NATHU RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three sisters of one family were married to three brothers in another family. One of the sisters, Dhamma, was done to death on 8.10. 1993 and her dead body was buried. 15 days thereafter, Dhamma's sister Vimla (Public witness -13) complained to her father that Dhamma was actually killed by her father-in-law (1st accused - Nathu Ram) , her husband (2nd accused - Mangi Lal) , her brothers-in-law Bhanwar Lal (3rd accused) and Pappu Ram (4th accused). All the four were charge-sheeted by the police after investigation for the offences under Sections 304b, 498a and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. After the trial the Sessions Judge convicted all of them under the said offences and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and 3 years respectively under the aforesaid counts. They filed an appeal before the High Court and a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. They have approached this Court by special leave and that was granted.

(2.) Evidence of Public witness -13 (Vimla) has been believed by the trial court and the High Court. That testimony shows that all the four accused had assaulted Dhamma on 8.10. 1993 and 1st accused (Nathu Ram) threatened her to death. If the statement of Public witness -13 remains the same when she was interrogated by the investigating officer it is inexplicable to us as to why challan was not laid for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code besides other offences. If the present materials were consistent with the investigation record we are unable to understand why the Sessions Judge did not frame a charge at the stage of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the aforesaid offences. When the matter reached before the High Court the whole focus was to examine whether offence under Section 304b and the other offences charged against the accused have been made out.

(3.) We mentioned the above facts only to show that even if we are convinced of the truth of Public witness -13's testimony it is not possible for us to hold the accused guilty of the offence of culpable homicide.