STATE OF U.P. Vs. SMT. MAYA @ PUSHPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS leave to appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 20.4.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in S.T. No. 500 of 1999 recording acquittal of accused -Respondents in the case of murder of one Sudha Devi w/o Respondent No. 1, registered under Sections 147, 148, 302, 201 and 149 IPC.

(2.) WE have heard learned Counsel for State and perused the trial Court judgment. Learned State counsel submitted that deceased Sudha Devi got married to accused -Respondent No. 1 Ram Atal in the year 1994. Five days before the date of occurrence i.e. 13.1.1999, one Ram Sagar, the star witness of prosecution side, was seen present inside the house of the accused persons with deceased which caused suspicion about her fidelity. On 14.1.1999, the deceased came to her parental house. On 19.1.1999 at about 6.00 O'clock in the evening, accused Ram Atal came there to take her along saying that there was some cooking problem in the house. It appears that as per prosecution case, she was sent back along and on the very next date namely 20.1.1999, it was informed by Amber Lal, brother -in -law of accused Ram Atal and also Rudra Narain, one of the accused, that the deceased had left the house in night and asked the complainant, her father to accompanying them for search. During the course of search, when the complainant -father of the deceased was told by some villagers that the possibility of causing death of deceased in night by accused persons was not ruled out, then he developed a suspicion. Hence, he lodged a report the same day i.e. 21.1.1999 at 8.15 in night which was registered vide Case Crime No. 22 of 1999 under Section 364 IPC against the accused persons. It appears that accused persons were later arrested and on an extra judicial confession made by accused Ram Atal that the deceased was done to death in the intervening night of 19/20.1.1999 at about 1.00 O'clock and then carried in a tractor trolley and thrown in a culvert near the village and her clothes were burnt. The dead body was recovered which was identified by her brother Neeraj Kumar Verma. It is also submitted that the weapons of offence were also recovered and that Ram Sagar who was suspected to have developed illicit relationship with the deceased came forward as a prosecution witness to depose that he had heard the cry of the deceased in night. Thus, the police laid a challan against the accused persons and they were tried upon of the offence as aforesaid.

(3.) MOREOVER , we do not notice that weapons of offence were sent to serologist for opinion in order to determine the blood group and also the use of weapons in the offence, although these articles were found to be stained with blood at the time of recovery. The learned trial Court also had a suspicion about the veracity of the FIR in the background that when there was a strong doubt about the murder of deceased, there was no occasion for the complainant to have lodged an FIR under Section 364 IPC, and thus, the Court questioned as to why the offence was not registered under Section 302 IPC on the same day. The trial Court also held on appreciation of evidence that it was not conclusively proved that the dead body was recovered at the instance of accused Ram Atal. Thus, the extra judicial confession, if any, said to be given in police custody, did not lead to a valid discovery and recovery of dead body, and thus, could not be read as a piece of evidence.