kumar

Singh, who are memorandum and seizure witnesses,

have turned hostile and not supported the case of the

prosecution. In that view of the matter, even if human

blood of ‘O’ group was found on the seized axe, the

appellant could not have been convicted merely on the

basis of recovery of a bloodstained weapon, particularly

when there is no corroborative piece of evidence

available on record.

8.Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate

General appearing along with Sharad Mishra, learned

Panel Lawyer, for the Respondent/State, would submit

that learned Trial Court is absolutely justified in

putting question in order to clarify the confusion

caused by PW-2 Kripashankar in paragraphs 2 & 15 of

his statement and as such he has rightly been accepted

as an eye-witness and not only PW-2 Kripashankar,

PW-8 Shiva is also an eye-witness to the incident.

Further, the FIR (Exhibit P-2) which was lodged by

PW-1 Dasru Ram proves that Dasru Ram has stated

that PW-2 Kripashankar had come to him and informed

that the appellant had killed his wife Heeramuni, which

is liable to be accepted in view of the decision of the

Page 9 of 21

(Cr. A. No. 1884 of 2018)

Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Ram Kumar

Pande v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

1

.

Furthermore, the seizure of axe has been proved by the

Investigation Officer, PW-11 Jogendra Sahu, and as

such the recovery of axe can be accepted as a

corroborative piece of evidence in view of the fact that

human blood of “O” group was found on the said axe as

well as on the clothes of the deceased and blood mixed

earth seized from the spot. In addition, motive of the

offence is also found to be established as per the

statement of PW-1 Dasru Ram that the appellant used

to doubt the character of his wife, deceased Heeramuni,

and for that reason Heeramuni did not want to live with

the appellant in Mumbai and came back to stay at his

(PW-1) house leaving the appellant. Thus, the

conviction of the appellant for the said offences is

absolutely justified and the appeal is liable to be

dismissed.

9.We have heard learned counsel for parties, considered

their rival submissions made herein-above and also

perused the record carefully and thoroughly.

10.The primary question, as to whether the death of

deceased Heeramuni was homicidal in nature, has

been answered by learned Trial Court in affirmative

1 (1975) 3 SCC 815

Page 10 of 21

(Cr. A. No. 1884 of 2018)

relying upon the statement of PW-10 Dr. Usha Lakda

who has conducted the post-mortem examination of

deceased Heeramuni vide Exhibit P-17 and opined the

cause of her death to be hemorrhagic shock due to

head injury and the nature of her death to be

homicidal, which, in our considered opinion, is correct

finding of fact based on evidence available on record

and which is neither perverse nor contrary to the

record. We, therefore, affirm the said finding of the Trial

Court, holding that the death of deceased Heeramuni

was homicidal in nature.

11.Now, the substantive question is, as to whether the

appellant is author of the crime and has caused

murder of his wife, deceased Heeramuni?

Motive of the offence:-

12.Motive of the offence as per the prosecution and as also

found to be established by learned Trial Court is that

the appellant wanted to keep his wife, deceased

Heeramuni, to live together with him but the deceased

was not ready to live with him for the reason that the

appellant used to torture and mistreat her doubting on

her character and furthermore from the statement of

PW-1 Dasru Ram also it is quite clear that the

appellant and his wife, deceased Heeramuni, were

Page 11 of 21

(Cr. A. No. 1884 of 2018)

living together in Mumbai and she came back from

Mumbai and was living at his (PW-1) house from 15

days prior to the date of incident. In his cross-

examination also, PW-1 Dasru Ram has admitted that

the appellant used to doubt on her character and had

beaten her so many times. He has further admitted

that two days prior to the incident, the appellant had

come to his house and quarreled with Heeramuni and

thereafter on the date of incident, the appellant killed

her with axe. Thus, in our considered opinion, the

motive of the offence has rightly been found to be

established by the Trial Court and the said finding of

learned Trial Court is hereby affirmed.

Testimony of eye-witness PW-2 Kripashankar :-

13.PW-2 Kripashankar has been projected as eye-witness

by the prosecution and which learned Trial Court has

accepted to which a strong objection has been raised

on behalf of the appellant that in view of the

contradictory statement made by PW-2 Kripashankar

in his statement, the Trial Court could not have

supported the case of the prosecution by putting

clarificatory question in light of Section 165 of the

Evidence Act.

Page 12 of 21

(Cr. A. No. 1884 of 2018)

14.True it is that that in paragraph-2 of his statement,

PW-2 Kripashankar has stated that he had seen that

the appellant had assaulted his wife, deceased

Heeramuni, with axe on her head and thereafter he

immediately ran to inform about the incident to PW-1

Dasru Ram on which PW-1 Dasru Ram and his wife

PW-4 Kamla Bai had come to the spot and found

Heeramuni in an injured condition and taken her to the

hospital where she was declared brought dead. Though

in paragraph-15 of his statement, PW-2 Kripashankar

has stated that he had not seen the appellant

assaulting his wife, deceased Heeramuni, but on a

question asked by the Court in exercise of its powers

under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, PW-2

Kripashankar has clarified that he had seen the

appellant assaulting the deceased. For ready reference,

paragraph-15 of the statement of PW-2 Kripashankar is

being reproduced herein under:-

^^15@ ;g dguk lgh gS fd vfHk;qDr vkSj mldh

iRuh ghjkeqfu tgka ckr dj jgs Fks ogka vkSj dksbZ ugha

FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSa vfHk;qDr }kjk viuh iRuh

ghjkeqfu dks ekjrs gq;s ugha ns[kk gwaA eSa Qksu esa ckr

dj jgk Fkk fQj ogka ls pys x;kA

U;k;ky; }kjk iz’u%&

iz’u%& eq[; ijh{k.k esa vkius vfHk;qDr }kjk viuh

iRuh ghjkeqfu dks ekjrs gq;s ns[kuk cryk;k gS vkSj vc

mij dafMdk&15 esa ekjrs gq;s ugha ns[kk gwa ,slk dgk

gSA nksukas esa ls dkSu lh ckr lp gS\

Page 13 of 21

(Cr. A. No. 1884 of 2018)

mRrj%& eSa Mj x;k Fkk blfy;s ekjrs gq;s ugha ns[kk gwa

,slk dg fn;k gaw ysfdu eSa ekjrs gq;s ns[kk FkkA xkao esa

dqN yksx eq>s Mjkdj cksys Fks fd ekjrs gq;s ugha ns[kk

gwa ,slk U;k;ky; esa cksyuk blfy;s eSa Mjdj ,slk cksy

fn;k FkkA**

15.Section 165 of the Evidence Act came up for

consideration before the Supreme Court in the matter

of Ram Chander v. The State of Haryana

2

and on the

scope of Section 165 of the Evidence Act, the power of

the Court to ask question has been dealt with in

paragraphs 2 & 3 as under:-

“2.The adversary system of trial being what

it is, there is an unfortunate tendency for a

judge presiding over a trial to assume the role

of a referee or an umpire and to allow the trial

to develop into a contest between the

prosecution and the defence with the

inevitable distortions flowing from combative

and competitive element entering the trial

procedure. If a criminal court is to be an

effective instrument in dispensing justice, the

presiding judge must cease to be a spectator

and a mere recording machine. He must

become a participant in the trial by evincing

intelligent active interest by putting questions

to witnesses in order to ascertain the truth. As

one of us had occasion to say in the past:

“Every criminal trial is a voyage of

discovery in which truth is the quest. It is

the duty of a presiding Judge to explore

every avenue open to him in order to

discover the truth and to advance the

cause of justice. For that purpose he is

expressly invested by section 165 of the

Evidence Act with the right to put

questions to witnesses. Indeed the right

given to a Judge is so wide that he may

'ask any question he pleases, in any form,

at any time, of any witness, or of the

2 AIR 1981 SC 1036

Page 14 of 21

(Cr. A. No. 1884 of 2018)

parties about any fact, relevant or

irrelevant. Section 172 (2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure enables the Court to

send for the police diaries in a case and

use them to aid it in the trial. The record of

the proceedings of the committing

Magistrate may also be perused by the

Sessions Judge to further aid him in the

trial. (Sessions Judge, Nellore v. Intna

Ramana Reddy, ILR (1972) Andh Pra

683)."

3.With such wide powers, the Court must

actively participate in the trial to elicit the truth

and to protect the weak and the innocent. It

must, of course, not assume the role of a

prosecutor in putting questions. The functions of

the counsel, particularly those of the Public

Prosecutor, are not to be usurped by the judge,

by descending into the arena, as it were. Any

questions put by the judge must be so as not to

frighten, coerce, confuse or intimidate the

witnesses. The danger inherent in a judge

adopting a much too stern an attitude towards

witnesses has been explained by Lord Justice

Birkett: ...”

16.Principles of law laid down in Ram Chander (supra)

has been followed with approval by Supreme Court in

the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Ani alias Hanif

and Others

3

in which their Lordships have held in

paragraphs 11 & 12 as under:-

“11.  We are unable to appreciate the above

criticism. Section 165 of the Evidence Act

confers vast and unrestricted powers on the

trial court to put “any question he pleases,

in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of

the parties, about  any fact relevant or

irrelevant” in order to discover relevant facts.

The said section was framed by lavishly

studding it with the word “any” which could

only have been inspired by the legislative

3(1997) 6 SCC 162

Page 15 of 21

(Cr. A. No. 1884 of 2018)

intent to confer unbridled power on the trial

court to use the power whenever he deems

it necessary to elicit truth. Even if any such

question crosses into irrelevancy the same

would not transgress beyond the contours of

powers of the court. This is clear from the

words “relevant or irrelevant” in Section 165.

Neither of the parties has any right to raise

objection to any such question.

12. Reticence may be good in many

circumstances, but a Judge remaining mute

during trial is not an ideal situation. A

taciturn Judge may be the model caricatured

in public mind. But there is nothing wrong in

his becoming active or dynamic during trial

so that criminal justice being the end could

be achieved. Criminal trial should not turn

out to be a bout or combat between two rival

sides with the Judge performing the role only

of a spectator or even an umpire  to

pronounce finally who won the race. A Judge

is expected to actively participate in the trial,

elicit necessary materials from witnesses in

the appropriate context which he feels

necessary for reaching the correct conclusion.

There is nothing which inhibits his power to

put questions to the witnesses, either during

chief examination or cross-examination or

even during re-examination to elicit truth.

The corollary of it is that if a Judge felt that a

witness has committed an error or a slip it is

the duty of the Judge to ascertain whether it

was so, for, to err is human and the chances

of erring may accelerate under stress of

nervousness during cross-examination.

Criminal justice is not to be founded on

erroneous answers spelled out by witnesses

during evidence-collecting process. It is a

useful exercise for trial Judge to remain

active and alert so that errors can be

minimised.”

Thereafter, their Lordships have said that the Trial

Court is justified in interjecting during cross-

examination of the concerned witness with a view to

ascertain the correct position.

Page 16 of 21

(Cr. A. No. 1884 of 2018)

17.Furthermore, very recently in the matter of Rahul v.

State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs and

Another

4

, the principles of law laid down in Ram

Chander (supra) and Ani alias Hanif (supra) have been

followed with approval.

18.Thus, in view of the principles of law down in Ram

Chander (supra), Ani alias Hanif (supra) and Rahul

(supra), learned Trial Court, in view of the contradictory

statement made by PW-2 Kripashankar in paragraphs

2 & 15 of his statement, has asked the question to

ascertain as to whether he had seen the appellant

assaulting the deceased or not, which was immediately

clarified by PW-2 Kripashankar stating that he had

seen the appellant assaulting the deceased. The

appellant was also given an opportunity to further

cross-examination PW-2 Kripashankar in this regard

but he has not questioned the said part in which PW-2

Kripashankar has clarified that he had seen the

incident wherein the appellant had assaulted his wife,

Heeramuni, with axe. As such, the Trial Court has

rightly accepted the statement of PW-2 Kripashankar

as eye-witness and we endorse the said stand taken by

learned Trial Court.

4 (2023) 1 SCC 83

Page 17 of 21

(Cr. A. No. 1884 of 2018)

Testimony of eye-witness PW-8 Shiva:-

19.So far as the next eye-witness PW-8 Shiva is concerned,

he is son of deceased's sister, who at the time of

incident was along with the deceased who had gone to

grazing cattle. As per the said witness, at the time of

incident, deceased Heeramuni was sitting on the

ground and he was playing nearby and all of a sudden

the appellant came and assaulted the deceased with

axe. In his cross-examination also he has clearly stated

that he had witnessed the incident and has stated

before Court as seen by him. Not only this, he has also

established the presence of PW-2 Kripashankar at the

place of incident during the relevant point of time and

has also clearly refuted the question put to him that he

was tutored by his grandfather PW-1 Dasru Ram. As

such, PW-2 Kripashankar and PW-8 Shiva both are the

eye-witnesses to the incident.

20.Furthermore, as soon as PW-2 Kripashankar reported

the matter to PW-1 Dasru Ram, he (PW-1) immediately

lodged FIR on 18.2.2018 at 5:30 pm in which he has

informed that PW-2 Kripashankar came running and

informed him that the appellant had assaulted the

deceased Heeramuni with axe. Though an FIR is a

Page 18 of 21

(Cr. A. No. 1884 of 2018)

previous statement which can, strictly speaking, be

used to corroborate and contradict the maker of it, but

in the instant case immediately after the incident, PW-2

Kripashankar had informed about the incident to PW-1

Dasru Ram. At this stage, relevant part of paragraph-9

of Ram Kumar Pande (supra) may be noticed herein:-

“9.…“No doubt, an FIR is a previous

statement which can, strictly speaking, be

only used to corroborate or contradict the

maker of it. But, in this case, it had been

made by the father of the murdered boy to

whom all the important facts of the

occurrence, so far as they were known up to

9-15 p.m. on March 23, 1970, were bound

to have been communicated. If his

daughers had seen the appellant inflicting a

blow on Harbinder Singh, the father would

certainly have mentioned it in the FIR We

think that omissions of such important

facts, affecting the probabilities of the case,

are relevant under Section 11 of the

Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the

prosecution case.”

21.The name of the appellant also finds place in the FIR

lodged by PW-1 Dasru Ram to whom PW-2

Kripashankar had immediately informed about the

incident. As such, the testimony of PW-2 Kripashankar

also stands corroborated by the FIR lodged, which is as

per the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the

matter of Ram Kumar Pandey (supra) followed in Ram

Chander (supra).

Page 19 of 21

(Cr. A. No. 1884 of 2018)

Recovery of axe pursuant to the memorandum

statement of the appellant:-

22.Though pursuant to the memorandum statement of the

appellant recorded vide Exhibit P-10, a blood stained

axe was seized from the possession of the appellant as

per recovery memo Exhibit P-11, but PW-2

Kripashankar and PW-9 Bhupendra Kumar Singh have

turned hostile and not supported the case of the

prosecution. However, learned Trial Court has rightly

accepted the version of the Investigating Officer PW-11

Jogendra Sahu as a corroborative piece of evidene

which we find to have a sufficient merit as the two

memorandum and seizure witnesses in the instant case

both have turned hostile and the testimony of the

Investigating Officer cannot be discarded merely

because he is a police officer. Even otherwise, as per

FSL report (Exhibit P-28), human blood of ‘O’ group

was found on the axe (Article ‘C’) seized pursuant to the

memorandum statement of the appellant as well as on

the blood mixed earth (Article ‘B’) seized from the spot

and on the clothes (Articles ‘D’) of the deceased, which

further fortifies the case of the prosecution. Apart from

that, the query report (Exhibit P-19) submitted by

PW-12 Dr. Usha Lakda also opined that the injuries

Page 20 of 21

(Cr. A. No. 1884 of 2018)

inflicted on the deceased Heeramuni resulting to her

death could be caused by the axe seized pursuant to

the memorandum statement of the appellant.

Conclusion:-

23.Thus, from the oral evidence of PW-2 Kripashankar and

PW-8 Shiva who have clearly seen the incident wherein

the appellant had assaulted his wife, deceased

Heeramuni as well as from the testimony of two res

gestae witnesses, PW-1 Dasru Ram and his wife PW-4

Kamla Bai, which finds support from the recovery of

bloodstained axe, i.e., the weapon of offence, on which

human blood of 'O' group was found as also has been

found on the blood mixed earth and bloodstained

clothes of the deceased, supported with medical and

forensic evidence available on record including the

strong motive found established against the appellant,

we are of the considered opinion that it is none other

than the appellant who is the author of the crime and

has committed murder of his wife, deceased

Heeramuni. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the

appellant for offence under Sections 302 as well as 201 of

IPC is absolutely justified and well-merited which

deserves to be and is hereby upheld, affirming the

impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court.

Page 21 of 21

(Cr. A. No. 1884 of 2018)

24.As a consequence, finding the appeal of the appellant

meritless, we hereby dismiss the appeal.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Agrawal)

Sharad Judge Judge