S.K.SINHA - (1.)DELIVERED by hon'ble Justice Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th of August, 1995 passed in Session Trial No. 470/1991 by the Third Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted u/ss 302 & 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life & R.I. for 3 years with find sentences of Rs. 5,000.00 & 2,000.00 under each count.
(2.)THE facts, briefly stated, are as under :
Deceased- Gangotri Bai was wife of the appellant. She was residing with the appellant in village Amartal. On 4.7.1991, in the morning, her dead body was found in her house in burnt condition. Merg intimation (Ex.-P/23A) was lodged by uncle of the appellant indrabhushan (A-2). The Investigation Officer reached to the place of the occurrence, gave notice (Ex.-P/8) to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.P/9) on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was sent for post mortem to Primary Health Centre, Akaltara vide Ex.P/1-A. The post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. M. Bhagat (PW-1). The Autopsy Surgeon found that the deceased was killed by gagging and throttling and was burnt thereafter. The duration of the incident was between 24 to 36 hours. The post-mortem report is Ex.-P/1. Since the deceased was usually residing with the appellant and the relationship between them were not cordial according to the evidence of Soan Bai )PW-10-mother of the deceased) and Puri Bai (PW-12-sis of the deceased) and the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of the appellant, it was held that the appellant had killed the deceased and thereafter he tried to disappear the evidence by putting the dead body on fire, therefore, he was liable for punishment u/ss 302 and 201 IPC. Co-accused-Indrabhusha (A-2) was acquitted holding him innocent about the incident because he simply lodged the report that the dead body was found in burnt condition which he saw in the morning.

Ms. Shamila Singhai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that according to the merg intimation (Ex.-P/23A) and the First Information Report, lodged after completion of investigation of merg, the incident took place in the morning of 4.7.1991. At that time the appellant was not present in his house as he had gone to work in the field of Ramesh Kumar (PW-4). Not only this, the deceased had visited the field of Ramesh Kumar (PW-4) in the morning hours of 4.7.1991 as she brought meal for the appellant in the field of Ramesh Kumar (PW-4). Ramesh Kumar (PW-4), Rajendra Prasad (PW-7) and Mohan (PW-8) have deposed that after returning of the deceased from the fielf of Ramesh Kumar (PW-4) in the mirning and prior to the incident, the appellant was in the field of Ramesh Kumar (PW-4). The appellant has also given such explanation in answer to question No. 72 in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The learned Session Judge erred in not relying on the above evidence and falsifying them on the basis of time of death mentioned in the post mortem report (Ex.P-/1)

(3.)ON the other hand, Mr. J.A. Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Session Court.