DIWANIRAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by way of special leave arises out of the following facts: Sati Devi, deceased, daughter of Bachhu Das, PW 1 was married with Diwani Ram, son of Gaphloo Das and Rukmani Devi. At about 2.00 p.m. on 13-6-1999, Gaphloo Das came to Bachhu Das's house and told him that Sati Devi had gone to the jungle to collect grass but had not returned home thereafter and he had suspected that she may have gone to his home. Bachhu Das replied that Sati Devi had not come to his house. At about 10-11 a.m. the very next day Gaphloo Das again came to Bachhu Das's house and accused him of having hidden Sati Devi on which the latter again denied that she had come to his home and on the contrary expressed his surprise to know that she had been missing from her matrimonial home. Bachhu Das and others thereafter made a search for Sati Devi but without success. As he suspected that something amiss had happened to Sati Devi, he reported the matter to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chamoli, and also filed an application on 20-6-1989 before the Gram Sabhapati, Ustoli.

(2.) When the Revenue police still did not proceed with the investigation despite the two applications aforesaid Bachhu Das filed yet another application on 28-6-1989 before the District Magistrate, Chamoli in which he alleged that the dead body of Sati Devi, his daughter, had been recovered on 24-6-1989 from Nandakani River but in spite of this information having been conveyed to the local Patwari no action had been taken by him. The District Magistrate then ordered the necessary investigation which was made by the Supervisor Kanoongo, who was the investigating officer, and who in due course filed a charge-sheet before the Court arraying Sati Devi's husband Diwani Ram and her in-laws Gaphloo Das and Rukmani Devi as the accused. The matter was, thereafter, remitted to the Sessions Court in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and Sections 498-A and 201 IPC, and as the appellant-accused denied their involvement, the matter was brought for trial.

(3.) The trial court relying on the evidence of PW 1 Bachhu Das, the father of the deceased, PW 5, Budhi Das who had allegedly seen the dead body being thrown into Nandakani River by the three appellants on 13-6-1989 and Jalmi Das, PW 6 grandfather of the deceased who had given an application with regard to her having disappeared and duly corroborated by the evidence of PW 4, Dr. Vinod Kumar who had conducted the post-mortem and opined that the death had been caused by a blunt weapon injury on the head and not by drowning, convicted the appellants for the offences for which they had been charged. The matter was, thereafter, taken in appeal before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital.