CHINITAMANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal. Procedure, 1974 (hereinafter referred as Cr. P. C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 18. 7. 1994, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli, in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 1992, whereby accused/ appellant Chintamani, has been convicted under Section 302 and 201 of Indian Penal code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as I. P. C. ). He is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 I. P. C. and no separate punishment is awarded under Section 201 I. P. C.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.

(3.) PROSECUTION story in brief is that bhawan Singh (deceased) was husband of complainant Smt. Kamla Devi (PWl ). He (deceased) had undertaken some work of construction of contract in the house of one hari Ram. One Man Bahadur (a Nepali citizen) used to help in his work. Everyday, the deceased used to come back to his house in village Kimani, Patwari area Deorada, tehsil Tharali, District Chamoli. On 16. 8. 1991, he neither came for lunch nor did he return in the night. At about 10. 00 p. m. , man Bahadur, a helper of the deceased came and told complainant that a quarrel is going on between Bhawan Singh (deceased)and Chintamani (accused ). On this, Kamla devi (complainant) after lighting cheela (dried peel of pines, which is generally used by the villagers as a source of light where there is no electricity or kerosene available), alongwith Man Bahadur, proceeded in search of the deceased. However, on the way, it started raining and cheela got extinguished. The two lost their way and got separated. Due to darkness, it was difficult to search. In the circumstances, PW1 Kamla devi returned back to her house and could not sleep. On the next day i. e. 17. 8. 1991, again complainant went towards gorge where the quarrel was said to had taken place. When she was going there, she heard talking one Jai Dutt and Man Mohan, on the way that there had been quarrel between the complainant's husband and chintamani on the previous day. When the complainant could not find her husband in the gorge, she went to Harisha Devi (wife of appellant Chintamani) and inquired about her husband but to no avail. On this, she went to village of her parents and informed her father that her husband is missing. Thereafter, father of complainant joined her in searching her husband. On 20. 8. 1991, bakhtawar Singh (PW2), father of complainant, gave a report to Patwari Deorada, regarding the fact that deceased Bhawan singh is not traceable. Meanwhile when search was going on, complainant and her father saw some suspicious circumstances on the field of Chintamani where newly 36 plants of paddy were implanted by digging the field and flies were swarming there. They immediately informed the Patwari, and a report was lodged by the complainant against the accused Chintamani, her wife Harisha Devi and Girish Chandra relating to offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 I. P. C. (In the interior hills of uttarakhand revenue officials are given police powers under U. P. Government Notification No, 494/viii-418-16, dated 7. 3. 1916 ). The Patwari recorded her oral report as first Information Report (Ext. A1 ). The patwari in the presence of Bakhtawar Singh (PW2), Soban Singh and others dug out field of Chintamani and recovered the dead body of Bhawan Singh, which was kept in a 'hold-all'. The Patwari after taking dead body into possession prepared inquest report (Ext. A10), sketch of the dead body (Ext. All), letter to Chief Medical Officer (Ext. A12), and other necessary papers and sent the dead body of Bhawan Singh for post-mortem examination. Meanwhile, he interrogated the witnesses. PW4 Dr. Vinod Kumar dhaundiyal, Medical Officer of District gopeshwar, conducted post-mortem examination on 22. 8. 1991, and recorded the ante-mortem injuries. He prepared autopsy report (Ext. A5) and opined that cause of death of the deceased was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. During investigation, PW5 Govind Prasad Arya, patwari (Investigating Officer) recovered blood stained clothes and Khukri (sharp edged weapon, used in the, crime) from the house of accused Chintamani on September 16, 1991, and prepared a report (Ext. A4 ). The bloodstained articles (bloodstained pants, bloodstained underwear and Khukri)were sent for chemical examination, where it was found that the same contained human blood. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet (Ext. A15) against accused chintamani (present appellant), Girish chandra and Smt. Harisha Devi, for their trial in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B I. P. C.