RAM ASHISH Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE impugned judgment dated 22.05.2013 convicts Ram Ashish Yadav, (the appellant), for murder of Renu Devi at about 04:45 AM on 25.08.2006 just outside the door of the room where she and her husband Surender used to reside. By order on sentence dated 31.05.2013, the appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment, fine of Rs. 25,000/ -, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Benefit of Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) would be given.

(2.) THE prosecution version is solely predicated on the testimony of Surender (PW1) who as noticed is the husband of the deceased Renu Devi and the first informant. Surender (PW2) identified Ram Ashish Yadav as son of his uncle who used to also reside in a room which was in front of their room on the first floor in the property located in Gali No. 2, Kapashera. PW2 has deposed that at about 04:45AM on 25.08.2006, he had got up and had gone to fetch water from a tap installed within the property on the first floor but at some distance from their room, when he heard his wife Renu scream and cry. He ran towards his room and found his wife had been stabbed and was bleeding. Renu had then informed that Ram Ashish had caused the said injuries on her stomach with a knife. Appellant Ram Ashish was seen coming out of his room and run away with a knife in his hand. PW2 had tried to unsuccessfully chase him. The appellant threw the knife at distance of 20 metre outside the property. PW2 had then made a call to the police station and his statement (Ex.PW2/A) was recorded. The police had put Renu Devi in the vehicle brought by them for taking her to the hospital, but on the way she expired. PW2 was cross -examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor as the said witness was unable to admit or deny whether the knife marked Ex.P -1 was the one used by the appellant for commission of the offence.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is discrepancy and variation in the sequence of events given by Surender (PW2) in his court testimony and the version recorded in Ex.PW2/A. PW2 had alleged that there was land dispute between the father of appellant and father of PW2 and, therefore, the appellant was inimical towards PW2 and wife, whereas it was probable that the appellant and deceased Renu used to like each other and, therefore, PW2 may have committed murder of his wife Renu Devi. Our attention was drawn to suggestion given to PW2 in his cross -examination. PW2 in his examination -in -chief has accepted that they had three children who also used to reside in the same room, but they were not examined. Neighbours have also not been examined. Abscondence, it is submitted, cannot be construed as an incriminating circumstance.