BHAGWANSWARUP Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are two appellants. They are father and son respectively and they figured as A 1 and A2 before the trial Court. They were tried for offences punishable u/Ss. 302,201 and 120-B, I.P.C. for causing murder of Madhu Saxena, wife of A2 and daughter-in-law of A1, the deceased in the case. They were acquitted by the trial court. The State preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court convicted them under S. 120-B and S. 302 read with S. 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. They have preferred this appeal under S.2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of General (Criminal) Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.

(2.) The deceased was married to A2 in the year 1961. Two sons and one daughter were born to them A1, father of A2, was a practising lawyer after retiring from the Government Service. The matrimonial life of the deceased and A2 was not smooth. There were frequent quarrels. The accused lived if their own house along with the deceased. It is in the evidence that the deceased was not healthy both physically and mentally. She was also admitted in mental hospital once. She used to confine herself to her room and she appeared to be somewhat mentally deranged. The daughter of the deceased, who was examined as D.W. 2, aged 13 years was studying in 10th Class and she was also living in the same house. On 18-3-82 the dead body of the deceased was found in her room in the house of the accused. At that time admittedly A2 was not in the house and he was at Suratgarh. On being informed about the death A1 sent for Dr. Madan Lal Arora, who examined the deceased and declared her to be dead. Thereafter A1 informed P. W. 5, Jagmohan Prasad, the father of the deceased. P.W. 5 went there and enquired. A1 told P.W. 5 that the deceased be cremated at 9 a.m. The brother of the deceased told P.W. 5 that he has seen the dead body lying in the room and that it was giving rotten smell. P.W. 6 lodged a report before the Police. P.W. 22 took up the investigation, held the inquest, examined the witnesses and sent the dead body for post-mortem. The Doctor P. W. 2 conducted the post-mortem. He found that the body was giving rotten smell and the skin here and there was peeled off, nails were loose and the tongue was found in between the teeth. He found an injury on the head. He also found that some of the organs were decomposed and noticed greenish-brown discolouration on the neck. He opined that the death was due to head injury and pressure in the neck region. He, however, sent the tissues of the trachea though decomposed and a piece of neck skin and also viscera for histopathology and for chemical analysis, but the pathologist could not give any opinion regarding the piece of skin and the tissues of the trachea. The pathologist noted that the skin was discoloured and that the tissues and the mussle attached to the trachea showed no abnormality. The Doctor P.W. 2 opined that the head injury was caused by blunt weapon and that death is result of neck injury. The pressure on the left and front of the neck was apparent. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid. 22 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The accused denied the offences. A1 stated that he was away from 14-3-1982 onwards and was at Jodhpur in his daughter's house. In support of his plea D.W. 1, Dr. Ram Krishna Mehta, the neighbour of A1's daughter, was examined. He also examined his grand-daughter D.W. 2, namely the daughter of A2 and the deceased. A2 stated that he was at Suratgarh from 11-3-1982 onwards. Both of them denied the allegations of the prosecution.

(3.) The case registered rests on circumstantial evidence. The trial court held that there was no evidence of conspiracy between the A 1 and A2 for murdering the deceased. It further held that there is no legal proof also that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are hardly sufficient to connect them with the murder. The trial court, however, severely criticised about the ill-treatment and hard behaviour of A1 and A2 towards the deceased.