MILAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 08.02.2011 and order on sentence dated 15.03.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.04/09 by which the appellant -Milan Singh was convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:

(2.) MILAN Singh and Sunita (since deceased) were living together in a house in A -Block, Kachhi Colony, Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar - III. Milan Singh used to ply rikshaw. They had one son aged about one year. On 16.07.2005 at about 12:30 P.M., Sunita was murdered in her house. Information was conveyed to the police station and Daily Diary (DD) No.16/A (Ex.PW.20/A) was recorded at 02:05 P.M. at Police Post Prem Nagar. The investigation was assigned to Inspector Meer Singh Nehra (PW -16) who reached the spot. Sh.Kedar Nath, Sub Divisional Magistrate recorded the statements of Shakal Dev and Shrawan Kumar, father and brother of the deceased respectively. Inspector Mohd.Iqbal sent the rukka for lodging First Information Report under Section 302 IPC. The Investigating Officer summoned the photographer who took the photographs of the house and the body. Crime team prepared its report. One nilon 'rope' of light green colour lying at the spot was seized vide seizure Memo (Ex.PW -3/E). The body was sent for post -mortem. Dr. Ashish Jain (PW -14) conducted post -mortem examination of the body. The accused was arrested at the spot. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts and after completion of the investigation submitted a charge -sheet against the accused for committing offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The accused was duly charged and brought to trial.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the Trial Court and urged that it did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error in relying upon the testimony of PWs 1 and 3 who were interested witnesses. The Trial Court, urged the counsel, did not notice vital discrepancies and contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses. The accused was not present at the spot at the time of incident and had gone to ply rikshaw in the morning at 8:00 A.M. When the police reached the spot, admittedly, the accused was not present there. He returned to the spot after Shankar Lal informed him about the death of his wife. She further pointed out that there was no legal evidence to prove objectionable relationship with Suraj Kumari. She was not examined by the police. It was a case of suicide. PW -3 (Shrawan Kumar) was not a witness to the incident and in his deposition before the court, he did not claim to have seen the accused strangulating the deceased. The accused had no ulterior motive to murder his wife as they were living happily with a male child. After he was arrested and implicated in the case, no care of the child was taken and parents of the deceased misappropriated all his household articles.