STATE Vs. DEVENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, preferred under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr. P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.02.1994, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, in Sessions Trial No. 138 of 1990, whereby accused/ respondent Devendra has been acquitted of charge of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the trial court's record.

(2.) PROSECUTION story in brief is that about two years before the incident, Poonam (deceased) got married to accused/respondent Devendra. On 20th January 1990, at about 6.00 A.M. Balendra, elder brother of accused/respondent, informed one Nasir that in the preceding night at about 1.00 A.M. Poonam has been murdered. On this, complainant P.W. I Tahendra, brother of the deceased and P.W. 2 Baspal, father of the deceased, went to the in -laws place of Poonam at Harjoli (within the limits of Police Station Manglaur, District Haridwar) and saw her dead body. There was ligature mark on the neck of the deceased. The two suspected that Poonam has been murdered by her husband (accused/respondent Devendra), as he used to complain that Poonam was a dark complexioned lady. P.W. I Tahendra, lodged First Information Report (Ext. A -1) with Police Station Manglaur, against accused/respondent Devendra, which was registered as Crime No. 35 of 1990, relating to offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., at about 2.15 P.M. On 20th January 1990, P.W. 8 Sub Inspector K.S. Randhawa, who was entrusted with the investigation, along with Police personnel, went to the spot, took the dead body of the deceased in his possession and prepared Inquest Report (Ext. A -2). He also prepared other necessary papers and got sent the dead body in a sealed condition for postmortem examination. P.W. 5 Dr. O.P. Sharma conducted postmortem examination on 21.01.1990 and prepared Autopsy Report (Ext. A -3). He found a ligature mark on the neck, an abrasion near the ligature mark and a contusion on the chest of the deceased and opined that the deceased had died on account of asphyxia due to strangulation. The Investigating Officer interrogated the witnesses and prepared Site Plan (Ext. A -6). Later, the investigation was transferred to P.W. 6 Ajay Kumar, Station Officer, who after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet (Ext. A -4) against accused/respondent Devendra for his trial in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302/201 I.P.C.

(3.) THE trial court, after hearing the parties, found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of murder against the accused/ respondent beyond reasonable doubt and consequently acquitted him. Hence, this appeal was filed by the State against the impugned order dated 09.02.1994, passed by the trial court in Sessions Trial No. 138 of 1990, whereby the respondent was acquitted, before Allahabad High Court, where the leave was granted and the appeal was admitted on 18.02.1999. The appeal is received by this Court by transfer under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, for its disposal.