AABBCC

This Case Explanation includes important Laws, background of case, Facts of case, question
in matter, judgment and reference cases.

First
Important Laws covered in the case are,
 Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
 Section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
 Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
 Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
 Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
 Section 106 of Evidence Act, 1872

Second
Background of case
 This Appeal is filed in Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 374 of
Cr.P.C. against the judgment and sentence passed by 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge in Sessions Trial by which the appellant has been convicted under
Section
302 of I.P.C. and has been awarded Life Sentence and a fine.

Third
Facts of the case

 The appellant is the deceased Papitabai's husband. The deceased lived in

Ayodhya Colony with the appellant. Sudama informed Atar Singh, the
deceased's father, that his daughter had died and that he should come
immediately.
 As a result, Atar Singh, Rajvir Singh, Chandan, and Bhupendra came and
discovered the deceased Papitabai's body lying supine in the appellant's
house. Following that, Atar Singh filed a report with Police Station and
complain was registered.
 The post-mortem of the dead body of Papitabai was got done. The cause of
death was found to be strangulation. The appellant was harassing the
deceased and demanding motorcycle and an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Also, it
was found out the appellant had beaten his wife Papitabai last night.
 The cause of death was strangulation, accordingly F.I.R. was registered and
charge sheet was filed for offence.
 The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.
  The Trial Court by the impugned Judgment and Sentence, convicted the
appellant for offence.

Fourth
question in matter

 Whether the death of Papitabai was homicidal in nature or not?

 Whether the appellant has committed murder of his own wife Smt. Papitabai
or not?
 Whether the Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment
and sentence passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial by
which the appellant is valid?

Fifth
judgment stated

 In the Post-mortem report, it is clearly mentioned that the cause of death is

Strangulation. However, it was also mentioned that the final opinion would
depend on other circumstances and evidence. Thus, after considering the
evidence of medical reports with the number of injuries sustained by the
deceased Papitabai, it is held that the prosecution has succeeded in
establishing that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.
 The appellant had offered false explanation in his statement under Section
313 of Cr.P.C., therefore, such false explanation also provides an additional
link to held the appellant guilty. The chain of circumstances proved by the
prosecution is complete. Therefore, it is held that it is the appellant and
appellant alone who had killed his wife, Smt. Papitabai
 Appellant appeal is dismissed by the court as he is held guilty of committing
offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and the judgment and sentence
passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial is hereby Affirmed.
Sixth
Reference cases used in judgment

 State of T.N. v. Rajendran

 Kalu v. State of M.P.
 Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi v. State of Maharashtra
 Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra
 Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecutions
 State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh
 Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra
 Ponnusamy v. State of T.N.
 Sawal Das v. State of Bihar
 Omprakash Vs. State of Uttaranchal
 Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India
 Rohtush Kumar Vs. State of Haryana
 Musheer Khan v. State of M.P.
 Sunil Clifford Daniel case
 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra