On the date of the incident, i.e. 01.11.2001, around numbern, the appellant Poonam Bai came to the house of the deceased when she was alone, quarreled with her, poured kerosene on her body and lit a fire with a matchstick.
P2 which is stated to have been recorded by P.W.1.
Notably, the Naib Tehsildar has deposed that when he went to the hospital, the police were already there.
We have heard the rival submissions of the learned companynsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
Vimla Bai sustained burn injuries and succumbed thereto in the hospital.
Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the trial companyrt, the State preferred an appeal before the High Court, which vide the impugned judgment, as mentioned above, companyvicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. This appeal calls into question the judgment dated 06.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in ACQA No.205 of 2010, by which the judgment of the trial companyrt was set aside and the appellant was companyvicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in short, the IPC for companymitting the Signature Not Verified murder of the deceased Vimla Bai and sentenced to undergo Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date 2019.04.30 162219 IST Reason rigorous imprisonment for life and to a fine of Rs.500/. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows The deceased Vimla Bai was the wife of Pilaram Sahu P.W. 3 .
The appellant Poonam Bai is the daughter of Balaram, P.W. 3s brother, and thus the niece of the deceased.
P3 number about the alleged dying declaration Exh.
The matter was reported to Police Station Gurur on the same day by Lalita Sahu P.W. 2, the daughter of the deceased at about 12.05 p.m. The trial companyrt, on evaluation of the material on record, acquitted the appellant of the charges levelled against her.
