STATE Vs. HARI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M.A. 9718/2014

(2.) The FIR was registered on the complaint of PW-1 Sewa Ram, the father of the deceased who stated that he had married the deceased with Hari Chand about 8-10 years ago. Initially, for 3-4 years Hari Chand behaved well with his daughter, however thereafter he started taking intoxicants and used to frequently quarrel with her. On one day he strangulated his daughter. He also deposed that few months prior to the incident Hari Chand had fallen from the roof and sustained injuries due to which he had to undergo surgery. For this reason he was not in a position to work with Pintu contractor. However, Pintu Contractor continued to give expenses to the family of Hari Chand and due to this he used to doubt the character of the deceased. Hari Chand did not like the deceased either meeting or talking to Pintu contractor. On the fateful day he received an information from Hari Chand that his daughter had gone to ease in the jungle and somebody had strangulated her.

(3.) The prosecution case rest on circumstantial evidence. Though motive has been proved by the deposition of the complainant and PW-4 Geeta, the mother of the deceased, however the prosecution has failed to prove rest of the essential ingredients to complete the chain of events. The other only scientific evidence proved by the prosecution is that as per the FSL report, mud on the nikkar of Hari Chand tallied with the mud found at the spot where the deceased was found dead. The deceased was not found dead at her residence but in the jungle where she had gone to ease.