RAJESH @ SUDAMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned judgment of 4th October, 2013 holds appellant guilty of the offence of murdering his wife with a knife at his house in the afternoon of 28th August, 2012. Vide impugned order of 19th October, 2013, appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, it has been directed by Trial Court that appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Rishi (PW-13) is the first informant, at whose instance, the police machinery was set into motion in respect of the incident in question. The version of the first informant-Rishi as noticed in the impugned judgment is as under:-

(2.) Although prosecution has relied upon evidence of 25 witnesses but the material evidence is of first informant-Rishi (PW-13), his brother-Shashi (PW-16) and their mother-Smt.Chandrani (PW-21), who were landlords of appellant and were residing on ground floor of their house and appellant with his wife was residing on the first floor in the said house. Apart from their evidence, there is deposition of Smt.Munni (PW-22), who is sister of the deceased, on the motive aspect. As per the medical evidence on record, deceased had suffered 8 injuries and out of them, injury No.7 on the chest of the deceased proved to be fatal. Appellant had also suffered simple incised injury on right thigh and on his left forearm which according to medical opinion, could be self-inflicted. As per the scientific evidence, human blood of Group 'O' was detected on the weapon of offence i.e. the knife, which was seized from appellant when he was arrested on the spot. Insp.Ram Kishore (PW-25) was the Investigating Officer of this case. The crux of prosecution evidence is recapitulated by Trial Court in paragraph 64 of the impugned judgment which needs no reproduction. Appellant in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has denied the prosecution case and has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of parents of the deceased. No defence evidence has been led. Trial Court while relying upon the evidence of the aforesaid material witnesses has proceeded to convict and sentence appellant as already noted above.

(3.) To assail appellant's conviction, learned counsel for appellant contends that fingerprints on the recovered knife were not taken by the police and to submit so, attention of this Court is drawn to the evidence of Insp.Ram Kishore (PW-25) who has stated in his cross-examination that he had not lifted any chance prints from the spot. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the scene of crime visit report by mobile crime team to show that no chance prints were lifted from the spot. It is the submission of appellant's counsel that to effectively connect appellant with the offence in question, the chance prints on recovered knife ought to have been lifted. Learned counsel for appellant submits that Smt.Chandrani (PW-21) in her evidence has categorically denied that appellant was carrying any knife and it is also submitted that Shashi (PW-16) in his evidence has denied telling the police that appellant was apprehended with a knife. So, it is submitted that first informant-Rishi (PW-13) stands contradicted from the evidence of Shashi (PW-16) and Smt.Munni (PW-22).