RAI SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The convict appellant (hereinafter referred to as me appellant for the sake of brevity) has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated February 15, 1992 & February 17, 1992.

(2.) Brief facts which led to the filing of the present appeal are as under : that one Charan Singh (Public Witness 3) resident of village Nanak Hen was sleeping in his house on July 22, 1989 at about 9.001 9.30 p.m. His brother known as Mir Singh (Public Witness 5) approached him and apprised him of the firing at his house by the appellant and in regard to the death of a girl known as Anjani.. On receipt of the said information he immediately rushed to the police station and informed the police. His statement was recorded vide D.D. No. 16A (vide Ex. Public Witness 2/A) by Public Witness 2 Mukhtiar Singh. The said DD entry was marked to SHO M. S. Yadav (Public Witness 18) for purpose of enquiry. Inspector Yadav alongwith SI Gita Ram (PW 17) and other police officers rushed to the place of occurrence. He met over there the mother of the deceased known as Smt. Ved Wati (Public Witness 7). He recorded her statement vide Ex. Public Witness 7{A and sent the same alongwith his endorsement (Ex. Public Witness 18 (A) through Constable Kuldip Kumar (Public Witness 14) for registration of a formal F.I.R. whereupon formal F.I.R. was recorded by HC Mukhtiar Singh (Public Witness 2) vide Ex. Public Witness 2/B.

(3.) Smt. Ved Wati (Public Witness 7) stated in her statement (Ex. Public Witness 7/A) that she was a resident of H. No. KG-364, LIG Flats, Vikas Puri. She has been residing at the abovesaid address alongwith her husband and children since the time of her marriage. She was married to one Mauji Ram (Public Witness 12) by her father and the brother, appellant herein. Her husband is a physically handicapped person. As such, her father and brother took away from him Rs. 24,0001- for giving her in marriage to him. The appellant had assured that he would return the said money later on. However, the same amount has so far not been returned. She approached her brother (appellant) many a times for the return of the said amount as she was financially weak. However, the appellant put her off on one pretext or the other.