COURT OF CHHATTCS&ARH : BILASPUR (&ivisi.Qn Bench) Hon'ble Shri Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, J. & Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Oeshmukh, J. CRIWINAL APPEAL N0.932 OF 1991 ©aneshYadav Aged about 32 years S/o Shri RAmji Yadav Cultivator, R/o Jamatpura PO - Oongargarh ESistt- Rcjnana'gaon A+ present in Central Jai! Raipur The State of Chhattisgarh PRESENT: Shri NK Chatterjee, counse! for -Ae appellant as amicus cunae. Shri J6 Bajpai, Additionat Public Prosecutor for the State. tth ww'1~'i: Per Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. This appeal is directed against the judgrnent dated 17.09.1991 in Sessions trial No.30/91 of the Court of Shri AAaihar Ali, Second AdditiQna! Sessions |Iydge, Rajnandgaon, whereby the appello.nt was convic+ed under Section 3021PC for commil-ting murder of his three year old daughter i'ltorisonment'for life. Pinky and was sen'tencecf to rigorous 2 2) Shri NK Chatterjee, learned counsel for tiie appellant appearing as amicus curiae has at the vsry outset stated that he does not assail the finding o-f +ha triat Judge that, Pinky cged about three years, ditughter of the appellant had died due to asphyx.ia, as a resutt !) Br'iefly stated 'th.e prosecution cose. is that on 25.03.1991, wife of the appeilant namely Triveni Bai had gone to bongarhgarh with her three year o!d daughter Pinky to visit the fa'r nal uncle - Tularam. The there and c^sked her to return with him. On refusal by his wife - Tr-ivent Bai, •rfie appellant got agi-hated, took his three-year-otd daughter Pinky wi+h him, and started for his home. On way, near vHtage bhasurakhar, the appellant threw his daughter in the wel! of Abdul Rashid an (PW1), which was witnessed by Subhan Bi (PW4). They started shouting, cume to the spot ond saw the dead body of Pinky floating in the water inside the well. The appellant aiso made an extra judiciol confession before Abdul Rashid an (PW1) that he had thrown his daughter inside the well. Abdu! Rashid Khon yWl) lodged H.R Ex. P-1 at Potice station - Dongargarh. The decad body of Pinky was 'retr-ieved from the well. &r R Sddani yWlO) who conducted the autopsy opined vide &. P-10 tfpat death of Pinky was o.s a resutt of asphyxioi due to drowning. On comptetion of inyestigation, the accused/appellant was prosecu^ed under Section 302 IPC. ^^^•^'^"^^•^^^f^ 4) The appellant abjured the 9uilt and claiwed tria'. In his exawinatlon under Section 313 of 1+ie Cr.P.C. he stated that fall of Pinky inside the well was accidental. However, he led no evidence in 5) Learned trial Court relying upon the ocular testimony of Subhan Bi (PW4) and the ex.tra judicial confession made by the appe'lant before Abdul Rashid Khan (PWl) soon after the occurrence, coupled with the medica! opinion of &r R Sadani (PW10), convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC'and sentenced hirn as aforesaid. 6) Shri NK Chatterjee, cmicus curiae has argued this appeal only on the question of sentence, and contended that the appellant is under-going incar-ceration since 1991 i.e. since tnore than 14 yaars. On the o+her hand, learned counsel appearing for •ttie State supported the judgment and the sentence awarded by the trial Judge. 7) We have considered the riyal submissions, and have a!so perused the record of the Idwer Court. We have given our tlioughtful consideration to the testimony of Subhan Bi (PW4), who saw the appet!ant, In a rage throwing the three-year'-old daughter in the well. Nothing has been e!icited in the cross examination of the v»itness to rebut the testimony. The testimony of Abdul Rashid cn (PW1) also cor'roborates the version of Sublpan Bi (PW4). His testlmony atso proves that in his presence, the c-ccused had made nn extra judicial confession., The medical report of] U/&A &r R Sadani (PW10) proves beyond doubt that death of Pinky j.a-due to asphyxia as a resu!t of drowning. ^ 4 The appellant in his statewent under Ssction 313 of the Cr.P.C. took •the defence that dea+h of Pinky was due to <xn accidento.1 fall inside tha well. However', he led no evidence in support of his defence. Hnving thus considered the evidence in its totality, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightiy relied upon the evidence led by -Hie prosecution l-o hold the accused/appellant guilty under Sectlon 302 of the IPC. The sentence awarded by the trial also cslls for- no in+er'ference. In the result, the is dismissed. i3U/ V.K.Shrivastava Judge Sdl- D-&^?b judge p.idma